Okay, but can we talk about this one Christmas scene in BBC Sherlock S2E2?

Let's take a look at this one dialog that occured when John needs to stay with Sherlock to comfort him after Irene's death and his girlfriend is upset:

"You're a great boyfriend!" "Okay, that's good. I mean, I always thought I was great-" "And Sherlock Holmes is a very lucky man." "Oh, Jeanette please"

John has his priorities and it's very obvious to everyone involved (even tho I do think that staying with your best friend after the death of a person who was important to him is a valid reason to miss a celebration) I suppose it just was the last straw for her

"No, I mean it. It's heartwarming. You'll do anything for him. And he can't even tell your girlfriends apart!"

The fact that John's love is so unconditional he doesn't even care if Sherlock returns it reminds me so much of this one episode of Doctor Who where River Song compared loving Doctor to loving sun: "You don't expect the sun to love you back!" or something like this, I don't remember the quote and it breaks my heart so much.

(Yes I did a wholock reference, what are you gonna do about it?)

And I also see here how much he tries to move on knowing that sun will not love him back but he just can't.

"No, I'll do anything for you, just tell me what it is, I'm not doing, tell me!" "Don't make me compete with Sherlock Holmes!"

This quote is so important because even Jeanette knows and understands the entirety of the situation John's in.

Compete with Sherlock Holmes is something nobody can do (all his enemies get defeated as we know) but not only villians are a threat, even loved ones will always be on a second place for John. The first place is forever taken by this one nerd not knowing the Earth is moving around the Sun (even tho he's the sun himself).

"I'll walk your dog for you. There, I've said it now, I'll even walk your dog." "I don't have a dog!" "No, because that was the last one- Okay."

Even John himself admits his defeat and realises what he got himself into.

(He did marry Mary eventually, and even tho I love her character, I can't help but see her being another one of "escapes" for John.)

Please don't witchhunt me for "hating on straight ships" or whatever, complain at the directors and writers who made John so unbearably closeted any other of his ships just doesn't sail (pun fully intended).

All I see here is a man desperately stuck in his one-sided feelings and fear of being out, he goes through the struggle a lot of queer people experienced in their life.

Yes, it's been done many times before, but I can't help but say that the production crew are cowards for not making John canonically queer when his writing is so authentic it makes me experience almost physical pain.

Coming back to the topic of Mary btw, I think it was fucking lame in the way her destiny turned out to be. She deserved to have a good life with loving husband and a child, but writers put her in the story just to make John not so openly queer coded (bi and pan people exist btw but it's a topic for another conversation unfortunately) and they just killed her off to "sail" the johnlock ship in the end because they are cowards to actually follow through with queerbaiting (that's what the quotes for, because they haven't actually sailed it). I hate, and I mean HATE when a woman is added to a story just for a man's character development and gets killed off and BBC's Sherlock situation is exactly like this. Why even add her to the story if you don't plan on making her stay with John? The last season makes no sense and makes me so angry I often pretend it doesn't exist "BOO TOMATOES TOMATOES-" (it's the reason I don't want any new Sherlock seasons tbh)

Okay, this post is all over the place, at this point I'm more just ranting instead of doing a proper topic analysis but I hope you liked it anyway. Share your opinion if you have any, ig the Sherlock tag is too full at this point I don't really see people taking about stuff while checking the tag (saying this as if the first season didn't come out like 13 years ago)

Have a good day :)

You’d better have it all swallowed for me this time !

This looks incredible. Who’s excited?!

[x]

Kanera | Spiderman

Trick or Treat -> @laughingphoenixleader

Variant covers by J. Scott Campbell & Elizabeth Torque

Ultimate Spider-Man (2024) #1

"Ultimate Spider-Man" Introduces a Married Peter and Mary Jane

Marvel Comics' Ultimate Universe is shaking things up.

Jonathan Hickman and Marco Checchetto's Ultimate Spider-Man will feature Peter Parker getting his powers at a very different stage in his life. Peter and Mary Jane are married with kids when Peter is bitten by the spider and receives his powers. How will he balance his new super hero responsibilities with his family ones?

Ultimate Spider-Man #1, featuring a main cover by Marco Checchetto, a variant cover by Elizabeth Torque, and a variant cover by Ryan Stegman, goes on sale on January 10, 2024.

(Image via Marvel Comics - Elizabeth Torque's Promo Piece for Ultimate Spider-Man)

Art Credit to Elizabeth Torque

𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

like or reblog if u save

Ultimate Spider-Man #1 (Marvel, January 2024) variant cover by Elizabeth Torque

Bad bitch Squad 💅💋💗

Finally sat down and came up with designs for my version of MJ Watson, Liz Allen, and Gwen Stacy. Honestly pretty proud of how they came out but man finding any designs where they aren't super sexualized was harder than I thought 🙄

I made ttfbs stickers some days ago and I don't have a courage to text to typography to print them im such a social awkward coward

I really like how they turned out - so warm and so bright at the same time, just right

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Review

Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel is a bit of a conundrum for me. I have never been a fan of the novel. I have read it once, but it failed to maintain my interest. Worse, I have never had the urge to read it again. The problem is that it is that sentimental family dramas - at least in print - has never been appealing to me. And this is why I find it perplexing that I have never had any problems watching any of the film or television adaptations of her novel.

One of those adaptations proved to be Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's 1949 adaptation, which was produced and directed by Mervyn LeRoy. It is hard to believe that the same man who had directed such hard-biting films like "LITTLE CAESAR", "I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG" and "THEY WON'T FORGET", was the artistic force behind this sentimental comedy-drama. Or perhaps MGM studio boss, Louis B. Meyer, was the real force. The studio boss preferred sentimental dramas, comedies and musicals. Due to this preference, he was always in constant conflict with the new production chief, Dore Schary, who preferred more realistic and hard-biting movies. Then you had David O. Selznick, who wanted to remake his 1933 adaptation of Alcott's novel. One can assume (or not) that in the end, Meyer had his way.

"LITTLE WOMEN", as many know, told the experiences of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts during and after the U.S. Civil War. The second daughter, Josephine (Jo) March, is the main character and the story focuses on her relationships with her three other sisters, the elders in her family - namely her mother Mrs. March ("Marmee") and Aunt March, and the family's next-door neighbor, Mr. Laurence. For Jo, the story becomes a "coming-of-age" story, due to her relationships with Mr. Laurence's good-looking grandson, Theodore ("Laurie") and a German immigrant she meets in New York City after the war, the equally good-looking and much older Professor Bhaer. Jo and her sisters deal with the anxiety of their father fighting in the Civil War, genteel poverty, scarlet fever, and the scary prospect of oldest sister Meg falling in love with Laurie's tutor.

Despite my disinterest in Alcott's novel, I have always liked the screen adaptations I have seen so far - including this film. Due to the casting of Margaret O'Brien as the mild-mannered Beth, her character became the youngest sister, instead of Amy. Screenwriters Sally Benson, Victor Heerman, Sarah Y. Mason and Andrew Solt made other changes and they left out some of Alcott's memorable plot points from the novel's narrative. But these changes, however regretful a few of them were (namely Jo and Amy's conflict over the former's manuscript) did not have any real impact on Alcott's original story. Ironically, both Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason wrote the screenplay for Selznick's 1933 film. This should not be surprising, considering that this adaptation bears a strong similarity to the earlier version. I thought Mervyn LeRoy's direction injected a good deal of energy into a tale that could have easily bored me senseless. In fact, MGM probably should have thank its lucky stars that LeRoy had served as producer and director.

As much as I admired LeRoy's direction of this film, I must admit there was a point in the story - especially in the third act - in which the pacing threatened to drag a bit. My only other problem with "LITTLE WOMEN" is that I never really got the impression that this film was set during the 1860s, despite its emphasis on costumes and the fact that the March patriarch was fighting the Civil War. Some might say that since "LITTLE WOMEN" was set in the North - New England, as a matter of fact - it is only natural that the movie struggled with its 1860s setting. But I have seen other Civil War era films set in the North - including the 1994 version of "LITTLE WOMEN" - that managed to project a strong emphasis of that period. And the production values for this adaptation of Alcott's novel seemed more like a generic 19th century period drama, instead of a movie set during a particular decade. It is ironic that I would make such a complaint, considering that the set decoration team led by Cedric Gibbons won Academy Awards for Best Art Direction.

I certainly had no problems with the cast selected for this movie. Jo March seemed a far cry from the roles for which June Allyson was known - you know, the usual "sweet, girl-next-door" type. I will admit that at the age of 31 or 32, Allyson was probably too young for the role of Jo March. But she did such a phenomenon job in recapturing Jo's extroverted nature and insecurities that I found the issue of her age irrelevant. Peter Lawford, who was her co-star in the 1947 musical, "GOOD NEWS", gave a very charming, yet complex performance as Jo's next door neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence. Beneath the sweet charm, Lawford did an excellent job in revealing Laurie's initial loneliness and infatuation of Jo. Margaret O'Brien gave one of her best on-screen performance as the March family's sickly sibling, Beth. Although the literary Beth was the third of four sisters, she is portrayed as the youngest, due to O'Brien's casting. And I feel that Le Roy and MGM made a wise choice, for O'Brien not only gave one of her best performances, I believe that she gave the best performance in the movie, overall.

Janet Leigh, who was a decade younger than Allyson, portrayed the oldest March sister, Meg. Yet, her performance made it easy for me to regard her character as older and more emotionally mature than Allyson's Jo. I thought she gave a well done, yet delicate performance as the one sister who seemed to bear the strongest resemblance to the sisters' mother. Elizabeth Taylor was very entertaining as the extroverted, yet shallow Amy. Actually, I have to commend Taylor for maintaining a balancing act between Amy's shallow personality and ability to be kind. The movie also featured solid performances from supporting cast members like Mary Astor (who portrayed the warm, yet steely Mrs. March), the very charming Rossano Brazzi, Richard Stapley, Lucile Watson, Leon Ames, Harry Davenport, and the always dependable C. Aubrey Smith, who died not long after the film's production.

Overall, "LITTLE WOMEN" is a charming, yet colorful adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. I thought Mervyn LeRoy did an excellent job in infusing energy into a movie that could have easily sink to sheer boredom for me. And he was enabled by a first-rate cast led by June Allyson and Peter Lawford. Overall, "LITTLE WOMEN" managed to rise above my usual apathy toward Alcott's novel.