Comments | autumnatmidnite: Sherlock S2... Spoilers And Angry Rantings

autumnatmidnite

Sherlock S2... Spoilers And Angry Rantings

Jan 01, 2012 18:33

I've only just calmed sufficiently enough to air my frustrations with this episode, so for those who have not seen 'A Scandal In Belgravia' and have no use for spoilers, scroll right on past this post.

( Spoilery Rantings Under the Cut... )

moffat will burn the heart out of you, random ramblings, reviews, bbc sherlock

Comments 32

tweedisgood January 1 2012, 23:19:36 UTC

I have a horrible feeling we are over here in the "corner of hardly anyone" whilst the fandom universe is exploding in squee and using words like "perfect" and "best ever".

Ah, well.

I do have to say that I don't think declaring yourself "not gay" is intrinsically homophobic. Might just be info, and correcting continuous inaccurate info can make one tetchy. Plus, army. Not the most tolerant of atmospheres.

autumnatmidnite January 1 2012, 23:49:43 UTC

Yup, we do seem to be a lonely lot what with the collective fandom squeeing going on. And here I was, calling the BBC series faithful a few weeks ago... *sighs* A shame they had to go the route they did, because there were some genuinely lovely scenes, but the bits with Adler were just unwatchable for me :(

And goodness, but I didn't mean to make it sound like I was calling out homophobia for John stating he's not gay! Eek! Sorry that came off sounding the way it did. *is embarrassed* I meant that they were trying to play to the Holmes/Adler and Holmes/Watson shippers, and also that some comments Moffat & Cumberbatch had been quoted as saying were homophobic. Will have to fix that...

tweedisgood January 1 2012, 23:55:40 UTC

They are definitely playing with certain segments of fandom, no doubt of it, and plenty of people seem to like that just fine.

Things may perk up with Hound. I do still want to see the rest of it, as I say.

I hope for Mark's sake that Moffatt and BC were just being 12 and not really homophobic.

I've always been happy with varied interpretations of Holmes' sexuality from outright asexual through to straight-but-celibate through to 'discreet gay man' and all stops in between. But not with Adler, I really like the idea of her as an ideal challenge to "sneering at the cleverness of women".

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 00:00:32 UTC

But not with Adler, I really like the idea of her as an ideal challenge to "sneering at the cleverness of women".

Yes!!! I have always thought of her as Doyle's joke on his own character - SCAN is publish after SIGN, where Holmes' misogamy is at its finest, and in the very next story, we have him being beaten by a woman's wits. And taking it (I hate to use this expression, but I think its an apt one) like a man. He admired her actions for the intellect they showed, and kept the picture as a reminder.

Thread 7

adena_kaiba January 2 2012, 00:07:39 UTC

Good God. I haven't read your entry yet, but before all: thank you so much. I was starting to think I was the only one completely, unconditionally, enraptured and swooning over this episode. **feels a little less lonely**

For crying out loud, has anyone of them actually read A Scandal in Bohemia? Or better still, understood it?

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 05:19:43 UTC

We seem to be in the minority here, with most of the fandom not paying much attention to essential elements such as plot, characterization and the fact that about 50% of this episode was unrecognizable as a Sherlock Holmes adaptation.

I don't think many people comprehend A Scandal In Bohemia, no. Or they project their own prejudices onto Holmes, who could not possibly have been a gay or asexual man, but rather make him out to be some repressed straight man who just hadn't met a stimulating enough woman. It's a little degrading to the character, imo.

*cues upchuck reflex*

adena_kaiba January 2 2012, 06:45:32 UTC

Would you believe me if I told you I'm actually scared to post something where I would be able to vent some of my rage on DW/LJ ? I could write entire pages of how this episode is... Despicable, to stay courteous, IMHO, but all my friends - and everyone else alas - either don't care or say that it's the best thing they've ever seen (no, I am not kidding you). I've rarely seen people getting that fiercely protective over something! At this point, I find that quite terrifying to feel this isolated. *cries*
So your entry really comes as a blessing *clings to it*

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 08:05:33 UTC

I wouldn't be surprised in the least. Blind praise is all I'm seeing on Tumblr, and about 99% of what I've encountered on LJ. It's a very unpopular opinion, to say the least, because no one seems to be interested in programmes with substance or which remain true to the books.

My heart is so broken right now, I'm not even sure if I can bear watching the BBC version of HOUN. *cries*

Thread 7

calicokat January 2 2012, 01:36:47 UTC

It was quite mediocre really. I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the Ritchie film (which I think I've made clear is, aside from the actual stories, perhaps all I need forever because it got all my favorite bits in). I knew I wouldn't when he came to the door with a priest collar slapped on instead of the ridiculous costume described in loving detail in the actual story.

Homes would not be interested in such "vulgur intrigue". And you can quote him on that.

Then there were the homophobic scenes where John is vehemently declaring he's not gay - MEANWHILE - we are given fluffy bits lacking any gravity whatsoever that are supposed to be a nod and a poke to the slash fandom. It doesn't work that way. Give us the friendship depicted by Doyle, and then we'll talk. For an episode with so much sexual innuendo of all sorts it was completely incoherent innuendo. I assumed she was a lesbian at the start and it appear like it might even be pivotal that Holmes, say, realized he couldn't have either of them when he was listening into their ( ... )

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 07:21:37 UTC

For an episode with so much sexual innuendo of all sorts it was completely incoherent innuendo

ABSOLUTELY. YES. THIS.

It wasn't only the crude and entirely needless sexual references that chafed me, it was how it was made so garbled by the fact Moffat was obviously pandering to two distinct portions of the 'shipping' fandom - that of Holmes/Adler and Holmes/Watson. In my estimation, it made for a very vapid, shallow depiction of both relationships, aside from being rather grating on the nerves. I actually think this episode was worse than The Blind banker - it certainly sunk to lower levels than the other one ever did ( ... )

calicokat January 2 2012, 17:59:20 UTC

"The Blind Banker" was just senselessy, eurocentrically racist. There wasn't a devoted effort to targeted character assassination and fannish fluff. I mean, there was a coherent episode in there -- a bad episode, but a coherent episode!

*offers you antacids* :(

kcscribbler January 2 2012, 02:29:48 UTC

I have to say, I was sorely disappointed. I was absolutely enchanted with aSiP from the moment the show opened, and I should have been more wary of this one knowing its base case...but...really ( ... )

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 20:12:35 UTC

I'm in a state of complete disbelief this is even the same series that we were given in season one, much less the writer who gave us ASIP. I've said on another forum I have absolutely no qualms about playing with Canon, stretching it to its limits, but that my tolerance wanes when the actions/reactions of the characters veer off into unrecognizable avenues. This tripe I had no tolerance for ( ... )

kcscribbler January 3 2012, 21:34:32 UTC

I'm in a state of complete disbelief this is even the same series that we were given in season one, much less the writer who gave us ASIP. YES. I am so glad I'm not the only one going...what the heck is this crap, when you were so brilliant in the first series. And apparently, judging by the discussion in my own review of the thing, I'm definitely in the minority ( ... )

autumnatmidnite January 5 2012, 03:01:18 UTC

Immediately, I was inside Sherlock and John and the rest in Season One, in a way I hadn't felt toward a fandom since I discovered ACD's Sherlock Holmes over fifteen years ago.

That, right there, is the reason we're both so devastated about this sudden and drastic shift in just about everything from plot to characterization in this season - this was the closest thing to Canon, well, since Canon. Since the moment I laid eyes on BC he was "my" Holmes, more so than Jeremy Brett ever was. This was Holmes from STUD, a slightly arrogant, young, energetic man, as resembling Sherlock Holmes mentally as he did physically. Its like getting another story from Doyle all these years later only to have the content within blow to bits that world he'd created. And we're just left there, stupidly going O__O ( ... )

Thread 5

jademac2442 January 2 2012, 04:03:33 UTC

I was also tremendously disappointed. Particularly with the scene at the pool, and well, with several things that came afterwards. I realized that, in all likelihood, there could not have been a huge explosion, as the boys had to go back to work immediately, but seriously...a phone call?...distracted Moriarty?...from Sherlock?!

I really hated Irene. But then I always do. I wish that ACD had never written SiB because NO ONE ever adapts it correctly.

autumnatmidnite January 2 2012, 20:18:13 UTC

The last thing I was expecting was for them to go in depth with the pool scene, so had ruled out any chance of explosions or elaborate plot weaving around it. But this! Not only were there so many plot holes left unfilled (that could still be tied up in 'The Reichenbach Fall' tho), no one seemed too particularly phased by or interested in the events. It was just very sloppily written, even if they do intend to fill us in during the third episode, which was written by the same one who gave us 'The Blind Banker'.

Needless to say, I have no hope for episode 3.