harrenholler:

"There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands."

                                                                              -Steven Moffat [x]

I just want to frame that and hang it on the wall of every Moffat apologist, so they can wake up and look at that every morning. 

soyonscruels:

I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life but at least I didn’t just give Steven Moffat an Emmy

ladysaviours:

joseph fink is not even in the vicinity of fucking around on twitter today

corneliapornelia:

Sherlock: Uncovered

It’s interesting. Also, it’s got such a huge female following. The original [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] stories had a huge female following, which I’d never forgotten, and that’s because the Victorian ladies liked the way Sherlock looked. (Laughs.) So I thought, use this massively exciting, rather handsome man who could see right through your heart and have no interest … of course, he’s going to be a sex god! I think we pitched that character right. I think our female fanbase all believe that they’ll be the one to melt that glacier. They’re all wrong, nothing will melt that glacier.

The Hollywood Reporter Interviews Steven Moffat, 1/1/2014

I’m sorry, the answer you have provided does not compute. Could you mean:

"young women love a thrilling detective show as much as men do"
or
"young women enjoy the (explicitly homoerotic and) incredibly dynamic friendship of a person and his best friend, and how it grows over time"
or
"young women appreciate the visual and mental stimulation of good television programming"

You can also try “young women are not limited exclusively to liking things because they find someone physically appealing,” “young women as a whole do not want to be the one to ‘fix’ an emotionally unavailable sociopathic man, and it is damaging to assume that having those qualities makes someone a ‘sex god’,” or “young women do not imagine themselves with Sherlock, moron, do you even know your fanbase, every square inch of it is covered in Johnlock because women appreciate the interplay between those two characters, not everyone is a goddamned Mary Sue like you, god damn it.

Please try again.

(via thewolf3)

God, he’s such a dick sometimes. *eyeroll*

(via longtimegone)

I’m pretty ambivalent about Moffatt generally, but my God, does he actually hear the words that are coming out of his mouth?

(via mazarin221b)

tbh i think there’s a fair amount of projection going on here. i suspect that steven moffat is actually describing HIS OWN attitude towards female characters, in that his favourite type of female character is one that he’s attracted to. which is why he churns out so many formulaic perky/sexy/feisty ladies for doctor who and sherlock: his one criteria for “appealing female character” is “i think men [like me] would want to bone her”. i mean, he’s literally stated that he only became truly enthusiastic about hiring karen gillan for amy pond when he realised that she was tall and beautiful rather than “dumpy”.

steven moffat assumes that ~all of womankind~ are the same way about male characters as he is about women, so OF COURSE it makes sense that if a male character is popular with female viewers, it must be thanks to a bunch of “attractive” traits that he’s basically just pulled out of his ass to answer interview questions like this. i mean, my god. most “”women”” do not watch sherlock because they think sherlock is a “sex god” who they want to ~tame, they watch it because it’s an entertaining show, the john/sherlock relationship is compelling, and it’s fucking SHERLOCK HOLMES. also, the above commenter is totally right about johnlock. the lack of mary sue fanfic in sherlock fandom speaks for itself. female fans are not projecting themselves into a romance with sherlock — they are interested in THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHERLOCK AND JOHN, be it romantic or platonic.

(via hellotailor)

loryisunabletosupinate:

deducecanoe:

loryisunabletosupinate:

i still think it’s ironic (though telling about society itself) that steven moffat is allowed to judge women on how beautiful they look when he should counting his blessings that anybody lets him near them with everything he’s got going on

Um… there is a reason that Moffat isn’t allowed to go to US conventions any more. I have pics. Let’s just put it that way. He was put on the short leash BEFORE he got involved with Sherlock and had too many shows in his lap.

Whoa what???

YO. whaaaaa???

enigmaticpenguinofdeath:

Snippets from the Sherlock script read-through, series 3 DVD extras.

But as far as I’m concerned, none of this actually trumps Moffat’s single most baffling achievement as a writer, now successfully accomplished in successive seasons: he is better than anyone else I know at taking a Victorian story, translating it into the 21st century, and making it MORE sexist than the original in the process. That’s a pretty impressively abject feat.
Holger Syme, "Steven Moffat Does It Again" (via crimsonclad)
Steven Moffat, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman reply to “How do you feel about the Internet-fandom you have? How do you feel about your fandom? […]”

dudeufugly:

- from the #Applelock panel at 40min

I just needed the entire response from all three of them on my blog, because it is beautiful!

Read More

muchadoaboutbenedict:

Sherlock Panel with the host. [x]

muchadoaboutbenedict:

Sherlock Panel with the host. [x]

He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not. The wonderful drama of Sherlock Holmes is that he’s aspiring to this extraordinary standard. He is at root an absolutely ordinary man with a very, very big brain. He’s repressed his emotions, his passions, his desires, in order to make his brain work better — in itself, a very emotional decision, and it does suggest that he must be very emotional if he thinks emotions get in the way. I just think Sherlock Holmes must be bursting!
Steven Moffat (interview)

Moffat: Also, if you read [The Adventure Of] Charles Augustus Milverton, Dr. Watson in the opening paragraph tells you that he’s about to tell you a porkie. He says, ‘I even now must be very reticent.’ I think what Doyle is hinting at is that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson sat in Baker Street and said, ‘Right, we’re going to have to go and kill him, aren’t we? That’s the only way we can do this.’ So they break in, kill him, and then Dr. Watson writes up a version of the story that puts the murder [on someone else].

Gatiss: They’re hiding in their burglar masks behind the curtain, and this random woman comes and shoots Milverton in the face and then grinds her heel into his face. It’s odd, isn’t it? So I mean really, it’s just an extrapolation of saying, ‘Well, he probably did it, I think.’

Steven Moffat, Empire Interview

…Are you kidding me, Moffat and Gatiss? 

For those who aren’t familiar with the original ACD stories, “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton” is one of the coolest, badass-lady-kicks-ass stories in canon. And here they’ve just decided that the only way that’s possible is that Watson was lying to us.

To recap the story: Holmes and Watson break into Milverton’s estate with the intention of removing the letters that Milverton has on their client, Lady Eva Blackwood. Upon breaking in, they pick the lock of the safe where Milverton keeps his letters for blackmail, and then hide behind a curtain when Milverton himself comes in. Milverton sits down in his chair and reads some legal papers for a while, and then a woman comes to the door, and it becomes evident that the two of them had prearranged this meeting. Milverton understands the woman is a maid who is prepared to sell letters that will incriminate her mistress.

It turns out, though, that the woman is actually one of Milverton’s victims; that he sent the letters he had on her to her husband, and it came as such a shock to the husband that he died of a broken heart. Furious and determined that Milverton will never victimize anyone else the same way again, the woman shoots Milverton and grinds her heel in his face.

At the time, Watson reports, he and Holmes have no idea what the woman’s identity is; at the end, Holmes has an epiphany and the story ends with Holmes showing Watson this:

"…a shop window filled with photographs of the celebrities and beauties of the day. Holmes’ eyes fixed themselves on one of them, and following his gaze I saw the picture of a regal and stately lady in Court dress, with a high diamond tiara upon her head. I looked at that delicately-curved nose, at the strong little chin beneath it. Then I caught my breath as I read the time-honoured title of the great nobleman and statesman whose wife she had been. My eyes met those of Holmes, and he put his finger to his lips as we turned away from the window."

So, let me get this straight. We have Watson telling us a completely believable story where a female character has agency for once and takes care of her own problem (and everyone else’s) by getting rid of Milverton, with perfectly good reason seeing as he’s been blackmailing everyone in town. it makes total sense that he would have shitloads of enemies and that someone would stand up to him eventually, especially if they had nothing left to lose as this woman does, and somehow that’s unbelievable? The only explanation is that Watson must have been lying to us? I’m not saying he would admit it if he and Holmes did commit murder, but the fact that he provided us with an alternative that gives us a woman with agency and an interesting, mysterious backstory makes me think that’s not the case. (Also, I take issue with Moffat’s reading of Holmes as someone who would be totally okay with murder and then letting Watson publish a story about it, but that’s a different post entirely.)

Combined with the fact that Moffat took the joy of Irene Adler beating Sherlock Holmes away from us (and then added insult to injury by having him save her as a damsel in distress), I am just too furious to speak right now. The man is apparently incapable of writing a female character with agency, who steals the spotlight away from Sherlock Holmes, ever. I can’t believe people still claim the man does not have any issues with sexism and misogyny. I absolutely cannot understand it. 

(via mymomoness)

Christ almighty, I wish I hadn’t read that Empire quote. How very, very wrong-headed and upsetting.

(via doctornerdingtonipresume)

Consigning this 100%. I think it’s always interesting to read Watson-as-unreliable-narrator in ACD, but if you have a pattern of doing it in ways that consistently erase female characters (and in this case literally erase, like she didnt exist acc to them), then that seriously needs to be reexamined.

(As for Holmes committing murder, I also agree: no. In both DEVI and 3GAR he implies that if someone were to kill someone he loves (ahem: watson), he would likely take revenge by killing them too, in the heat of the moment. That is very different from planning to kill someone beforehand in cold blood; and especially different from killing someone who hasn’t hurt anyone you love directly.

(via mistyzeo)

#Sherlock Holmes#acd canon#oddly more progressive than Moffat (via adena-k)

not to fuckin mention the story is so much more interesting if you keep the original set up like think of all the opportunities they had with this character potentially they could have even brought irene back and given her the triumph she deserved honestly the series finale was so banal i nearly cried moffat and co must be stopped

(via loryisunabletosupinate)

dex5m:

Ben pouring water for Martin. [X]

notmydate:

The gang at the sneak preview thingy.

Caution, slight spoiler in the video:

[X]