hells_half_acre: (Watson)
[personal profile] hells_half_acre
Part 1
Part 2



"Sherlock, what have you done?"
"Mrs. Hudson?"
"Mrs. Hudson?"
"Upstairs."

-Not even moved in a day and already upsetting Mrs. Hudson. Good job, Sherlock. It's a good thing she loves you.

"Seriously, this guy? A junkie? Have you met him?
"John"
"I'm pretty sure you could search this flat all day and you wouldn't find anything you could call recreational"
"John, you probably want to shut-up now."
"But come on...no, you?"
"Shut-up!"

-And this is where Sherlock's day and all his plans really start to unravel. He was cultivating an image. Not a false image, but the best version of his true self. He was trying to be his best for John, because he wants John to be someone...he wants John to be his friend and he wants John to think he's the version of himself that Sherlock most wants to be. Did that make sense? Did I explain that right? Sherlock wants to be the version of himself that he's showing John. He doesn't want to be a junkie and he doesn't want to be a psychopath...he wants to be a brilliant eccentric who values reason and intellect over all other pursuits...and has exciting adventures with friend(s). And then Lestrade comes in to deal with Sherlock the way he knows best and he fucks it all up for Sherlock, because suddenly John is seeing EVERYTHING and Sherlock's not in control anymore - and then Sherlock starts to fuck it up and it's all going to hell...but we haven't gotten there yet.

"Are these human eyes?"
"Put those back!"
"They were in the microwave."
"It's an experiment."

-Microwaving eyeballs cannot be pretty...or nice smelling.

"This is childish."
"I'm dealing with a child."

-Lestrade does treat Sherlock like a child, so does Mycroft...but in two different ways, I'd argue. Lestrade is much more hopeful-but-exasperated-dad, where as Mycroft is very much an older brother who doesn't actually understand who his younger sibling is or the fact that Sherlock are now his own person and capable of making his own decisions.

"I am clean!"
"Is your flat? All of it?"

-No, the answer is probably no, and they both know it...it's either that, or Sherlock just can't be sure.

"I'm not a psychopath, Anderson, I'm a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research!"
-There is, of course, no such thing as sociopathy. There's antisocial personality disorders...but I don't think Sherlock has that either. He's taken the term as his own though, and that says something. I think it's because people call him psychopathic, but "psycho" brings with it the thought that there is a lack of control. Sociopath is better, people understand it, and it's almost as damning, but "high-functioning sociopath" makes it sound like Sherlock is in control of the situation, that yes, he could be dangerous, but he's "high-functioning" so don't worry.

Personally, I think Sherlock is just normal, but never made to feel that way. He had a lonely childhood because he couldn't relate to any of the kids his age, and then when/if he skipped grades, he still couldn't relate because no one would hang out with "the kid," and he wouldn't be going through puberty at the same time as his classmates...his intellect was vastly older than himself, but his body wasn't. So, what do you do? You separate your intellect from your body! Your body holds you back, because if you were just your brain, if you could find your INTELLECTUAL equals, then things would be different. So, Sherlock starts valuing his brain as the most important part of him - Mycroft encourages this, because he went through the same thing. The difference, of course, is that (from what we can see) Mycroft is content to be the lonely puppet-master (I'd argue that if anyone has antisocial personality disorder, it's Mycroft)...whereas Sherlock actually wants friends, Sherlock wants to be loved, Sherlock is LONELY. And Sherlock's loneliness is something that Mycroft doesn't understand...which makes Sherlock lonelier and even more misunderstood, because not even his intellectual equal/better understands him. So, Sherlock doesn't have a personality disorder, he just has a hard past and a too intelligent mind. (This doesn't mean that he doesn't suffer from depressive/bipolar episodes though.)  

"Why would she think about her daughter in her last moments? Yeah, sociopath, seeing it now."
"She didn't think about her daughter, she scratched her name on the floor with her fingernails. She was dying, it took effort, it would have hurt."

-I like how Sherlock considers the pain and effort of the victim. It seems oddly more respectful somehow.

"You said that the victims all take the poison themselves. He makes them take it. Well maybe he, I don't know, maybe he talks to them, maybe he used the death of her daugher somehow."
"But that was ages ago, why would she still be upset!"
*silence*

-Okay, now here, you're like "But if Sherlock doesn't have a personality disorder, how come he doesn't understand human suffering?" And I'd like to say: Sometimes I don't understand human suffering. I put things into boxes. When my cat died, I cried for three days, but I ain't even sad about it anymore. In a way, it kind of worked out, because then I couldn't miss her when I went to university and moved away...I mean, I could still miss her, but it wasn't like she was anywhere to miss, you know? So it was easier. What I'm trying to say is that everyone has their blind spots when it comes to imagining the pain of others...some have more blind spots than other people, but it doesn't make them a sociopath. It makes them unexperienced. People who have never been in love, can only imagine a facsimile of what heartbreak is like...and people who have never had a stillborn child might not understand how absolutely devastating that can be to a mother. If, for instance, they are a 30-something year-old man who has deemed himself above emotions and who has quite possibly never truly loved or truly been loved in his entire life - well, he might have a LITTLE trouble imagining how pain could linger. He's probably the type of person who puts things in boxes. "Well, felt that, now it's over - moving on"...and maybe, since nothing truly horrific has happened to him (besides perhaps the death of his parents...though that's unconfirmed and we don't know their relationship), he doesn't understand that some things don't FIT into boxes...some things spill out no matter how much you try to cram them in the box.
-Also, all that aside, I think what Sherlock REALLY meant here is that Jennifer Wilson wouldn't still be upset enough that she would CARVE the name into the floor with her fingernails CAUSING HERSELF MORE PAIN...but, true to Sherlock fashion, it kind of comes out sounding wrong, because "who cares about decency! The game is on!"

"Not good?"
"Bit not good, yeah."

-Okay, I want to talk about facial expressions and body movement, and it's going to be hard because I don't have gifs or videoclips. But, here goes...

1)I love Sherlock's face when he says "Not good?" And this is where diagnosing him as being on the autism spectrum falls flat, at least, compared to the autistic/asperger people I've met. Sherlock can read facial expressions and social cues, he just usually disregards them...unless, say, he causes a roomful of people to stare at him agape...including his potential flatmate. And his face says, "I've misspoken, shit...what did I say?" Because Sherlock talks a mile a minute and his brain works even faster - and how come they didn't know what he meant?
2)I love how John doesn't look at him like he's a freak. He's shocked, but he just answers him in a low voice, and his eyes kind of shift to the police officers and back, because it's not so much a "how could you say that?" it's more of a "you shouldn't have said that...and you definitely could have picked a better audience."

3) Lastly, there's this full body movement that Sherlock makes between John's line and the line I'm going to write down below. John says "bit not good, yeah" and Sherlock DEFLATES. He's losing whatever he wanted John to be. And then he steps closer to John, DESPERATELY, NEEDING John to understand him. Of all people in that room, Sherlock tries the hardest to make JOHN understand - not Lestrade, not the people who are actually working on the case, but John. Sherlock needs John to understand him because no one else does - because he's been trying with the other people in the living room for five years and none of them ever come through for him - but Sherlock still has hope for John.

"But if you were dying. If you'd been murdered. In your very last few seconds, what would you say?"
"Please god, let me live"
"Use your imagination"
"I don't have to"

-Again, the faces! John's quietly getting angry, as Sherlock brings up memories of the event that destroyed John. And Sherlock, Sherlock feels like he's now lost everything. He was so desperate to keep his plans from unraveling that he got frazzled, and he didn't THINK, and now he's botched it up with John - or believes he has. And it's here that he turns away and starts focusing solely on the case - because at the end of the day, if he doesn't have anything else, he must at least still have The Work.

"But if you were clever, if you were really clever. Jennifer Wilson running all those lovers. She was clever. She's trying to tell us something."
[...]
"...she was clever, clever yes. She's more clever than you lot and she's dead!"

-And I know I've already talked about the lack of misogyny in Sherlock elsewhere on the internet...but I just wanted to point out this out: The clevest person (besides Sherlock) in this episode is a dead woman, and she has ALL of Sherlock's respect. He doesn't care that she's an adulterer, or that she works in the media and wears and alarming shade of pink, and he certainly doesn't care that she's a woman. She's clever, and that's all that matters to Sherlock.

"What do you mean how? Rachel...don't you see? Rachel! Oh look at you lot, you're all so vacant. Is it nice not being me? It must be so relaxing. Rachel is not a name."
"Then what is it?!"

-I honestly missed how angry John's line is right here until this rewatch. Sherlock's ignored him to ramble about the case, and John's being inundated with how OTHER people see Sherlock, and he's had it...and he doesn't want the showman anymore, he just wants Sherlock to be honest and tell him what’s going on. And it's actually the first time John really snaps at Sherlock, and Sherlock is so focused on the case, he all but misses it - though, he DOES immediately obey. So there's that.

The cab driver kind of annoys me. I don't know what it is about him, honestly. Maybe just because he does a good job of being slightly creepy.

"...I talked to them and they killed themselves. If you call the coppers now, I promise you one thing: I will never tell you what I said."
"No one else will die though, and I believe they call that a result."
"And you won't ever understand how those people died. What kind of result do you care about?"

-And here we get the Chaotic bit of the Chaotic Good alignment. Because it's true...what kind of result does Sherlock care about? Curiosity killed the cat...and an intellectual pursuit killed Marie Curie too.

"I'm not going to kill you, Mr Holmes. I'm going to talk to you, and then you're going to kill yourself."
-FYI: That's why I don't like talking to people when I'm depressed. I'm afraid of an accidental manslaughter charge. :P

"Does it matter, does any of it? He's just a lunatic and he'll always let you down, and you're wasting your time, all our time."
-Again, what is the back story here? I think Sally wanted Sherlock to be something he's not, and she's blaming being let down on Sherlock rather than on her (obviously) unrealistic expectations. It's almost like when people have crushes on celebrities and they build them up to be these perfect beings in their brains who never use words improperly or vote for the wrong people...and then when they find out that it's not true, the actor takes the blame, even though they were never even pretending to be anything other than themselves...the person with a crush was just seeing something that wasn’t there. (Now of course, I'm not talking about when an actor/celebrity is actually a convicted asshole - like, they beat their wife or something - I'm just talking about when people's whole world seems to fall down because Jensen used the word "gay" in a slightly derogatory way, or he used "rape" in a more archaic usage.) It's healthier not to build people up into impossible caricatures of themselves. You have to imagine people complexly, as a book that I've actually never read argues. (ie: Paper Towns by John Green.)

"Who would notice me?"
"You're too modest, Mr. Holmes."
"I'm really not."

-Oh Sherlock, I love you.

"Why did he do that? Why did he have to leave?"
"You know him better than I do."
"I've known him for five years and no I don't."
"So why do you put up with him?"
"Because I'm desperate, that's why? And because Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think, one day, if we're very very lucky, he might even be a good one."

-I think Lestrade is Sally without having lost hope in Sherlock. Lestrade accepts that Sherlock isn't the best that he could be. He accepts that Sherlock isn't a hero, but he still sees the potential in him, and he still thinks that there's a chance that Sherlock could still rise to the occasion.

John is standing at parade rest, by the way. I'd love to talk more about the physicality of how these actors inhabit their roles - but that's more easily done when you have gifs and clips and can wax poetic about the slightest of movements with a whole bunch of 15 year-olds on tumblr. (BTW: If you ever wanted hope for the future, just look at how some 15 year olds dissect art on tumblr...it's amazing, and they should all be getting As in English Lit at school. Though, if you ever wanted to lose hope for the future, go look at some of the 15 year-olds on tumblr.) 

Now, we return to Sherlock and that scene from the Princess Bride:
Dear Sherlock,
What if he has spent years developing immunity to iocane powder?! You should have called the cops and then analyzed the contents of his pockets and figured out the game he was playing...but hey, then we wouldn't get this dramatic conclusion.
Sincerely,
Me.

"...between you and me sitting here, why can't people think? Don't it make you mad? Why can't people just think?"
"Oh, I see, so you're a proper genius too."

-I like how Sherlock doesn't beiieve him. Like, "Please, you don't EVEN KNOW, Cabbie, YOU. DON'T. EVEN. KNOW."

"It's not a game. It's chance."
"I've played four times, and I'm alive. It's not chance, Mr. Holmes, it's chess. It's a game of chess. One move and one survivor. And this, this is the movie. Did I just give you the good bottle or the bad bottle? You can choose either one."

-I do like the chance vs. chess debate. What do you guys think? I think it's still chance. There are too many variables to work out someone else’s thought pattern... and if the cabbie is anything like me, he'd just be like "fuck it, eenie meenie mienie... I'll push this one out, I don't even care."

Just a note here: I do like the fact that John spent the entire drugs bust with an illegal firearm tucked into the back of his pants underneath his cuddly jumper. I guess Sherlock serves as a great distraction from anyone noticing John's lumpy back.

Also, I like how we see John flex his hand and head back over for his cane...it's subtle, but the adrenaline's wearing off, and he's no longer sure what to make of Sherlock.

"...everyone's so stupid, even you...or maybe God just loves me."
-Sherlock's face when he gets called stupid. It's like challenging Marty McFly to a dare or telling Hawkeye that he can't hit a target.

"And because you're dying, you just killed four people"
"I've outlived four people. That's the most fun you can have with an aneurysm"
"No...no..."

-Every time I watch this, I think that Sherlock is objecting to the idea that this is the most fun you can have with an aneurysm, and I'm always curious as to what else he might suggest...and I always end up thinking about kinky things, because if you're going to go out...what a way to go!

"...there's something else. You didn't just kill four people because you're bitter. Bitterness is a paralytic. Love is a much more vicious motivator..."
-Awesome line. A line that comes into play throughout the series, really, yet it's almost lost here.

"Who'd sponsor a serial killer?"
"Who'd be a fan of Sherlock Holmes? You're not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There's others out there just like you, 'cept your just a man. And they're so much more than that."

-Sherlock has this muscle twitch in his face right here, and it's brilliant. If that was on purpose on Benedict's part, then I applaud...if that was a happy accident, then I applaud the editors/director for mining that gold.

"What do you mean, more than a man? An organization, what?"
"There's a name no one says, and I'm not going to say it either..."

-A spider? I do love how Sherlock's suddenly so much more intrigued than when the Cabbie was just talking about how he killed people. Sherlock's like "okay, boring...tell me something I couldn't figure out just by turning you in and emptying your pockets!"

"I know a real gun when I see it."
"None of the others did."
"Clearly."
"Well, this has been very interesting. I look forward to the court case."
"Just before you go, did you figure it out? Which ones the good bottle?"
"Which one then? Which one would you have picked, just so that I know whether I could have beaten you? Come on, play the game."

-Ah, the game...and we're back to the pitfalls of intellectual arrogance.

I don't think Sherlock would have taken it...but then, that's something Sherlock is never going to admit one way or the other on.

John being in the wrong building is awesome. I love that camera sweep through the windows.

"What's the point in being clever if you can't prove it? Still the addict, but this, this is what you're really addicted to. You'd do anything, anything at all, to stop being bored. Not bored now are you?"
-Boredom IS pretty annoying. That's why I have ten billion hobbies.

BAM!
-I love the suddenness of the gunshot. I love how it cuts off the Cabbie's words. I also love the fact that it's been so long since we saw John's gun, that we forgot that he had it. (At least, I did the first time.)

"Was I right? I was wasn't I? Did I get it right? Okay, tell me this, your sponsor who was it? THe one who told you about me, my fan, I want a name"
"No"
"You're dying but there's still time to hurt you. I want a name. The name now! The name!"
"Moriarty!"
*mouthed moriarty*

-I love this because the order of imporance of information is 1)Am I smarter than you? 2)Who is that criminal mastermind you were talking about that may reign down destruction on me in the future?
-Also, um, a big deal was made about how Sherlock isn't a GOOD man, because he's torturing someone who is dying of a gunshot wound...but, um...I'd do the same. I mean, the guys a bastard and he has information and there's not much time to get it out of him! Maybe that makes me a bad person too...maybe I AM a sociopath. I do tend to identify with Sherlock more than John...but, you know, I just attribute that to the fact that deep down I'm an arrogant asshole.
-I also loved the silently mouthed “Moriarty” that Sherlock does...like he’s testing out the feel of it in his mouth (kinky).

"Why have I got this blanket. They keep putting this blanket on me."
"Yeah, It's for shock."
"I'm not in shock!"
"Yeah, but some of the guys wanted to take photographs."

-Oh the blanket...and Lestrade. There's nothing about this that is not glorious.

"So the shooter, any sign?"
"Cleared off before we got here, but a guy like that would have had enemies I suppose....but we've got nothing to go on."
"Oh, I wouldn't say that."
"Okay, give me."
"The bullet they dug out of the wall is from a handgun. A kill shot over that distance with that kind of a weapon, that's a crack shot you're looking for, but not just a marksmen, a fighter, his hands couldn't have shaken at all, so clearly he's acclimatized to violence. He didn't fire until I was in danger though, so strong moral principal. You're looking for a man probably with a history of military service and nerves of steel- Actually, do you know what, ignore me."
"Sorry?"
"Ignore all of that, it's just the, uh, the shock talking."
"Where are you going?"
"I just need to...talk about...the rent."
"I've got questions-"
"Oh what now? I'm in shock! Look, I've got a blanket!"

-Haha, nice cover Sherlock...could you be more obvious? Tell Lestrade to ignore you after you stare slackjawed at your flatmate...then claim you have to go talk about "the rent"...brilliant. Of course, the last line is a classic now.
-But, I also love this new description of John, no longer just "Army doctor recently invalided home from Afghanistan," but "A crack shot and a fighter who is acclimatized to violence has a strong moral principal and nerves of steel." As many of you may know (if you've been paying attention) I love characters that have a duality to them. And Intellectual/Fighter is one of my favourites...and John is a sort of blend of that. He's the classic superhero blend without being a superhero - mild mannered doctor by day, crimefighting nerves of steel marksman by night. ;) And I think this is where Sherlock really sees the full potential of John, not just as a friend, but as a complete partner in all aspects of Sherlock's life. Also, this is the first time Sherlock has seen John since he was afraid that John had 'joined the others' in his opinions on Sherlock - yet, John didn't - John followed him and saved him (whether he needed saving or not) and he's standing there KNOWING that Sherlock's going to know he did it and TRUSTING him to protect him in return.
-I’ve seen a couple of fanfics that suggest that Lestrade MUST have put it together and known that John was the shooter... but, I’m not sure. At that stage, Lestrade doesn’t even know who John is besides “a doctor”...and I really don’t think he’d be on the suspects list at all. Especially given how difficult it is to own a firearm in the UK. But, I don’t know...I could go either way with it.

Oh John, you are such a bad liar.

"Are you alright?"
"Yes, of course I am."
"Well you have just killed a man"
"Yes, I- it's true, innit, but he wasn't a very nice man."
"No, no, he wasn't really, was he."
"Frankly, a bloody awful cabbie."
"That's true, he was a bad cabbie, you should have seen the route he took us to get here."
"We can't giggle, it's a crime scene, stop it."
"You're the one that shot him, don't blame me."
"Keep your voice down! *to Sally* Sorry, it's nerves or something."
"*to Sally* Sorry"
"You were going to take that damn pill weren't you?"
"Course I wasn't. Biding my time, knew you'd turn up."
"No you didn't. It's how you get your kicks, isn't it? You risk your life to prove you're clever."
"Why would I do that?"
"Because you're an idiot"
"Dinner?"

-And that's how John Watson made Sherlock fall in love with him. I think this is when John lives up to all of Sherlock's expectations and more, and it's also when John wins over Sherlock completely too...because John appreciates Sherlock's genius, but (and this is the most important part) he treats Sherlock like Sherlock is a normal person. And really, that’s what he’s been doing since he first met Sherlock, and even after Sherlock amazed him with his “superhuman” abilities...John continued to treat him just like any other person, because John BELIEVES that Sherlock is just like any other person. Even after seeing how everyone else views Sherlock as something “other,” at the end of the day, John still just treats Sherlock like a human. He calls Sherlock an idiot. He points out when Sherlock is bullshitting him...he doesn't handle Sherlock like Sherlock is a child, or like Sherlock is a sociopath, or like Sherlock is some sort of freak. He treats Sherlock like Sherlock is just a person - as complex and as ordinary as any other person, albeit with extraordinary gifts.

And I think, fundamentally, that's how Sherlock has always wanted to be treated. People who believe they are plain and ordinary want people to treat them like they're princes and princesses. They want to be 'the chosen one', they want to be special. Likewise, people who have grown up feeling 'special' or 'like a freak', want to be treated like they're ordinary...they desperately want to just be like everyone else. They fall in love with people who make them feel like they AREN'T different. John manages to treat Sherlock like he's not better than any of them, while simultaneously making Sherlock feel appreciated for his intelligence (the very thing that drives other people away.)

And then Mycroft shows up...

"Did it never occur to you that you and I belong on the same side."
"Oddly enough, no"
"We have more in common than you think. This petty feud between us is simply childish, people will suffer, and you know how it always upset Mummy."
"I upset her? It wasn't me who upset her, Mycroft!"

-They speak about Mummy in the past tense, which, to me, indicates that she is no longer with them. I always pictured Sherlock and Mycroft's parents as having kids when they were older. I think there's supposed to be quite the age gap between Mycroft and Sherlock as well. I'm not sure what they've made it here, but from what I see from the Fandom, people usually have it being AT LEAST 7 years. (Someone tell me if it was ever stated in ACD Canon please!)
-Also, I would argue, and I have, that Mycroft and Sherlock actually don't have anything in common besides both being intelligent and being dramatic.

"Good evening, Mycroft, try not to start a war on the way home, you know what it does for traffic."
-And I think this is the fundamental difference between Sherlock and Mycroft. Everyone always goes on about how dark Sherlock might be...how psychopathic and dangerous, but do they consider Mycroft? Who's more dangerous than a puppet master? Who is more dangerous than a man who IS the British Government? Sherlock says it himself, when John asks, "the most dangerous man you've ever met..."

People assume Mycroft is good because he serves Queen and country, is polite, carries a harmless umbrella, and worries about his poor dear younger brother who suffers from such moods. But Mycroft is NOT fundamentally good in Sherlock's eyes. Sherlock is actually a better man than Mycroft is. Mycroft plays with lives on a VERY large scale. "try not to start a war on the way home" - Mycroft's decisions kill people...people like John Watson. It's true, if it weren't Mycroft, someone else would be in the same position - but that doesn't matter to Sherlock. Sherlock, whether he believes himself to be an angel or not, sets out to ONLY to help people. Yes, people die - but, if Sherlock can help it, only the bad guys die. Whereas when Mycroft goes after "the bad guys" a)they might not actually be bad, and b)good people die alongside them. Sherlock's life might be a battlefield, but it's one with very few deaths - and every death that does occur is a point of sadness/guilt/frustration for Sherlock (not including murderthe original murder victims of course)...whereas the way Sherlock must see it, Mycroft pulls strings and good men die, and Mycroft just eats another slice of cake and carries on. Sherlock likes good people. Yes, he gets an intellectual kick out of people like Irene and Moriarity, but his three favourite people are all fundamentally GOOD in Sherlock's eyes.

Though, I would like to point out that I personally think that part of the reason Sherlock likes John is because he's got a "strong moral principal", is a good person, and also happens to be a remorseless killer....it's like the best of everything for Sherlock. No wonder he loves him so much!

"He's always been so resentful, you can imagine the Christmas dinners."
"Right, no, god no."

-I love how John is like "No, no, I cannot imagine that, I have no life experience that leads me to believe I have any idea what that could possibly be like."

"So, dim sum, I can always predict the fortune cookies..."
"No, you can't"
"Almost can. You did get shot though?"
"Sorry?"
"In Afghanistan, there was an actual wound."
"Oh yeah, shoulder"
"Shoulder, the left one."
"Lucky guess."
"I never guess"
"Yes, you do."

-And of course, this dialogue completely sums them up. Sherlock trying to impress John. John calling Sherlock on his bullshit, but in a happy amused manner. Mostly, it's John accepting the fact that Sherlock is NOT perfect...sometimes he just makes lucky guesses, but John's okay with that, because that's just being human. So, John treats Sherlock like a human, and really, despite Sherlock's insistence that he's superhuman, being treated like he's human is really all Sherlock has ever wanted in life...well, that, and to have a friend who is impressed by intelligence rather than intimidated by it.

And everything I just said is really summed up perfectly in my notes where I just wrote:
SMILES! IT'S LOVE!



Commentary



The Commentary is by Moffatt, Gatiss, and Sue Vertue. I did not write down who said what when I took down quotes, so I'll only be noting the ones I remember. I think the S1 DVD was done before they started writing up S2 (I could be wrong), so I think it makes for a cool look into the creative process, because you can see some ideas forming just while they chat here. You can totally understand how these two could come up with the entire modernisation of Sherlock while just chatting on a train.

I should say that a lot of the commentary is about adapting the material. I didn't make notes on those aspects of the commentary, because I'm much more interested in interpreting this adaptation, rather than exploring how they do or do not differ from the source material or other adaptations. (Mainly because I don’t feel I have enough ACD knowledge to comment on the adapting success/failure.)

Mostly though, I just want to write it down when they say something funny...

Anyway, let's get to it:

When talking about the awkward cut-away shots of people's phone screens, they comment: "It always gives the impression that everyone in the show is midly illiterate", because the characters take so long to read a text.
-Though, I should point out, having met Sam's Winchester's hands, that such awkward cut-away shots keep hand-actors employed!

"[ACD] allows one - in the whole sixty story canon - he allows one moment of genuine affection between Holmes and Watson. You always know it's there..."
"If you've hurt my Watson"
"Yes, that's it. And I think...under the surface of the detective stories is the story of the greatest friendship ever. And because it's a male friendship, it's simply never talked about. They never sit down and say 'well I think we've become we've become friends now, how do you feel about that'"
"They don't have to"

-This is actually what I've always loved about friendship/love/humans. I love the things we say without speaking. I love the communication that occurs between words. I value being able to see and feel love over being able to hear it, I guess.

They talk about Sherlock adoring Mrs. Hudson: "[Sherlock]'s not cold because there's something wrong with him, he's cold because most of the time that's what he's like. If he happens to like you, that's not a problem."

Benedict was the first and only person who read for Sherlock Holmes.
"There isn't another person who can play this part."

The only thing Benedict and Sherlock have in common: "a gentle occupation of the alpha male role." (Moffatt)
Gatiss: "Yes, I made the mistake of calling Benedict to solve a crime. He was absolutely hopeless."

They talk about Martin Freeman as being the opposite of Benedict except for the amount of talent. Benedict "is a kind of a magnificent exotic person as an actor, he doesn't look like a normal person...he plays exceptional people" whereas "Martin finds a poetry in the ordinary man."

They talk about casting Martin - they needed to have the right dynamic. Rather than two commanding officers or a commander and a private officer. They wanted a Commander and Ship's Doctor who could overrule the Commander...basically, "Kirk and Bones."

Matt Smith auditioned for Watson, but was too much like Sherlock.

"The moment we put Martin with Benedict, it actually changed Benedict. He became more like Sherlock Holmes."

They say Lestrade admires Sherlock. Sherlock says that Lestrade is the best of Scotland Yard. The reason they went with Rupert was because he had the quality that made it feel like if Sherlock wasn't around, Rupert could have his own series where Inspector Lestrade solves the crime.

"What Rupert brings to it as well, he's very dashing, but he's very blokey..."
"I think it's that thing where he's a very handsome man...but no one's told him 'you're actually very good looking.'"

-Those are the best handsome men in my opinion.

They joke about Sherlock killing Mr. Hudson just so he could get cheaper rent.

During the scene with John and Mycroft: "Sherlock will see this at the end, but this is a powerful friend he's got."

"There are more references to him laughing than there ever is to him taking drugs. It fades out of the story quite quickly."
"The way it sits in the original stories is to make him exotic...in Victorian times. To say that he just sits there doing coke when he doesn't have a job makes him an idiot....when you modernize, this guy, when he was 18 would have been a mess."

-I have to say, I really like the way they've made Sherlock. I know during the PBS panel that Moffatt said that he didn't believe in backstories - and man, I LOVE backstories...but I like the fact that they have thought about it at least abstractly. They've recognized that Sherlock would have had a very difficult youth, just because of who he is and how his mind works.

"...[Sherlock]''s still got ragged edges, certainly, where we meet him. He's not functioning as a human being, until he meets the person who actually, gently, starts to say 'you shouldn't say that', but not in a preachy sort of way."
-Sherlock's not acting human, because he's not being TREATED like a human. This is partially Mycroft's fault, but I'll get to that in S2.

"[Sherlock] does actually want someone to notice he's clever. He's cleverer for having somebody to notice it. He's been making do with that skull for a while..." They go on to compare Sherlock to a cook with no one to cook for or a comedian with no one to laugh.
-Basically, John is the conductor of light. ;)

Sherlock's sexuality...shows no interest in women or men. They talk about The Woman a bit, which is interesting, because this was perhaps recorded before they wrote Scandal....but, I did not make any notes on it, so obviously it's not THAT interesting. :P

"I think our Sherlock is warmer than the ones in the story."

They talk about whether Sherlock is likeable, and that House is a good example of a "Sherlock" character who is not likeable, but still liked by the fans. "You hang on his every word to see if there's a crack in the facade."

"He's chosen the side of the angels because there are more rules. It's more difficult."
"He is not only on the side of the angels, he is, in the end, an angel. Maybe a slightly naughty one...but he is one of them. That's a brilliant progression, it's a great story to tell."
"...you need to see it through John Watson's eyes. We pick up the story from at the point where this unbarable man, becomes not just bareable, but lovable, the way we want him to be."
"He needs to humanize. You can't just keep him as that cold borderline psychopath that he might have become."

-Personally, I see this as where some other Sherlock-type adaptations have fallen down. There has to be character growth, even for Sherlock. Actually, this goes beyond Sherlock adaptations - it's just writing in general. I find a lot of the time when things have a unique and powerful character, they think that the uniqueness/powerfulness is enough to hold interest, that the character doesn't need to grow...when this just isn't the case. I don't have any examples off the top of my head of course, that would be too handy. Someone was accusing Merlin of this yesterday, but that's just because they aren’t a very astute watcher.

Gatiss does talk about how Watson's friendship doesn't magically cure Sherlock's "dark moods", but he does save him in a fundamental way.
-I like this distinction too. Mainly, because I see it a lot in Sherlock fanfic - the old healing-cock/power-of-love trope...where someone falls in love and suddenly they aren't bipolar anymore. Yeah, um, that doesn't happen in real-life, folks. People are broken, and when they fall in love, they are broken people who also happen to be in love. Love can only save you from loneliness, and that's exactly what Sherlock and John do for each other...and maybe John helps keep Sherlock from becoming an isolated psychopath, but the fact remains that Sherlock didn't WANT to be an isolated psychopath, so the odds of it happening were slim anyway...I mean, I ask you again: WHY did Sherlock need a flatmate? Why did he seem to care so much what John thought of the apartment? Sherlock WANTED a friend. He just never says it outright.

They talk about John Watson's gun and how they could get away with never saying how he got it.
"[It would be] different in America - this scene would end very differently, there would be a massive shoot-out. Everyone would have a gun. Sherlock's got ten."

They talk about the Deerstalker and basically come up with exactly how they end up doing it in S2 - with the paparazzi shot that gets him stuck with the image.

Finally, they weigh in on the "Idiot Watson" trope (Made fan-famous by Kate Beaton's multiple-Watson cartoon - yes, the "jam" one.) Both Gatiss and Moffatt state that John Watson brings A LOT to the partnership:
"John Watson is the most reliable man in the world."
"Only an idiot would surround himself with idiots."





The End.

I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of weeks, but hopefully I'll find time to watch The Blind Banker sometime in July.

Edit: Almost forgot to link the full rewatch on AO3 is available for those who want to download to portable readers (or those of you who just like AO3 a lot.)

Part 1

Date: 2012-06-22 11:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] afastmachine.livejournal.com
So, Sherlock doesn't have a personality disorder, he just has a hard past and a too intelligent mind. (This doesn't mean that he doesn't suffer from depressive/bipolar episodes though.)
That's a very, very interesting concept. Most of fandom(that I've seen) is more concerned with defining Sherlock with words; asexual, sociopath, manic, etc. whatever they feel fits...but I've never really been able to do that with him myself. I think he's just different, wildly different, but no definably(with labels) different. I don't think he'd like being labeled; he's already misunderstood enough. And I really like the angle you take; the idea that Sherlock is more-or-less normal, but with an extremely high intellect, which has transitioned him from normal to abnormal. Smart kids often suffer from social/emotional issues because of their disassociation from everyone else. They're at two different levels, and they can't relate to either.
(That's kinda from experience; I've always been above-average, but also really anti-social and, to be honest, lacking in "normal" graces. It's never helped by the fact that I've never looked my age(in my teens I looked like I was in my twenties, and now I look like a teenager) or been in my proper grade. But I still get lonely. Achingly lonely. Smart and detached doesn't always equal loner. /csb)

Okay, now here, you're like "But if Sherlock doesn't have a personality disorder, how come he doesn't understand human suffering?" And I'd like to say: Sometimes I don't understand human suffering. I put things into boxes.
YES. All this. Another thing about Sherlock that I can relate to. I feel things, sure, but hardly ever to the intensity that others seem to. When I DO feel intense things, it's usually about small things compared to large ones. One of my very favorite people, my art teacher, died several years ago, and I never cried. I missed her, and I missed talking to her, and I was sad that I'd never get to talk to her again, but I never really thought about how it would effect me emotionally, and it didn't. I was more sad for her family than I was for me losing her, if that makes sense. I compartmentalize, and that happens a lot with my emotions, to the effect of feeling unfeeling. Though, unlike Sherlock, I've gotten good at expressing feelings that I don't actually feel, or feel very strongly. I don't know if I'm explaining it right, but I think it stems from like what you mentioned with Sherlock; the effect of a disconnected childhood leading to a disconnected adulthood because you never developed the traditional emotional pathways that everyone else did; you don't develop social skills because you have no chance to exercise them, and then when you reach adulthood, you either learn, learn to fake it(which, honestly, it stupid; you know what to do, but you don't actually LEARN it), or just don't give a shit. I prefer to fake it, while Sherlock just doesn't care.
Which isn't to say I'm on the same level as Sherlock; I already sound arrogant enough with the comparisons. But I definitely see a little better why I've always identified with him, and why whenever everyone slaps him with these labels I get a little uncomfortable and wish I could say "but do you think he's REALLY like that?"
Of course, now I wonder what elements about John make me love and enjoy him so much? Maybe because I've always wanted someone like John? Gah. Why are all your posts so thought-provoking?

RE: the whole not good scene where Sherlock technically blows it with John; you're so right. He thinks he's lost everything until that moment at the crime scene, when he looks over and sees John, and suddenly he's happy, because he didn't scare him off. He doesn't have to be alone anymore. (and, having just read all the way to the end, you agree! Glad I'm not the only one to see that)

Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-22 11:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Most of fandom(that I've seen) is more concerned with defining Sherlock with words; asexual, sociopath, manic, etc. whatever they feel fits...but I've never really been able to do that with him myself. I think he's just different, wildly different, but no definably(with labels) different. I don't think he'd like being labeled; he's already misunderstood enough. And I really like the angle you take; the idea that Sherlock is more-or-less normal, but with an extremely high intellect, which has transitioned him from normal to abnormal.

I find that most of SOCIETY is obsessed with labels...and I've never been able to do that. But yeah, I don't think Sherlock can be defined, and I think that's why he's such an intriguing character.

And as a sidenote: I'm also someone who has always been above-average my entire life (most noticeable when I was younger). So, yeah, a lot of my take on Sherlock is informed by how much I see myself in him - though, I'm no where near his level, of course.

I compartmentalize, and that happens a lot with my emotions, to the effect of feeling unfeeling.... I prefer to fake it, while Sherlock just doesn't care.

SAME! I know what the socially acceptable emotional responses are to things, and those are the ones that I display, whether or not I actually feel them.

It's why one of my favourite quotes is: "My heart is nothing more than an engine formed from the remnants of a dead star." (from Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2006/05/17/anagoge-starring-tiny-carl-jung/)) Because it's technically true, but also gets across the message of what my emotional state is like.


Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-22 11:37 pm (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's had that kind of experience! Honestly, I figured you did, both from the way you come across on interaction and from how well you seem to understand and explain this concept of Sherlock.

I have my own theories as to why I personally prefer to not assimilate to society and to compartmentalize emotions, and I can't help but wonder if they'd be similar to Sherlock's, considering the conceivable backstory he could have (difficult childhood, lack of loving influences, etc.).

I love that quote! My dead-star-heart enjoys the poetry of it, as well as the fact that it gets things across without mincing words.

Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-23 12:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
I have my own theories as to why I personally prefer to not assimilate to society and to compartmentalize emotions, and I can't help but wonder if they'd be similar to Sherlock's, considering the conceivable backstory he could have (difficult childhood, lack of loving influences, etc.).

Yes, I've often tried to analyze myself as well...but, I don't really come up with any theories. Unlike Sherlock, I don't consider my childhood that difficult, and it may have been a little non-affectionate, but I still had loving influences....so, yeah...I'm a mystery to myself. :P

I love that quote! My dead-star-heart enjoys the poetry of it, as well as the fact that it gets things across without mincing words.

Exactly! I really love that author. I follow his twitter and tumblr and he says cool stuff every day. He's also a pretty kick-ass feminist, which only makes him more awesome.

Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-23 01:40 am (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
I don't know how I'd explain it, but I have interesting ideas rattling around about myself. I won't say I was lacking in anything, honestly. People cared about me, but they didn't always know how to bridge the gap and let me know in a way I understood(or in a way I believed, since I've always dealt with being practically a compulsive liar, and I thought everyone else was one too), so I often felt isolated even amongst family. I developed (mentally, emotionally, and physically) quickly and early, so I was going through the emo teen stage when I was just eight or nine(I had terrible depression as a pre-teen), and nobody knew what to do with me. I didn't talk to people because I didn't know how to explain myself and I was scared of what people would say(since I had no idea of what was normal OR abnormal). And add it to the lack of external social stimulation...well, it all just made me who I am. And ironically enough, as much as I like to examine and plot and theorize about things, I wouldn't change it. It made me who I am, and while looking back, some things in my life were bad and unfortunate, I can't say I'd change them, because I am who I am...and for once, I like who I am.

I checked out his site; very cool! He sounds awesome.

Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-23 01:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
And ironically enough, as much as I like to examine and plot and theorize about things, I wouldn't change it. It made me who I am, and while looking back, some things in my life were bad and unfortunate, I can't say I'd change them, because I am who I am...and for once, I like who I am.

As you should! I was just talking to my sister about this the other day, because she started the "I wonder if my life would have been better if..." thinking, and I pointed out that really, there's absolutely no way to say whether it would be better or worse, because she wouldn't be the same person in it. She wouldn't be who she was today without her life experiences, so what might be "better" for her today wouldn't necessarily be "better" for the other version of her that would have resulted from different circumstances...if that makes any sense.

Basically, I'm saying that I agree with you.

I always find it fascinating how we really have no concept of "normal" or "abnormal" until our pre-teen/teenage years. Like, even with just silly things...like me not realizing that it was actually really weird to have a sauna in your house and bathe with other people. :P

Re: Part 1

Date: 2012-06-23 01:50 am (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
Exactly! I've often talked to my mum about stuff, and I've always said that even knowing what I know now, even seeing what I now see in my father, I wouldn't take back how hard I tried to please and impress him, because all of that work and attempts to gain affection, they changed me. If I hadn't been like that, I never would have fallen in love with scifi and action and TV and "forbidden" classic rock and fixing cars and playing football and watching sports and shopping for tools, a ton of the things that make me who I am.

Yeah! And I think that's just because you become exposed more to society; that's when you start to "lose your innocence" in a way and you start to see the bigger picture.

Part 2

Date: 2012-06-22 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] afastmachine.livejournal.com
Because it's true...what kind of result does Sherlock care about? Curiosity killed the cat...and an intellectual pursuit killed Marie Curie too.
That's just...so excellent. It's a great soundbite type thing, because it sums up the entire last act(and the show as a whole). Sherlock's only reason for living is the pursuit, and one day the pursuit will kill him, because they're so tied to each other. In fact, as we so excellently see in The Richenbach Fall, his pursuit, his unrelenting, unwavering pursuit, killed him. Of course, we know that the only thing that can save him from death-by-pursuit is his friends and the people he cares about. John being most prominent.

-FYI: That's why I don't like talking to people when I'm depressed. I'm afraid of an accidental manslaughter charge. :P
I always worry I'm gonna rub off on people and they're gonna run away and never come back, since friendships are so rare and valuable to me. Hence why I tend to leave LJ when I get depressed.

It's healthier not to build people up into impossible caricatures of themselves. You have to imagine people complexly, as a book that I've actually never read argues. (ie: Paper Towns by John Green.)
And isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that what meta is? We take these people who don't even exist and we analyze the hell out of them, for what? I like to think it's so we have a better grasp of people in real life.

Just a note here: I do like the fact that John spent the entire drugs bust with an illegal firearm tucked into the back of his pants underneath his cuddly jumper. I guess Sherlock serves as a great distraction from anyone noticing John's lumpy back.
IDK if police are supposed to be way more detail oriented(though, honestly, I'm sure Sherlock and his flat drew all of the attention), but even I have had trouble IRL when people put guns and similarly-shaped objects in the back of their pants, if they're wearing anything more than a t-shirt.

Also, um, a big deal was made about how Sherlock isn't a GOOD man, because he's torturing someone who is dying of a gunshot wound...but, um...I'd do the same. I mean, the guys a bastard and he has information and there's not much time to get it out of him! Maybe that makes me a bad person too...maybe I AM a sociopath. I do tend to identify with Sherlock more than John...but, you know, I just attribute that to the fact that deep down I'm an arrogant asshole.
Agreed. I mean, it's not unreasonable(to me) at all. Come, let us enjoy our sociopathy.

But, I also love this new description of John, no longer just "Army doctor recently invalided home from Afghanistan," but "A crack shot and a fighter who is acclimatized to violence has a strong moral principal and nerves of steel." As many of you may know (if you've been paying attention) I love characters that have a duality to them. And Intellectual/Fighter is one of my favourites...and John is a sort of blend of that.
YES. THAT is probably why I like John so much. If I'm more like Sherlock, John is what I wish I was, what I think I COULD have the potential to be. And I can't help but wonder if the each see parts of each other that they wish they could be.

He points out when Sherlock is bullshitting him...he doesn't handle Sherlock like Sherlock is a child, or like Sherlock is a sociopath, or like Sherlock is some sort of freak. He treats Sherlock like Sherlock is just a person - as complex and as ordinary as any other person, albeit with extraordinary gifts.
Once again, it all makes perfect sense. It's nice to have people who won't put up with stuff just because you're ~special. It's the mark of a good friend/partner when someone treats you exactly how you SHOULD be treated.

Re: Part 2

Date: 2012-06-22 11:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
I always worry I'm gonna rub off on people and they're gonna run away and never come back, since friendships are so rare and valuable to me. Hence why I tend to leave LJ when I get depressed.

Yeah, there's that too. I REALLY don't like feeling like I'm annoying people...and I've somehow got it into my head that talking about my troubles is "complaining" and "complaining is annoying to others"...so...yeah...I just tend to shut-up about everything that's wrong with my life. Also, if you've ever seen the Radiohead music video for "Just"...I always feel like something like that is going to happen.

And isn't that what we're doing? Isn't that what meta is? We take these people who don't even exist and we analyze the hell out of them, for what? I like to think it's so we have a better grasp of people in real life.

Yes! And that's why I love meta so much! But, I think some people fail to make the leap from imagining fictional characters complexly, to imagining REAL people complexly. (And some people fail at the fictional character thing too...like everyone who insists that either Dean/Sam/Cas/Whoever is ALWAYS GOOD and ALWAYS RIGHT.)

...but even I have had trouble IRL when people put guns and similarly-shaped objects in the back of their pants, if they're wearing anything more than a t-shirt.

True. I've smuggled many a thing out of a place that way.

Agreed. I mean, it's not unreasonable(to me) at all. Come, let us enjoy our sociopathy.

HAHA SOCIOPATHY PARTY! :)

Re: Part 2

Date: 2012-06-22 11:57 pm (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
Yeah, there's that too. I REALLY don't like feeling like I'm annoying people...and I've somehow got it into my head that talking about my troubles is "complaining" and "complaining is annoying to others"...so...yeah...I just tend to shut-up about everything that's wrong with my life.
Yep. Ironically enough, I have no problem being considered obnoxious for silly reasons, but if I'm considered annoying/obnoxious for always talking about myself and my problems when I really should just be grateful for what I have etc. I absolutely hate it. I don't care if people don't like me for what I put out on the outside, but if they don't like me for what I really am deep down...well, that hits just a little too close to home, and I honestly feel like I can't afford to lose the wonderful people in my life.
And talking frankly about it like this? I could never do IRL or with anyone I didn't identify strongly with, because I'd be far too worried about how they thought about me.

But, I think some people fail to make the leap from imagining fictional characters complexly, to imagining REAL people complexly.
And vice versus! I know people who have no trouble realizing fictional people are complex, but they cannot imagine that things IRL aren't black and white. That's one reason why I try to stay on the neutral side of so much IRL unless I have done research myself/have seen incontrovertible facts.

True. I've smuggled many a thing out of a place that way.
I have a friend who likes to do that with stuff; if it won't fit in his pocket, he just sticks it in his waistband at his back...and he's surprisingly good at making things vanish.

Edited Date: 2012-06-22 11:59 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 2

Date: 2012-06-23 01:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
And talking frankly about it like this? I could never do IRL or with anyone I didn't identify strongly with, because I'd be far too worried about how they thought about me.

You could probably talk to me IRL about it, if we ever met IRL. I've been told by many a friend that I'm the least judgmental person they know. I once really made a friend laugh because she was asking if any of my siblings were as non-judgmental as I was, and I said "I don't know...I guess my brother can be pretty judgmental, but I try not to judge him for it." :P

But yeah, I completely understand what you mean. It's just easier to keep it to yourself rather than risk being misunderstood/rejected.

Mind you, sometimes I get a kick out of deliberately misleading people...not so much telling them lies, but only telling them enough so that I know they'll jump to the wrong conclusions. Usually though, it's so that they'll make the assumption that I'm more normal than I actually am. :P

Re: Part 2

Date: 2012-06-23 01:44 am (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
Probably, since I've already established an emotional and mental rapport and I can say that you "get" me. I'm TRYING to built that kind of relationship currently with a woman I'm friends with; I don't know if you read my post, but she's one half of the couple I came out to the other day and am gonna talk with again.
And funnily enough, I'm pretty non-judgmental IRL. Or I try my hardest to be.

Mind you, sometimes I get a kick out of deliberately misleading people...not so much telling them lies, but only telling them enough so that I know they'll jump to the wrong conclusions.
I like to do stuff like that and then do a grand reveal to show that the little half-corner pieces they saw in no way match the full picture. XD
Edited Date: 2012-06-23 01:45 am (UTC)

Re: Part 2

Date: 2012-06-23 01:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Cool, best of luck with building a good relationship with the woman that you are friends with! I haven't read your post yet, because I've been crazy busy doing my email (and responding to all these comments!) But I'll get to it, I promise! :P

I like to do stuff like that and then do a grand reveal to show that the little half-corner pieces they saw in no way match the full picture. XD

Haha, exactly, only, I'm not sure I ever get to that part. :P

Part 3

Date: 2012-06-22 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] afastmachine.livejournal.com
And I think this is the fundamental difference between Sherlock and Mycroft. Everyone always goes on about how dark Sherlock might be...how psychopathic and dangerous, but do they consider Mycroft?
I've always seen Mycroft as the darker force, even while fandom after S1 was obsessed with Mycroft!Poppins(IDK if you've seen it; Mycroft as Marry Poppins), I always saw him as the darker force. And we saw that in Scandal, when he was concocting Bond Air. Like you said, if anyone has a form of psychopathy, Mycroft is the more likely prospect. He's not fundamentally evil, but he's not good. And I love the way you explain how Sherlock sees that and relates it to the world around him, and how he doesn't appreciate Mycroft's cool exterior and interior.

So, John treats Sherlock like a human, and really, despite Sherlock's insistence that he's superhuman, being treated like he's human is really all Sherlock has ever wanted in life...well, that, and to have a friend who is impressed by intelligence rather than intimidated by it.
And here we go; last comparison I'm gonna make, promise(mostly 'cause we're at the end here...XD). I know I'm special, and I hate being called normal. I prefer to be differentiated from others, because in a totally unhumble way, I know I'm special. But that doesn't stop me from wanting people who'll accept my abnormalities as normal. Hence, I suppose, why I love the internet so much.

Sweet baby jesus, this is an entry in its own right. Sorry! I have too many thoughts.

ETA: I agree with your commentary thoughts. I have them, all of the commentaries for S1/2, iirc, but I haven't actually listened to them through.

Someone was accusing Merlin of this yesterday, but that's just because they aren’t a very astute watcher.
I think most people are used to progressions that don't resemble RL, where people have smooth transitions from episode to episode, and if they don't then it's bad. I think Merlin's done pretty well(thought I don't know if I believe it's on purpose or not) in that REAL people don't magically become better people over a gradual slope. They just have an increase in good things vs. bad things. I guess I'm more talking about Arthur's who's been accused of all kinds of uncool things, but mainly of having a shaky storyline, which, yeah, sometimes, but calling him inconsistent because he doesn't suddenly become a shining pillar of goodness is a bit harsh. Nobody changes overnite, and nobody has a nice smooth transition. Change takes time, and it's a rocky road. He's grown a ton since S1, and to ignore that would be a crime. And the others all have similar stories, though I'm a lot more pissed over Gwen and Morgana's inconsistencies, because we don't get to SEE them change, at all.
/rant

Ha, and then I read down and realized you practically said the same thing about Sherlock and John. Nice.

"John Watson is the most reliable man in the world."
Love, love, love that quote.
Edited Date: 2012-06-22 11:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 3

Date: 2012-06-23 12:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
He's not fundamentally evil, but he's not good. And I love the way you explain how Sherlock sees that and relates it to the world around him, and how he doesn't appreciate Mycroft's cool exterior and interior.

Thanks! Yes, that's exactly how I feel about Mycroft - not evil, not not good either. And yeah, if I was going to diagnose anyone on this show with Antisocial Personality Disorder, it'd be Mycroft...I think because I read somewhere that it caused someone to "casually disregard the rights of others" or something like that...and that's sort of how I think Mycroft operates. A puppet-master sees everyone as puppets, not people.

I know I'm special, and I hate being called normal. I prefer to be differentiated from others, because in a totally unhumble way, I know I'm special. But that doesn't stop me from wanting people who'll accept my abnormalities as normal.

Yes, exactly. The goal is to be allowed to be yourself, but not have people treat you like a freak when you ARE yourself...and that's exactly the friendship that John gives to Sherlock.

Sweet baby jesus, this is an entry in its own right. Sorry! I have too many thoughts.

Never apologize for having many thoughts! ;)

I think most people are used to progressions that don't resemble RL, where people have smooth transitions from episode to episode, and if they don't then it's bad.

I think you are right. It didn't occur to me that people have gotten used to unrealistic progressions.

I agree about Gwen/Morgana. It seems to have happened in the year between S2 and S3 or something...I don't know...there was also a very large chunk of time between S3 and S4 (sorry, my timelining heart can't help but notice that something like 6 years has passed on Merlin over 4 seasons).

I was actually talking about Merlin though...I was reading someone critique that was insisting that because Merlin was still just Arthur's servant (and his magic still a secret) that he hadn't had any character growth. I'm going to write a Merlin meta eventually about how much the Arthur-Merlin friendship progresses over the seasons...but Merlin definitely has had character growth just in himself too. We've actually SEEN him become more and more wise through experience. It's why he's moved into an adviser roll.

Re: Part 3

Date: 2012-06-23 12:20 am (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
Yep; when they added those huge time jumps, it just threw everything out of whack, especially with the characterizations. They wanted to show time passing, but they didn't bother to explain any of what might have happened during that time, and it makes me so sad, because Morgana is one of my favorite characters and Gwen had so much potential(which is why I shipped her with Arthur in the first place).

Really? How interesting. To be honest, I don't think too much about Merlin, because it feels like the show's actually done a good job on him so far(probably because he IS the titular character).
Also, I would read the hell out of that meta.

Re: Part 3

Date: 2012-06-23 12:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Well, I'm writing the hell out of it in my brain, so I'm glad there will be one person to read the hell out of it once it's posted. ;) (I haven't started typing it up yet though, because I wanted to do the first Sherlock rewatch first.)

And yeah, Morgana and Gwen had a lot of potential that was never realized. I must admit, that I won't talk about them too much in the meta that I have planned - since it's focus is Merlin and Arthur, but I will talk a LITTLE about Gwen at least. (Morgana is the most problematic character on that show, since the more time passes, the more 2 dimensional she becomes.)

And yes, I was as confused as you were when I saw the criticism of Merlin's supposéd non-progression! Which is why I say that the person wasn't an astute viewer (I mean, really!)

Re: Part 3

Date: 2012-06-23 01:33 am (UTC)
majorshipper: (Default)
From: [personal profile] majorshipper
Well, I hardly ever examine Arthur and Merlin, mainly because I can't go anywhere in fandom without being bombarded by their TWUE WUV and the genuinely terrible concepts, stereotypes, and misogyny that that fandom in general seems to grip so tightly. So I'll be very interested in anything that examines them without trying to take it into "AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE FUCKING AND THE GIRLS NEED TO GTFO" territory.

I hate that about Morgana, because she's always been incredibly fascinating to me, just like the rest of the Arthurian legends. But it seems like they just want to turn her from a well-developed-but misunderstood girl into a cold black-and-white villain with no explanation. While I think Katie acted the hell out of her scenes in S3, the writing was terribly lacking.

Re: Part 3

Date: 2012-06-23 01:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Agreed on Morgana!

And yeah...my meta won't be anything like that. Mainly because although I think Merlin is a huge metaphor for homosexuality - I don't actually think Merlin and Arthur are fucking. :P

Date: 2012-06-22 11:43 pm (UTC)
nic: (Default)
From: [personal profile] nic
I really, really enjoyed reading these. Thank you so much for posting!

Date: 2012-06-23 12:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Thanks for reading! :)

Date: 2012-06-22 11:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ramblin-rosie.livejournal.com
I haven't really been reading these because I haven't gotten into Sherlock except through fandom osmosis, but I did read your comments on the commentary and was struck by this bit:

They talk about Martin Freeman as being the opposite of Benedict except for the amount of talent. Benedict "is a kind of a magnificent exotic person as an actor, he doesn't look like a normal person...he plays exceptional people" whereas "Martin finds a poetry in the ordinary man."

... which explains perfectly why Martin is playing Bilbo Baggins, the Everyman hobbit, and Benedict is playing Smaug, the magnificent exotic dragon. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. :D

Date: 2012-06-23 12:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Haha, yes it makes PERFECT sense!! I'm really looking forward to that movie. :)

Date: 2012-06-23 05:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katsheswims.livejournal.com
Awesome! Your thoughts are always interesting. You bring up things I haven't considered.

"What if he has spent years developing immunity to iocane powder?!" THIS! My exact thoughts during that scene! I guess Sherlock wouldn't have seen that movie though...

When I first watched and the cabbie says Moriarty I cannot understand him at all.

Date: 2012-06-23 05:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Haha, I wonder if Sherlock would like the Princess Bride...

I probably only understood the cabbie because I knew what he was going to say. When I showed a friend the show (who doesn't know anything about Sherlock Holmes) she did not understand either. :P

Date: 2012-06-23 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franztastisch.livejournal.com
OK, so firstly have have a whole host of apologies I need to make re:TNP. I AM REALLY SORRY I HAVE NOT YET GOT BACK TO YOU. Really. I know it's now getting pretty damn late and I'm sorry. I'm going to try and do all the chapters I owe you tomorrow, but after that, I am going to have to stop. But I promise I'll get those two chapters to you before I leave. And again, I am sorry it's taken me this long.

Second. Fuck AO3 users. It's fannish and super useful t read it all in one go, so I say go for it unless AO3 say otherwise. In fact, when I found you were posting this to AO3 I acutally waited so I could read it all in one go.

Thirdly: ALL PARTS IN ONE GO! (and I'm posting this as I read to if something I say here you then clear up further down, sorry. :P)

I have never thought about why it is that Sherlock wants a flatmate. Never. And now, thinking about it, its a really obviously question to ask. Because really, he's not one for making proper connections with people and in Hounds he says he only has "one friend" and Moriarty makes out that the only people he cares about are John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade. And even if you include Molly, everyone apart from John is work/home related. They were something else first before they were friends - and the something else they were was through necessity rather than anything else. So why does he want a flatmate? (You're probably going to give us you thought later but I'm not there yet. :P)

I also didn't think so much about the character of Mike Stamford either. :P

I LOVE YOUR MRS HUDSON BACKSTORY. LOVE.

Best not to insult soldiers around Captain John Watson, buddy. He's seen better men then you die.
Oh man I love that line. :D

It makes me wonder if even Mycroft isn't aware of what Sherlock's sexuality is. I don’t think he is.
You know euclase on tumblr? I remember her once saying that it is very difficult to "come out" as being asexual because very few people actually understand what you mean. Maybe Sherlock never mentioned it to anyone because other people would have a hard time actually understanding what he meant. So he just didn't bother, because what difference would it make? I mean, for all John's awesomeness, I don't think even he would understand fully. But Irene did, didn't she? "I'm not actually gay" / "Well I am. Look at us both."

You're not haunted by the war, you miss it.
Retrospectively, this now makes me think of the Hurt Locker (yes yes, I have a thing. I know. :P) SO SAD.

(BTW: If you ever wanted hope for the future, just look at how some 15 year olds dissect art on tumblr...it's amazing, and they should all be getting As in English Lit at school. Though, if you ever wanted to lose hope for the future, go look at some of the 15 year-olds on tumblr.)
Tumblr, in one handy sentence (though I know more non-15yr olds than 15yr olds to be honest. :P)

Sherlock's face when he gets called stupid. It's like challenging Marty McFly to a dare or telling Hawkeye that he can't hit a target.
HAWKEYE :D (it's a thing, remember? :P)

Rupert could have his own series where Inspector Lestrade solves the crime.
I would watch the shit out of that. LESTRAAADE.

Very good and very interesting as usual! I am sad that I'll be missing you next ones, but it's something to look forward to. :D

Date: 2012-06-23 05:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Don't worry about TNP! I know you are super busy getting ready for your trip. I'm just sorry that I wasn't quicker on the writing this whole time so that you didn't have to leave before the final chapter!

It's fannish and super useful t read it all in one go, so I say go for it unless AO3 say otherwise. In fact, when I found you were posting this to AO3 I acutally waited so I could read it all in one go.

Yeah, I'm interested in what AO3 says, because it'd be super useful for me to be able to put the SPN Timeline over there. I'm really constricted by word-limits on LJ for the S1-S5 section (I suppose I COULD split them up into two posts...but again, then people can't scroll through it all in one go!)

I have never thought about why it is that Sherlock wants a flatmate. Never. And now, thinking about it, its a really obviously question to ask.

The question only dawned on me after I wrote that Merlin/Sherlock fusion fic....and then I couldn't shake it, because...yeah, it's actually OOC for him (as far as we think we know his character anyway.)

I LOVE YOUR MRS HUDSON BACKSTORY. LOVE.

Thanks! It's something I might actually write up in fic form someday.

I remember her once saying that it is very difficult to "come out" as being asexual because very few people actually understand what you mean. Maybe Sherlock never mentioned it to anyone because other people would have a hard time actually understanding what he meant.

I think John WOULD understand...Mycroft possibly would too (or possibly not.)...the problem is that I'm not even sure Sherlock IS asexual. I mean, I know that's how most people prefer to see him. But I think he just...ignores his own sexuality. Which, you could argue makes him asexual by default, but I don't think that asexuality works that way. *shrug* I kind of just like the thought of him being ANYTHING and yet NONE OF THE THINGS.

Tumblr, in one handy sentence (though I know more non-15yr olds than 15yr olds to be honest. :P)

Yeah, I'm being overly critical of Tumblr there and misrepresenting the age group. Most people I follow are adults.

HAWKEYE :D (it's a thing, remember? :P)

I completely understand. ;)

I would watch the shit out of that. LESTRAAADE.

As would I!

Well, it'll take me a while to do the next ones! So you'll probably be back by the time I get around to S2...so you won't actually be missing that many! :)

Date: 2012-06-23 08:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franztastisch.livejournal.com
Thanks, though I dreally do feel bad about not getting it done earlier. :/

I would totally read your Mrs Hudson fic. It would be glorious. :D

I don't know. I think John would understand eventually - I think it's something he'd realise after meeting Irene - but I think off the bat he wouldn't. And I think he'd only understand after being around Sherlock for a long time - i.e. by S2. I think Mycroft not knowing is partly a product of them not being close. And I guess, partly a product of Sherlock perhaps not really knowing himself because he deems it unimportant. I mean, can you imagine Sherlock's response to someone asking about his sexual orientation? I think he'd be genuinely baffled; like, what does that matter at all? It's like the solar system thing, it's not important to him.

I think in all likelyhood he is asexual (my definition of asexual being "not feeling sexual attraction to other people" - I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is though), and him ignoring it is sort of part of that, though not the... basis. Or whatever. He doesn't want to sleep with John, but he does love him, and he didn't want to sleep with Irene, though she completely captivated him.

But let's be honest here, I am the least qualified to talk about sexuality in any form. xD

And now I want a Lestrade spin off where he's awesome and snarky and attractive. :D

PS you're getting a Hawkeye icon now. :P

Date: 2012-06-24 06:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
YAY HAWKEYE!

I would totally read your Mrs Hudson fic. It would be glorious. :D
We'll see, I've got a lot on my docket this summer. Maybe it'll be something that happens when you're back from your trip in the fall. :)

I mean, can you imagine Sherlock's response to someone asking about his sexual orientation? I think he'd be genuinely baffled; like, what does that matter at all?
Yes, and I think that's what I love about it. It DOESN'T matter.

my definition of asexual being "not feeling sexual attraction to other people" - I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is though
See, my definition is "not enjoying sex." And that's my definition because *I* very very rarely feel sexual attraction to other people...but I love sex. So, I don't consider myself asexual, because I AM interested in sex...I just figure the thing in my brain that's supposed to be sexually aroused by people's appearance is broken. I'm only sexually aroused when I think about what I could DO to people (or have people do to me). I can recognize beauty, of course...but it just doesn't seem to stir up the same emotions in me as it seems to in others. Now, this might have to do with "medium"...because after watching Supernatural and then going to a convention, I discovered that while Jensen and Jared do absolutely nothing for me while they are on screen, I do find them amazingly attractive in person. Anyway, I'm just saying that I have no idea what asexual means.

He doesn't want to sleep with John, but he does love him, and he didn't want to sleep with Irene, though she completely captivated him.

And this is what I LOVE about the central message of Sherlock (and in particular Scandal in Belgravia): Love has nothing to do with sex.

But, back to us discussing Sherlock's sexuality...I think the problem is that we can't ever KNOW. We can only guess. Most people guess asexual - but that's just because Sherlock doesn't TELL us. We don't know what's going on in his mind when he's sitting around the flat with John. We don't know what's going on in his mind when Irene is sitting naked on his lap. We do know that Sherlock is very much in control of his body and the image he wishes to project. Sherlock is someone who believes that he SHOULD be acting like a machine, so who's to say what he's burying deep inside and never telling us about? Only Sherlock can tell us what his sexual orientation is, and like you say, he's never going to, because to him it just doesn't matter. He's married to his work.

And now I want a Lestrade spin off where he's awesome and snarky and attractive. :D

Me too.

Date: 2012-06-24 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franztastisch.livejournal.com
It's so weird to see you use the word "fall" for autumn. I forget that you'd use that... :P

Anyway, I'm just saying that I have no idea what asexual means.
Yeah this is my problem. I sort of... use other people's definitions and hope I'm not offending anyone. :/

I think the problem is that we can't ever KNOW
I think this is what is glorious about the whole thing. Because you're right, Sherlcok's right, what they hell does it matter? Sherlock and John made a connection, that that's more important than trying to work out exactly what that connection is.

Date: 2012-06-24 06:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
It's so weird to see you use the word "fall" for autumn. I forget that you'd use that... :P

Us crazy North Americans over here...calling things as we see them. :P

When I tripped and fell as a child, my mum would say "Have a nice trip! I'll see you next fall!" And I'd laugh, even though it was a stupid joke.

Date: 2012-06-24 06:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franztastisch.livejournal.com
I actually read somewhere that the British used to call it "fall" and we took it to America with us, but then there was a re-introduction of... classical ideas? Something, and "fall" was dropped in favour of "autumn" after a god or something.

...but just looking at the Wikipedia page, I think I may have remembered this wrong. :P But there was a thing about it dropping out of use in Britian but gaining ground in North America. So we did use to say it. :p

Date: 2012-06-24 07:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Maybe there was a resurgence of wanting to emulate the french?

I always thought Fall was very fitting, since it's when all the leaves fall. It just made sense to me. Spring and Fall, I thought, were excellent descriptors for those seasons. Summer sounds like Sun and Winter sounds like Wind...but Autumn as a word really doesn't conjure any association in my mind.

Date: 2012-06-24 07:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franztastisch.livejournal.com
Yeah perhaps. Though I can't really imagine any time where the British wanted to emulate the French, so it must have been subconscious. :P

See, autumn has a load of connotations for me. But I guess that's because fall in that context doesn't mean anything much to me. So I think it's just what you're used to.

Date: 2012-06-24 07:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] et-tu-lj.livejournal.com
The psychopath/sociopath line is the moment I fell in love with Sherlock, even if it's not technically correct. Claiming the term, embracing what people say about him, and drawing a line that means something to him even if they can't see the difference. No apologies or excuses, just an emphasis on what he's able to do with it that justifies everything, along with a bit of arrogance that they can't see that. *loves*

The "Not good" exchange is interesting. I think you're exactly right, that his head got ahead of his mouth and just couldn't keep up. Love how that moment is all about making John understand, and the rest are just witnesses to it. Until he thinks he's failed, and turns back to the job as a fallback.

Oooh, didn't catch John heading back for his cane. Must look for it on the rewatch. :)

They're so adorable, giggling at the crime scene. I just love their dynamic together. Treating Sherlock like he's normal is the secret, and it does seem to work both ways. Links back to what you said about Sherlock acknowledging John's need for action/mayhem/excitement and not judging him for it. They fill the same need for each other.

Date: 2012-06-24 07:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Claiming the term, embracing what people say about him, and drawing a line that means something to him even if they can't see the difference. No apologies or excuses, just an emphasis on what he's able to do with it that justifies everything, along with a bit of arrogance that they can't see that. *loves*

Me too!

Treating Sherlock like he's normal is the secret, and it does seem to work both ways. Links back to what you said about Sherlock acknowledging John's need for action/mayhem/excitement and not judging him for it. They fill the same need for each other.

Yes, exactly! They both need each other and they both love each other for being exactly what they needed - someone to accept them as they are and not expect them to be something they are not.

Date: 2012-07-14 04:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] k-for-kerfuffle.livejournal.com
Hey, we must be sisters in spirit! And YAY!!! to everything you said in this rewatch! I'm a sociopath, too, quite obviously, because I can understand the cabbie thing as well. I've been known all my life for saying, "I am surrounded by idiots!" Now that I'm older I've learned to say it only in my head. But I can totally understand where Sherlock comes from - not that I'm anywhere near his level, I hasten to add - but it must be so exhausting if you have to explain everything 24/7 because no one is able to follow your train of thoughts. I definitely think that he was lonely and therfore looking for a flatmate and not at all sure how that would pan out. But amazingly it did!

I love the undercurrent of eroticism that runs through the whole show - hey, even London is sexy! - and its total ambiguity. And no, we will never know what goes on in Sherlock's heart, we're only given tiny glimpses and that is as it should be for this larger than life character.

Love this recap and hope you'll put it back on AO3 and more to come!

We share many similar thoughts in regard to the Mycroft-Sherlock relationship which I have worked into my very first Sherlock-fic which is just being betaed.

So happy, I've found you!

Date: 2012-07-14 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Ooo! Awesome! I've love to read a Sherlock fic that reflects the Mycroft-Sherlock relationship as I see it!

I'm planning to rewatch The Blind Banker next week (if I can find the time), so I'm considering putting A Study in Pink rewatch back up and then adding The Blind Banker as chapter 2. Now that AO3 has told me that it's okay to leave my rewatch up until they come to a solid decision on meta, I feel like I have something to tell anyone who angrily threatens to report me this time.

I'm glad I'm not the only sociopath out there! Haha, what a funny sentence for me to say. But yes, obviously, neither of us are at Sherlock's level - but I spent a lot of my childhood feeling rather isolated from my peers because I couldn't understand why our brains seemed to work so differently. I also spent most of my teenage years being spectacularly arrogant - so Sherlock and I have that in common too. :P

Date: 2013-07-01 05:06 pm (UTC)
frozen_delight: (Default)
From: [personal profile] frozen_delight
And this is where Sherlock's day and all his plans really start to unravel. He was cultivating an image. Not a false image, but the best version of his true self. He was trying to be his best for John, because he wants John to be someone...he wants John to be his friend and he wants John to think he's the version of himself that Sherlock most wants to be. Did that make sense?
Yes, it makes an awful lot of sense!

The difference, of course, is that (from what we can see) Mycroft is content to be the lonely puppet-master (I'd argue that if anyone has antisocial personality disorder, it's Mycroft)...whereas Sherlock actually wants friends, Sherlock wants to be loved, Sherlock is LONELY. And Sherlock's loneliness is something that Mycroft doesn't understand...which makes Sherlock lonelier and even more misunderstood, because not even his intellectual equal/better understands him.
Yes again! I think it's really tragic that Mycroft doesn't understand what Sherlock wants and needs from him. Less meddling, less ordering about, more respect for his work, his lifestyle, his choices and more affection that is free from condescension, manipulation or a feeling of familial duty...

He's probably the type of person who puts things in boxes.
People always make it sound like Sherlock really is a freak who doesn't understand emotions while all of us normal people handle them oh so perfectly! Relationships and human interactions are full of misunderstandings, of causing others pain, of ignoring each other and selfishly focussing on ourselves... Sherlock isn't worse than anybody else, he's just less shamming, less polite.

The clevest person (besides Sherlock) in this episode is a dead woman, and she has ALL of Sherlock's respect.
Good point!

People assume Mycroft is good because he serves Queen and country, is polite, carries a harmless umbrella, and worries about his poor dear younger brother who suffers from such moods. But Mycroft is NOT fundamentally good in Sherlock's eyes. Sherlock is actually a better man than Mycroft is. Mycroft plays with lives on a VERY large scale.
Couldn't agree more. Sherlock doesn't like it when people die. He asks John if he's alright after shooting the cabbie and wonders at how calm Irene is after her boobytrap killed one of the Americans. He tries to bring criminals to justice. He knows what's right and what's wrong. And in politics, those boundaries often blur...

SMILES! IT'S LOVE!
Yes, it is!

Date: 2013-07-01 08:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Mycroft and Sherlock are kind of interesting to study... I think that the kind of person people believe Sherlock to be, is actually the kind of person Mycroft is - yet, Mycroft has always got a nearly perfect social mask on, so people don't realize this.

Glad you enjoyed all three parts of the episode rewatch!! :)

Date: 2013-07-01 08:29 pm (UTC)
frozen_delight: (Default)
From: [personal profile] frozen_delight
I think that the kind of person people believe Sherlock to be, is actually the kind of person Mycroft is.
I don't really understand why.
When it comes to Sherlock, people just hang on to the "great man/good man"-quote for dear life, repeating again and again how Sherlock says that he doesn't care - but have they ever taken a look at his face? (This is one of the things that I love about your rewatches: how you also describe the facial expressions, not just what's being said and done.) Can anybody believe Sherlock that he doesn't care about the old lady who died in "The Great Game" after seeing his expression during the phone call? Honestly, nobody always means one hundred per cent of what he or she says, so why should Sherlock be any different?
As for Mycroft, people come up with the weirdest explanations. I've actually read a couple of times that he has to be a sympathetic, friendly person who is interested in people because he is a politician. Now, I honestly didn't know that people held politicians in such high regard! :)

I'll let you know my thoughts on your other rewatches during the next couple of days. I think it's great that you invested so much time into writing them, they're an amazing source for every Sherlock fan.

Date: 2013-07-01 08:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Yeah, I'm sure I lamented it in the rewatch - but I often wish I could intersperse these rewatches with gifs to show exactly the facial expressions and body-movements that I'm talking about... but then these things would be even longer! :P

I think some people want to see Mycroft as loving, kind and good for Sherlock, because they desperately want Sherlock to be surrounded by loving, kind and good people. But just because you want something to be the case, doesn't mean that it is.

Now, mind you, in comparison to the rest of fandom, I could be accused of being overly critical of Mycroft... certainly, I didn't paint him in a very favourable light in the Sherlock-Merlin fusion fic that I wrote, and I'm REALLY harsh on him in my Scandal rewatch. :P

So, maybe I'm on one extreme and some people are on another, and there's a nice middle road that's actually true.

Date: 2014-02-20 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marlowe78.livejournal.com
So, I just watched through three seasons of Sherlock and I am addicted.

Naturally, I come over here to read your thoughts because I know you're good at writing them down and we think similar but differently enough to keep it interesting.

I'll be reading all your re-watches (and I will re-watch the first ep as well, since I missed a lot by having to acclimate to the British accent again ;-) )

Anyway, this line made me perk up:
They want to be 'the chosen one', they want to be special. Likewise, people who have grown up feeling 'special' or 'like a freak', want to be treated like they're ordinary...they desperately want to just be like everyone else. They fall in love with people who make them feel like they AREN'T different.

Because that... explains Sam Winchester very, very well, too. Doesn't it? *makes humming noise while rubbing the chin*


Benedict "is a kind of a magnificent exotic person as an actor, he doesn't look like a normal person...he plays exceptional people" whereas "Martin finds a poetry in the ordinary man."

Interesting...
I've come to finally watch Sherlock because I watched The Hobbit (first and second part) and kinda fell in love with the Bilbo that Martin Freeman created.

He IS Bilbo, much much more than any other actor in the Lord of the Rings is a Hobbit. He even out-Hobbited Sam Gamtchi, which is a neat feat.

Anyway, I liked Freeman so much that I NEEDED to see him as Watson, and he is as much Watson as he is Bilbo Baggins.

Anyway, that line I copied fits very well with The Hobbit, too. Because while Freeman found the poetry and hobbit-ness of Bilbo, they chose to have Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug (Sadly, I only watched the German version of Part 2 (no DVD yet) and so I didn't get to hear the original)
There is probably no other character more exceptional and exotic than Smaug.

Sorry, I digress...


Overall, I love this series, and I adore the actors. All of them, from Molly to the weird Crime-Tech guy and of course Watson and Sherlock - but I also very much like Mycroft. He's an interesting character, not so much as himself, but as what he is to - and for - Sherlock.

Be seeing you on your next rewatch-comments :-)



(I have no Sherlock-icons! Dammit...)

Date: 2014-02-20 04:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hells-half-acre.livejournal.com
Hello!

I'm glad you're liking Sherlock. Fair warning, you will get to a point where I no longer have rewatches for the show. I think I only went up to 2x01 or possibly 2x02 on the rewatches because they were getting WAY TOO LONG.

Anyway...

I completely agree about Freeman as Bilbo. And Benedict as Smaug. Benedict also did the motion capture for Smaug, so, even if you didn't hear the voice, you still saw his body movement. ;)

Mycroft is a very interesting character. I've got a, probably unfairly, slightly negative opinion of what he is to Sherlock - and some people really disagree with me. Hell, I think sometimes *I* disagree with me... but I do think they're relationship is fascinating, because we can have such different reactions as to whether he is a good part of Sherlock's life or a negative part.

Profile

hells_half_acre: (Default)
hells_half_acre

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910 111213
14 151617 181920
21 222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2019 06:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios