[ SECRET POST #2585 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2585 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Monster High]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Bryan Fuller, John Green]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Pretty Little Liars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Breaking Bad]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Reign]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Leviathan: the last day of the decade]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Steam]


__________________________________________________



12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 017 secrets from Secret Submission Post #369.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/UzGpVQo.jpg
[Sherlock Holmes]

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sick of Irene AND Moriarty showing up in every adaptation.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? How come?

[(Anonymous)]

+1111111

Pretty much. I am no more sick of Irene than I am of Moriarty.

Actually, I think I'm more sick of Moriarty (but that might just be bc I really disliked the BBC version.)

[tweedisgood]

I have seen LOTS of people complain about too much Moriarty in BBC Sherlock (and I agree)and the way he keeps being resurrected in the Rathbone films.

Most of the Irene discussions seem to be about whether her characterisation is consistent with canon.

IOW, not sure where OP is coming from?

[elephantinegrace]

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. Moriarty's overrepresented in his outrageous villainy when he was originally a mild-mannered professor who showed up once and died. It's just because he was meant to kill Holmes that he ever became so big. And Irene Adler's overrepresented as the love interest and villain just because she outsmarted Sherlock Holmes, so she has to be made weaker than him and not as trustworthy EVEN THOUGH THE ENTIRE RESOLUTION OF BOHEMIA HAPPENED BECAUSE SHE WAS TRUSTWORTHY!

-froths at mouth-

[sarillia]

But people do say the same thing about Moriarty.

[fauxkaren]

I just have to say, I love Elementary combining Irene and Moriarty.

[(Anonymous)]

Me too. Well, okay, SOME mixed feelings because I actually don't mind having these two characters turn up repeatedly in adaptations, but at least they tried something different.

[dreemyweird]

I hate it with a passion of a thousand burning suns. This character is the reason I stopped watching Elementary.

Different strokes :/

[i_paint_the_sky]

Is Elementary episodic enough to just watch episodes with Irene and have it make sense? Because I love Natalie Dormer and the combination character sounds awesome to me, but I wasn't really into what I've seen of Elementary otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

It's the reason I'm not bothering with Elementary. Villain and love interest rolled into one? JFC.

[badass_tiger]

idk the people who do complain either complain about both, or neither.

Another point is that Irene Adler isn't some sex symbol or Holmes' love interest, but that's almost always what she is portrayed as, whereas Moriarty is a villain, and is always portrayed as a villain. No misrepresentation there. I admit the prevalence of Adler+Moriarty's characters in adaptations is annoying and overdone, but I don't believe it has anything to do with Adler being a woman.

Anyway, do people complain about Granada!Adler? I've only watched a few episodes, the one with Adler being one of them, and I thought they portrayed her quite faithfully to the canon.

[(Anonymous)]

People complain about both Irene and Moriarty getting overused and too heavily replied upon for drama. It's like you're absolutely required to have those characters make an appearance, often sooner rather than later, if you want to do a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. (Elementary, for example, has a format that could have allowed for a much slower build-up to Moriarty being introduced later down the line and they didn't do that.) There are other great one-off characters like Violet Hunter who rarely appear. Milverton is getting a bit more love now, at least.

[iceyred]

Personally, I want more Moran. He always seemed more interesting to me than Moriarity.

[intrigueing]

I think Moriarty is a super overused villain too.

See, it's not about whether they appear or not, it's about how they appear. Is Moriarty awesome? Oh yes. Is he very important? Oh yes. Is he a character who is constantly coming face to face with Holmes and behind every single crime, to the detriment of all other clients and cases? Nope.

Same with Irene. Is she awesome? Fuck yes. Is she very important? Fuck yes. Does she interact with Holmes over a long period of time or have any association with him? Nope.

See, that's the problem with Irene and Moriarty in adaptations. Not their appearing, but the way their relationship with Holmes is portrayed.

[fenm]

I don't like Moriarty, either, so... yeah. Hell, he's a big reason why I didn't even bother with the second Ritchie movie. And I LOATHE the BBC versions of both Adler and Moriarty, Oh, dear God. Though at least Adler has only shown up twice (and once for like two seconds); Moriarty's all over the place (ok, not really; I exaggerate to make a point) and I'm getting sick of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Moriarty literally killed Sherlock Holmes and then it turned out he didn't and Holmes said a bunch of stuff about how he's, like, the greatest criminal mastermind that ever lived and his archnemesis, and people still complain about him being in adaptations. He played a much more important role than Irene Adler. But people still actually do dislike his constant recurrence.

And don't tell me that Irene Adler's role is as important as Moriarty's, because literally the entire evidence for that is one sentence of Watson's narration. She's not. She's a great character and I actually like it when she shows up (as long as it's not Sherlock) but she is just not as important as Moriarty.

[dreemyweird]

hahaha- NO. I'd feel no differently about Irene and Moriarty if Irene were a man and Moriarty, a penguin.

Quality? So you think that, since Irene's done something important narrative- and characterization-wise, she somehow needs to be everywhere and have her importance grossly distorted and exaggerated? That other secondary characters are suddenly undeserving of being portrayed in adaptations? That ACD was simply mistaken in not giving all the limelight time to TEH IRENE?

Or maybe he just knew his craft? Because if you have a pinch of good stuff that makes a work of fiction better, it doesn't mean that you should make a truckload of this stuff and pour it all over the place. It was a pinch that made the original better, not a truckload. Proportion matters.

Also, yes, do not even start me on the way Irene is portrayed. If anything, the persistence with which she turns into a love interest is a perfect example of misogyny.

[(Anonymous)]

Arguably, Moriarty is more important for the story regardless of his gender, because he's the character who has the distinction of having killed Holmes. Or rather, pulled Holmes over a waterfall and given him reason to fake his death for three years, which is a massive event in canon. Irene, for all her personal impact on Holmes, had nowhere near the same narrative effect. Combined with the tendency of adaptations to put her in purely as a romantic option instead of as the person who rewrites Holmes' views of an entire segment of the population she is in canon, and a lot of people are annoyed less at her being in every adaptation, and more at her being shoehorned in for the sake of superfluous romantic plots that don't have the narrative impact a Moriarty plot usually does.

That aside, though, and a lot of people ARE annoyed with the tendency to include both. Mostly because, unless an adaptation is a longer series, it severely limits what potential stories are going to come up. We're going to have a Hound plot, an Irene plot, a Moriarty plot and/or a Study-in-Scarlet plot (or at least a Watson intro plot, unless they're jumping in in media res). If the adaptation is only a few episodes or movies long, that eats up a lot of plot, meaning that we get a lot of the same stories over and over again, and very little else.

It's a bit like superhero movies that reboot the same bloody origin story over and over again for a new era. We've seen this story. Pick a different one for a fucking change.

[thezmage]

For as few times as he shows up, Moriarty is portrayed as a big deal every single one of those times, whereas Irene wasn't.

[(Anonymous)]

No, really not.

Moriarty doesn't show up much in the original stories, but he has a major archetypal role as the Prince of Crime, to contrast to Holmes' Prince of Order. Adler has no such role in the original. She has Holmes' deep respect, but her case has no lingering effects once it's over, and her relationship with Holmes is close to nonexistent. His admiration and respect linger on, but it's only admiration for someone whose mind he's watched at work; they have very limited direct contact; and the story ends with the revelation of her very happy marriage to somebody else.

In an alternate universe where Doyle had written Moriarty as a respectable widow and Adler as a young male artist cast off by a dissolute prince, and changed nothing else, every Holmes adaptation would still include Moriarty, because the archvillain thing would still be there. But do you believe for an instant that Ivan Adler would show up in every single Holmes adaptation ever? Let alone in a love-interest role that wasn't there in the Doyle version?

A lot of things are totally about sexism, I would never disagree with you on that. But this isn't one of them.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually everyone is sick of Moriarty being in every Holmes adaptation. Oh noes, not everything is sexism.

[rbhudson]

mfte

[(Anonymous)]

OP is right is a question of quality. Irene Adler is a great character. In the story.
Every adaptation I've seen (I haven't seen the Granada that has been mentioned so I can't judge that) is that Irene Adler is no longer a clever character; she has become the go-to cardboard cutout of 'hot chick' for anything Sherlock.