Agreed. I mean, it's even explicitly said - He. Did. Not. Love. Her. I mean, there are a whole lot of things that could be read as sort of implying that there was something there - I mean, "there was but one woman to him". *significant look* But only out of context do they seem as if they're implying a romantic or sexual attraction. When you read the rest of what Watson says, he's quite emphatic - Holmes doesn't care for the softer emotions, he doesn't love; (and yet, we find him constantly expressing emotion toward Watson); we're told time and again throughout the stories how much Holmes dislikes and distruts women; and it's quite clear that, though Adler "eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex" in Holmes' eyes, it's only because of her cunning, her skill - her mind, as a criminal and as someone who has beaten Holmes. He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
I mean, "there was but one woman to him". *significant look* But only out of context do they seem as if they're implying a romantic or sexual attraction.
That's exactly what I mean! I can't understand how people could create a Holmes/Adler love story out of that. They knew the context, after all! But again, obviously there can't be a movie without a romance. And that's what's pissing me off to no end. Plus, they could totally write their fucking romance for a Holmes movie with Watson! He WAS married, after all! (Twice? If I remember correctly. Though, of course, he was only REALLY married to Holmes.) There's really no need to drag Holmes into it!
He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
I can't tell you how much I agree with that!
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Like I said: no Hollywood movie without a romance - however bad or out-of-character it may be. *weeps*
/rant
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Reply
That's exactly what I mean! I can't understand how people could create a Holmes/Adler love story out of that. They knew the context, after all! But again, obviously there can't be a movie without a romance. And that's what's pissing me off to no end. Plus, they could totally write their fucking romance for a Holmes movie with Watson! He WAS married, after all! (Twice? If I remember correctly. Though, of course, he was only REALLY married to Holmes.) There's really no need to drag Holmes into it!
He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
I can't tell you how much I agree with that!
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Like I said: no Hollywood movie without a romance - however bad or out-of-character it may be. *weeps*
Reply
Leave a comment