redbrunja | If You Really Enjoyed Sherlock - Any Of The Recent Versions

Seriously, I really loved Irene Adler and was actually cool with her in the first Sherlock movie and then the second came along and asdfghjkl.

(Haven't watched the show yet though.)

Much agreement on these brilliant genius male detectives. They can be wrong once or twice and still be genius, can't they? (Without the obvious addendum: they can also be female!)

They can be wrong once or twice and still be genius, can't they? (Without the obvious addendum: they can also be female!)

Not according to the gods of tv-land...

The treatment of Irene Adler in remakes consistently bothers me. Admittedly...I've liked recent versions in spite of that, even if I do wish there were more GIRLS (and then I make myself feel better about liking them anyway by going back and reading some of the Mary Russell series).

Another thing that was a big part of the original series that I wish was more obvious in the recent movie/show - the use of the scientific method. I feel like the original Holmes canon was one of the first times it showed up in literature/was made more available, and I think it could be a wonderful teaching tool if properly applied in a popular show. Holmes is kind of the ORIGINAL Male-Detective-That's-Always-Right, but back then, the concept of the scientific method wasn't widely available/popular.

It was the 1800s, so it was in wider use and it was the first time it was REALLY being applied to the solving of crimes. I think what Conan Doyle was saying was basically, "What detectives do isn't so mysterious after all".

The original Holmes canon is IMO, to the idea of 'detective', like what Burn Notice is to SpyFy - it takes the mystery out of it and emphasizes the methodology.

I mean, my first REAL exposure to what Sherlock Holmes was was like was in my HS physics class, so that's kind of what I always associate it with, and it's a big thing they haven't done such a good job with lately.

Again, I still like those shows and I admit it's hard to bring that in to a series that has an unspoken narrative - they just blurt out the answer, and even their explanation makes it seem like they just pulled the answer out of thin air, when there's really so much "if, then, because" reasoning that goes into it.

My solution is, again, to go read more Mary Russell, which I think captures that aspect of the canon nicely.

Ugh I feel you. I am so tired of the genius male detective who can do no wrong genre/formula. I heard about the fuckery with the Sherlock movie and the tv show and I am just -__- at everything.

For my own sanity, I've had to insist on a 'no genius detectives' media policy.

I KNOW! I AM SO ANGRY! IT WAS THE ONE THING I WAS CLINGING TO! WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT THE SAME AS WINNING!

sucks when they make the females stories change to make their men look better D:

As much as I loved reading Sherlock Holmes in my course, word. Gender equality aside, it would be awesome writing if they let Holmes be wrong once in a while. I can understand why Conan Doyle made him right all the time in the Victorians but this is the 21st century. I want to read characters who are like real people, even if they are incredibly intelligent.

And the fact that this is the first time I'm hearing about Irene Adler disappoints me. Way to go modern media!

Yeah, with characters who are always right, at a certain point I just go, 'every rule of probability and logic would say that this is impossible.' BE WRONG.

It's why I had to stop watching NCIS - I wanted the main character to be wrong SO BAD and I knew he would never, ever be.

Yeah, with characters who are always right, at a certain point I just go, 'every rule of probability and logic would say that this is impossible.'

I wonder how on earth the writers could justify the hero's being right in these kinds of shows if their conclusions are based on improbability? They must come up with such wild plot twists in order for the hero to be right.

Or deux ex machinas but let's not talk about deux ex machinas.

I wonder if they'll ever make a TV show where the female detective is always right. Improbably and illogical as someone being always right is, I'd love to see a female character getting that kind of free pass for a change. XD

Yeah, one of the many reasons that I will not be watching the remake of Sherlock is that they gender-switched WATSON. Because godforbid we have a women who's always right about everything.

A gender switched Watson? Why stop at Watson? Why not have a gender-switched Sherlock as well? I'd pay money to see that and I can only imagine how happy femmeslash fans would be.

Because godforbid we have a women who's always right about everything.

Yeah, because the universe would end if a woman was right all the time. *rolls eyes*

I haven't seen the new Sherlock episode yet, but I was just thinking about that this morning. Beyond how offensive it is on a feminist level, it's also such a bad, bad narrative choice. Your protagonist can't be invincible.

Hearing Game of Shadows fridged Irene made me want to watch that movie a lot less, though. I'll stick with Sherlock because--I'm not fannish about any Sherlock Holmes versions, but I like the modern AU vibe and the feel of the BBC series. A lot. On the other hand, my favorite thing about the first movie was easily Rachel McAdams, so.

She was killed, but she wasn't fridged, IMO. Fridging means she was killed to give another character motivation for his plot line, but nothing about her death changes Holmes' behavior or actions. Her death was for the audience's sake, so that the audience could see that Moriarity could kill a named, popular character, thereby making Holmes' jump at the end more believable. And it worked for part of the audience, because I was talking to a woman at work who didn't know anything about the novels, and she had bought Sherlock's "death" because of Irene's earlier.

I still didn't particularly like it, but unlike in the books, where she's committing a crime to try to get out, in the movies she's a professional thief working for Moriarity. Irene Adler was never going to get a happy ending in the movies, just like Moran and Moriarity won't.

On the other hand, the BBC series is a modern remake of the story and it's a complete disgrace that she wasn't able to have a complete victory over Sherlock like in the books.

I can't comment on that, I haven't watched Game of Shadows. I have heard people who saw it say Irene was fridged, and I guess it depends on the way you look at it. I'd say sacrificing, by death or other means, a female character for the sake of the plot (and "so the audience will believe Holmes's behavior" is pretty plot devicey) counts as fridging. Basically, her character is less important than the plot. And fridging Irene Adler, who is the only woman in the Holmes canon who outsmarts him, makes the offense even worse.

Not to mention I don't understand why Irene Adler shouldn't get a halfway happy ending. In A Scandal in Bohemia, she doesn't even hurt anyone. She's hardly a villain. I'd liken her to someone like Tara Cole on Leverage faster than I'd liken her to Moriarty. Even if she happens to be working for him.

So I'm glad it worked for the audience. I'm still inclined to say she was fridged, with the caveat, again, that I haven't seen the movie. They should have built Holmes's fear or whatever through him and his behavior and his reactions to whatever Moriarty did, not through someone else's death. Let alone Irene Adler's.

But that means female characters can never be killed in stories, which is an impossible standard. The problem with fridging is very specific. It is when a female character is killed so that a male character can be propelled into doing something they would not otherwise do (John Winchester becoming a hunter in Supernatural, Dom becoming a mind criminal in Inception). Their death has nothing to do with any story arc or resolution of their own; their character is discarded in service of a male character's story.

The problem is compounded by the fact that since this death is the catalyst of the story, it usually comes at the beginning, so all the audience knows of the female character is their death. They are no longer a character, but only a plot point in a male character's story.

Irene Alder's death does not induce any change in Sherlock's behavior. He was going after Moriarity before, and he continues to go after Moriarity not because of Irene's death, but because Moriarity threatens Watson. Her death is the resolution of her own story line as a lackey for Moriarity. It is for the purpose of signaling to the audience Moriarity's potential power over the rest of the cast.

The only other characters from the first movie that could have served this purpose are Lestraude and Mary. Quite frankly, I can't even remember who Lestraude was played by in the first movie, and I doubt most of the audience would either. Irene, on the other hand, was a very memorable character, who audiences were more likely to recall. Killing Mary would be exchanging one woman for another and not really helpful.

Irene is not the same character as the Irene Alder in A Scandal in Bohemia. She is a professional criminal who willingly worked for Moriarity in the first movie (and in the beginning of the second movie until she saw he was willing to let her get blown up). There is no way for anyone tied to Moriarity to get a happy ending in this universe, be it her or Moran or Moriarty. They're all going to die in the end.

Making her more of a criminal and tied to Moriarty (and apparently unaware of his disregard for her?) is still a narrative choice, so the one woman with agency (relatively) in the movies is a) a villain and b) ends up dead. And I generally don't believe most character deaths are necessary. I think more often than not it's lazy storytelling to kill a character when you're telling somebody else's story, and in this case, actually, Irene's death is serving the story, and the story is Sherlock's story, so I'd say it qualifies as fridging even by your definition. Even if it didn't, it would be... what? Sacrificial lion trope? Back for the dead? Now I'm just going by TVTropes. Either way I'm not a fan of that particular choice.

I'd discuss this further, but again, I haven't seen the movie, and anyway I feel like we have different definitions of fridging and both are valid, and we're in agreement re: not liking what happened.

but I was just thinking about that this morning. Beyond how offensive it is on a feminist level, it's also such a bad, bad narrative choice. Your protagonist can't be invincible.

I would agree but I know SO many people who have loved the new versions of Sherlock (and shows like Psych) where that kind of think is basically written into the premise of the show.

So very disappointed with the trend. I was hoping the new Sherlock film might be watchable but then I heard about Irene Adler's fate: no thanks! And the TV treatment of her? Equally unforgivable.

I want all these writers to be flogged until they repent. Twice.

I totally agree. They keep doing Irene wrong, and I hate it. The only thing keeping me from being totally pissed at Moffatt is that I have adopted

ladyofthelog's belief that Irene is always, always, always trolling. It's much more fun to watch if you watch it from the perspective.

And how long have I wanted a show about a lady genius detective? SO BAD. The closest thing to that is The Closer, but that's more that she's extremely, extremely smart and competent, not that she's a genius, actually.

And how long have I wanted a show about a lady genius detective? SO BAD. The closest thing to that is The Closer, but that's more that she's extremely, extremely smart and competent, not that she's a genius, actually.

And see, I actually prefer smart and competent to genius, but it still drives me up the wall that the 'genius detective trope' is so ridiculously gendered.

I've never seen the Sherlock Holmes movies because I'm sure I'd hate myself because I'd know I'd like them EXCEPT THEY CALL THEMSELVES SHERLOCK HOLMES AND I'M JUST GONNA GO OUT ON A JUDGEY LIMB HERE AND SAY, NO, NO THEY KINDA AINT. But then they'd be fun and steam punky, and I'd have too many conflicted feelings.

As for the show though, I thought Irene started quite well, and while I still like her and don't mind Holmes figuring out, what did kind of bother me was that he saved her in the end. I don't know why. I guess I would've liked her to save herself?

I will always love Sherlock Holmes cause I read the stories when I was young and they're some of my safe places and comfort reading, but I know what you mean about genius detectives. I think the thing some adaptations always manage to miss is that as much as the books glorify his intellect there is a lot of other stuff about Holmes that is not glorified. And that's why he has Watson.

technically I like the BBC Sherlock, but I agree with you completely about Irene. One theory I have developed that eases the vitrol: She did not have emotional weakness toward Sherlock. Sure, she wanted to bang him, but she's a woman who enjoys sex even if she prefers the ladies. The dialated pupils and racing pulse are signs of a physical attraction, not emotional.

The password? Like with Harry Watson, Sherlock was able to come to the right conclusion while getting a major detail completely wrong. Irene's weaknes was actually puns.

... I haven't seen the recent BBC season yet, but a friend of mine did and told me she DID outsmart him -- just as she did in the story. She also said Irene was a dominatrix, which did wonderful things to my panties because Irene Adler is perhaps one of my favorite female characters in fiction.

Now I'm scared to watch it.

Well, I do admit I didn't see the whole episode... I stopped when Irene had just had her 'I am so awesome' monologue and it looked like she had both Holmes brothers over a barrel... and then Sherlock bested her and she ended up pleading with him to protect her from the people she had previously had blackmail material on.

Which is not what I call outsmarting Sherlock.

She is super hot, it must be said.

I really have to stop even attempting to watch shows with genius detectives (always, always male) because the only thing I ever root for is for them to be wrong and they never, ever are.

this became me with House. i couldn't keep sitting through a zillion seasons of him not only being right about all his cases and ethical violations, but his misanthropic view of people. urgh.

i haven't seen Game of Shadows but now i'm sort of uncertain about it. i was looking forward to it, but not if it shoves irene under the bus.

It absolutely shoved Irene under a bus, and to be frank, I think there are some other big reasons why it's not an entertaining movie. Largely because Holmes is RIGHT, SO RIGHT, NEVER EVER WRONG.

I haven't watched any of the modern versions or read most of the books, but let me comment to state the obvious: if a female genius was never wrong, people would be complaining that she's too perfect. And if she wasn't super nice too, they'd be complaining she was too unsympathetic and be rooting for some supporting character to put her in her place.

I'm thinking about this especially because of a Revenge forum I've been for the past few months. Too much complaining about how competent Emily/Amanda was in the first four episodes.

But also other things and the Mary Sue phenomenon - which I used to look down on, but I grew out of that, thankfully. Basically your female characters have to fail and regularly have their competency undermined, and suffer. Audiences don't seem to revel in the brilliance and strength of female characters. Or they don't say it often, and they certainly aren't listened to in that case.

I haven't watched any of the modern versions or read most of the books, but let me comment to state the obvious: if a female genius was never wrong, people would be complaining that she's too perfect. And if she wasn't super nice too, they'd be complaining she was too unsympathetic and be rooting for some supporting character to put her in her place.

But of course! But Sherlock's penis makes all manner of narrative fuckery totally okay.

I'm thinking about this especially because of a Revenge forum I've been for the past few months. Too much complaining about how competent Emily/Amanda was in the first four episodes.

I cannot even fathom his complaint. Like, literally, it does not compute in my brain.

On the movies - I did finally see Game of Shadows. My opinion? Irene Adler is so not dead. They didn't confirm it in this movie, but I will bet you all the tea on my tea shelf that she is not dead and will be back for the third movie. I was just kinda sitting in the theater thinking "THAT'S what all the fuss was about? That is NOT a real character death". I guarantee you she either saw it coming and faked her own death or Moriarty lied to Holmes. At least...I hope so.

On the show - I only just started watching because of the latest episode (The Reichenbach Fall, because I saw some leaked stills on tumblr that really got my attention). Loved it. And I was going to put off watching A Scandal in Belgravia because of this post...but then I accidentally downloaded it instead of Hounds of the Baskerville.

I can see why it bothered you, but I personally loved this take on Adler, and I think it laid the foundation for her to show up later. I still think she should have gotten away scott free, but I also think Moffat laid the foundation of genuine caring and respect between the two that will be important later. Or...Moffat better bring her back later.

I have a soft spot for Scandal because it ended on one of my favorite tropes ever, even if it wasn't perfect from a feminist standpoint. Rescue from execution is sort of one of my Bulletproof Tropes. Also, it kind of negates Sherlock's "your weakness was sentimentality" speech when he figures out the password...because in the end he goes and does something really stupid and sentimental for her.

So yeah, I can see where the trouble lies but I think she'll play a larger role next season.

I was just kinda sitting in the theater thinking "THAT'S what all the fuss was about? That is NOT a real character death". I guarantee you she either saw it coming and faked her own death or Moriarty lied to Holmes. At least...I hope so.

We'll see. I admit, I had enough other problems with the movie that regardless, I'm unlikely to watch a theoretical third installment.

So yeah, I can see where the trouble lies but I think she'll play a larger role next season.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and hope you're right.

If You Really Enjoyed Sherlock - Any Of The Recent Versions - Do Not Read This

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject