Bla bla bla...

Apr 24

Beeblock Dream Fic: Rooftop Confession -

random-nexus:

image

Title: Rooftop Confession (Also on AO3)
Rating: PG-13
Fandom: Sherlock BBC
Characters/Pairings: Sherlock Holmes/John Watson
Word Count: 2,516
Disclaimer: No claiming, owning, profiting, or stopping.
Spoilers: Yes, for S3, E2 & E3 (tiny, but there)
Warnings: Not really, except -…

Apr 23

[video]

[video]

mid0nz:

MUSIC TO PICTURE: AN INTERVIEW WITH SHERLOCK COMPOSER MICHAEL PRICE by mid0nz

mid0nz:

MUSIC TO PICTURE:
AN INTERVIEW WITH SHERLOCK COMPOSER MICHAEL PRICE
 
by mid0nz

Apr 22

[video]

Maybe I’m an asshole (pretty high probability of yes, I’m not an easy person).

But…

It still gives me the heeby-jeebies, guys.

That’s it.

mid0nz's interview with composer Michael Price -

professorfangirl:

tokyopt:

mildredandbobbin:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

mid0nz:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

mid0nz:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

I thought I reblogged this when it was released but I guess it didn’t go through on my phone? The retweet went through, the Tumblr phone app is terrible. Anyway, in case anyone missed it, mid0nz did a great interview with Sherlock composer Michael Price. Go read it! A bunch of people have…

I’m not sure where to begin. I admire LSiT’s ferocity, gumption and intensity— I really do. But I’ll go on the record as saying that… well… I feel like I need a badge that says “I believe in Michael Price.” He’s a great guy, an honest one, not some “lying liar who lies.” 

About the question of “Mycroft’s theme” you simply can’t get any clearer than this:

Mycroft doesn’t have a theme because we see him more (obviously don’t tell Mark Gatiss this) but we see him more in context of how his character plays against Sherlock and Watson’s, and I think there’s a balance to be found on a scene-by-scene basis and also an overall basis as to how obvious your working is. There’s certain genres of films, Lord of the Rings type films, where it’s a very Wagnerian leitmotif way of working, where literally character X walks on screen and you hear music for character X. We never wanted to be as literal as that with Sherlock, but we wanted to reserve for ourselves the weapon in our arsenal to have tunes that had got emotion and got resonance, and got context with them so that when we needed to we could focus in and play a tune. But if you… I think in the context of this show if everything was literally worked out, it would become too self-conscious. (x)

This sums everything up for me:

MJW: So there’s no nudge, nudge, wink, wink where we can go back later and go, “That was a hint that we missed.”

MP: I think it takes us back again to the fact that music should, or in my opinion, music should be emotionally honest with you as much of the time as it can be, really. That’s when it’s at its best. (x)

Ultimately LSiT and I absolutely couldn’t be farther apart on our views about Sherlock and its creators or our approach to meta. But so what? The conversation is interesting.

#vive la différence!

Just so it’s clear, I think all the showrunners are “liars” in the sense of someone who lies about, say, a surprise party, or a gift that hasn’t been unwrapped yet. It’s a lie told with love, because they don’t want to ruin things for the audience. I don’t think Michael Price is in any way a liar in the sense of being an antonym for a “great guy.” I have huge admiration for Michael Price (and David Arnold), just like I have huge admiration for Moftiss and Thompson, and Cumberbatch and Freeman, and so on. If I thought the show was run by a bunch of people who aren’t great and decent, I wouldn’t enjoy it or have much faith in their vision for the future of the show.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens.

Didn’t mean to imply otherwise— sorry if that wasn’t clear!

Oh, please don’t worry! <3 I was pretty sure you didn’t mean it like that — your response was perfectly polite — it was more for the benefit of anyone else because it’s something that comes up sometimes in asks and whatnot. ilu, no worries. <3 I don’t mind when we disagree on stuff, either, you’re still my hero.

also apologies if something like this posts twice, I tried to post it from my phone and it didn’t appear to post, so I’ve just about given up on the Tumblr phone app. (What kind of world are we living in when I have to get up from bed and open my laptop?)

I love you both: what a wonderful example of polite, intelligent discussion about a nuanced point of fandom. This is how you debate/discuss/clarify/converse positively. You both rock.

Despite the politeness of the discussion, this is a perfect example of when (some in) fandom go too far. When they see subtext everywhere. When they think THEIR logic makes more sense than the ACTUAL logic of the person who ACTUALLY wrote/composed/created the ACTUAL thing.

I say this like a worried friend would (it’s not a nice thing, but I owe it to them to say it anyway), but this is the time to step back and look at the big picture, simplify, heck, take a break even.

Seriously, just… It’s actually this hyper serious arrogant analysis (it’s always “I could be wrong, but…” when you know that’s a false disclaimer, they don’t actually believe they’re wrong) that makes me wary of the Sherlock fandom. The crazy, well, the crazy will always be there, but this? This is something else…

Well now I wouldn’t go that far. For me the basic problem is that we’re using this word “subtext” in two slightly but significantly different ways. LSiT says that Price “does let us know that apparently subtext is a consideration that presumably makes it into the soundtrack: ‘It’s really at that spotting meeting that the subtext and everything that’s going to happen on screen are discussed, and it’s at that point that we can raise any queries with the filmmakers.’” Price is using “subtext” the way I would, as the set of emotional and psychological resonances layered under the literal narrative, the thematic connotations of the plot’s denotations. LSiT seems to use “subtext” as a discrete and determinate secondary meaning encoded in the text, a hidden message that only those “in the know” can accurately decipher. I have a problem with this notion of textual coding, because that turns symbols—which can have many meanings, many resonances—into signifiers, which have single direct signifieds. This bothers me because it suggests that whoever knows the code has final and secure possession of the text’s ultimate meaning, and that anyone who strongly disagrees is either deluded or a liar. I don’t think this is LSiT’s intention. It’s a side effect of the rhetoric. But it tends to limit the text’s possible meanings to an overt one and a hidden one, and that kind of thinking gives this lit geek hives.

That’s an excellent point (and hives is probably right), but that’s not even my problem. My problem is simply when you have a composer acceding to be interviewed (and it’s not a newspaper or like he’s getting paid, it’s a kindness) and to explain how he wrote something and what was behind it, and then somebody else having a different explanation for why he did it, and concluding he is lying or to put it nicely “teasing us”, because that can’t actual be the whole, factual truth, because that doesn’t fit with somebody’s head-goings-on drives me insane.

And this has happened with set design, props, wardrobe and now the music. They are all lying to us, to fool us, because subtext.

This. This to me is scary in a whole different level. It’s too immersive. It’s like you’ve lost a bit (or a lot) of perspective. And maybe that’s fun, for some. But it’s really disturbing to me.

Disclaimer: I am not personally attacking any of the intervenients. They are doing their thing on their blogs (as am I). This is not the first or only time I’ve seen what I’m discussing above. This is merely an example.

Anonymous asked: I'd say you're taking a lot more fun out of the fandom than LSIT. What's it to you if she has theories? You're the one being hateful and judgmental and attacking her. Not nice, not pleasant, not intelligent. Just self-righteous and screechy. Thanks for adding to the conversation.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t adding to the conversation (nor do I want to).

I was merely pointing out an example (the last drop if you will) among many, many, increasingly delusional metas I’ve been seeing around.

And they are making me super uncomfortable in fandom. Perhaps I should be sorry for being uncomfortable. Perhaps you would prefer I’d shut up and leave (ah, the famous inclusivity of fandom, until you say something against the “big fans”), but nope. I’ll just continue being “hateful and judgmental” and “self-righteous and screechy”. But at least I’ll do it in my own blog, and not in anonymous notes. Cheers.

mid0nz's interview with composer Michael Price -

mildredandbobbin:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

mid0nz:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

mid0nz:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

I thought I reblogged this when it was released but I guess it didn’t go through on my phone? The retweet went through, the Tumblr phone app is terrible. Anyway, in case anyone missed it, mid0nz did a great interview with Sherlock composer Michael Price. Go read it! A bunch of people have…

I’m not sure where to begin. I admire LSiT’s ferocity, gumption and intensity— I really do. But I’ll go on the record as saying that… well… I feel like I need a badge that says “I believe in Michael Price.” He’s a great guy, an honest one, not some “lying liar who lies.” 

About the question of “Mycroft’s theme” you simply can’t get any clearer than this:

Mycroft doesn’t have a theme because we see him more (obviously don’t tell Mark Gatiss this) but we see him more in context of how his character plays against Sherlock and Watson’s, and I think there’s a balance to be found on a scene-by-scene basis and also an overall basis as to how obvious your working is. There’s certain genres of films, Lord of the Rings type films, where it’s a very Wagnerian leitmotif way of working, where literally character X walks on screen and you hear music for character X. We never wanted to be as literal as that with Sherlock, but we wanted to reserve for ourselves the weapon in our arsenal to have tunes that had got emotion and got resonance, and got context with them so that when we needed to we could focus in and play a tune. But if you… I think in the context of this show if everything was literally worked out, it would become too self-conscious. (x)

This sums everything up for me:

MJW: So there’s no nudge, nudge, wink, wink where we can go back later and go, “That was a hint that we missed.”

MP: I think it takes us back again to the fact that music should, or in my opinion, music should be emotionally honest with you as much of the time as it can be, really. That’s when it’s at its best. (x)

Ultimately LSiT and I absolutely couldn’t be farther apart on our views about Sherlock and its creators or our approach to meta. But so what? The conversation is interesting.

#vive la différence!

Just so it’s clear, I think all the showrunners are “liars” in the sense of someone who lies about, say, a surprise party, or a gift that hasn’t been unwrapped yet. It’s a lie told with love, because they don’t want to ruin things for the audience. I don’t think Michael Price is in any way a liar in the sense of being an antonym for a “great guy.” I have huge admiration for Michael Price (and David Arnold), just like I have huge admiration for Moftiss and Thompson, and Cumberbatch and Freeman, and so on. If I thought the show was run by a bunch of people who aren’t great and decent, I wouldn’t enjoy it or have much faith in their vision for the future of the show.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens.

Didn’t mean to imply otherwise— sorry if that wasn’t clear!

Oh, please don’t worry! <3 I was pretty sure you didn’t mean it like that — your response was perfectly polite — it was more for the benefit of anyone else because it’s something that comes up sometimes in asks and whatnot. ilu, no worries. <3 I don’t mind when we disagree on stuff, either, you’re still my hero.

also apologies if something like this posts twice, I tried to post it from my phone and it didn’t appear to post, so I’ve just about given up on the Tumblr phone app. (What kind of world are we living in when I have to get up from bed and open my laptop?)

I love you both: what a wonderful example of polite, intelligent discussion about a nuanced point of fandom. This is how you debate/discuss/clarify/converse positively. You both rock.

Despite the politeness of the discussion, this is a perfect example of when (some in) fandom go too far. When they see subtext everywhere. When they think THEIR logic makes more sense than the ACTUAL logic of the person who ACTUALLY wrote/composed/created the ACTUAL thing.

I say this like a worried friend would (it’s not a nice thing, but I owe it to them to say it anyway), but this is the time to step back and look at the big picture, simplify, heck, take a break even.

Seriously, just… It’s actually this hyper serious arrogant analysis (it’s always “I could be wrong, but…” when you know that’s a false disclaimer, they don’t actually believe they’re wrong) that makes me wary of the Sherlock fandom. The crazy, well, the crazy will always be there, but this? This is something else…

Apr 21

justonelasttrick:

things that’s still nibble me a lot…

The last time velvet_mace posted an update for Chameleon was . It’s been soooo long… and… there is actually nothing new on her blog since Sep. 23rd, 2012… which scares me.

Does anyone know if anything happend…?
because.. it’s been nearly 2 years without a word.

btw… does anyone remembers Chameleon?
Because it’s still awesome.

I also worry. If she was writing something else, or not writing, but updating, whatever, it would be fine. I don’t care if she never updates Chameleon again, I just worry if everything is alright.