Hobbies and obsessions... mostly obsessions

Like BBC Sherlock, Avengers, The Hobbit and such.Well, I should say movies... (also flowers, handmade dolls and some steampunk stuff find their place here)

My crafts

My flower's pictures



Also wasting my time with...   Go on, ask me   Submit
Reblogged from fuckyeahfightlock
221beemine:

cartopathy:

221beemine:

cumberbear:

fuckyeahfightlock:

So I honestly can’t believe I’ve never seen anyone talking about the art direction of this scene. If I’m repeating something, Ah,well. But I’ve honestly never seen it pointed out that this is the very first time we see Mary, and there are three important things here:
Mary reaches for John’s hand. John takes it, of course—he is used to being offered comfort for his loss, by now—but he is not reaching out to her for comfort in his sadness. She is inserting herself into his grief. Reflexively, he lets her.
We only see the back of her. It’s unusual to introduce a major protagonist any other way than by showing their face pretty much immediately. A major antagonist, however…a baddie…well, they often are introduced in a cloud of cigarette smoke, from a distance, in the shadows, as a mysterious voice on a phone, or in some other way that doesn’t tell us right away who they are. Our first glimpse of Mary gives us only the most vague information about her. Obviously a woman, obviously someone John is close to, as he holds her hand. Other than that…who is she? We don’t know.
Finally, it’s no mistake she is wearing a long, grey coat which flares slightly from the waist, and a blue scarf. But they are paler shades of those colours than Sherlock’s coat and scarf were, because Mary is but a pale imitation of the person we are used to seeing standing beside John Watson (even once, when they were handcuffed together, holding John Watson’s hand in a manner similar to what we see here). Her coat and scarf look cheap, “less than,” and her denim jeans are “less” than Sherlock Holmes’s designer trousers. Her dark hat is a visual echo of Sherlock’s dark hair. This whole shot is set up not only to remind us that Sherlock used to stand here at John Watson’s side, but also that This is some lesser, fake, replacement-Sherlock standing at John Watson’s side, and whether consciously or unconsciously, John has chosen a pale imitation indeed.

I love this, it’s brilliant. Just want to add… the black hat, I’ve never even noticed this before but it completely blocks out every part of her head/face, you can’t even see her hair. To me it’s like a nod to the ‘real’ Mary, the assassin who we see in HLV dressed all in black with a gun to Sherlock. That’s what people do when they do bad things, they dress to disguise and hide themselves so as not to be recognisable. They’ve put her in that staple ‘bad guy’ hat (when they so easily could have had her in something lighter/less threatening) right from the very start. They’re telling us from the first second we see her that she’s not to be trusted. Just brilliant.

So good. All these little hints—even the first time I saw the promo shot of her from before S3, in her purple dress with the black jewels, I thought “what a film noir femme fatale”—the black jewelry really had an impact on character design. Imagine if she had been decked in pearls instead on the night of the engagement scene? These little touches add so much.
If I have any predictions about S4 or the Christmas special, it’s that Mary is going to be dressed in a lot of red, her other major defining color. Gray, red, that smoky purple, black—these are her mystery/assassin colors; blue is in scenes where she is strongly aligned with John (reading the blog/shaving scene; planning the wedding with John and Sherlock).

I like too that it’s the same view of her that Sherlock gets when he walks in on her in CAM’s office. It’s like, when she finally turns around in that scene, she is finally turning around in this scene to look at us. To reveal herself. But here she doesn’t turn around, because here she is still disguised. That means that Mart Morstan, the woman John married, is not in any way the real person who is here. With John she is completely disguised. We don’t see her, we don’t even see a glimpse of who she is with John.We don’t see a glimpse of who she really is until she shoots Sherlock.

Reblogging with caps for @cartopathy’s observation.

221beemine:

cartopathy:

221beemine:

cumberbear:

fuckyeahfightlock:

So I honestly can’t believe I’ve never seen anyone talking about the art direction of this scene. If I’m repeating something, Ah,well. But I’ve honestly never seen it pointed out that this is the very first time we see Mary, and there are three important things here:

Mary reaches for John’s hand. John takes it, of course—he is used to being offered comfort for his loss, by now—but he is not reaching out to her for comfort in his sadness. She is inserting herself into his grief. Reflexively, he lets her.

We only see the back of her. It’s unusual to introduce a major protagonist any other way than by showing their face pretty much immediately. A major antagonist, however…a baddie…well, they often are introduced in a cloud of cigarette smoke, from a distance, in the shadows, as a mysterious voice on a phone, or in some other way that doesn’t tell us right away who they are. Our first glimpse of Mary gives us only the most vague information about her. Obviously a woman, obviously someone John is close to, as he holds her hand. Other than that…who is she? We don’t know.

Finally, it’s no mistake she is wearing a long, grey coat which flares slightly from the waist, and a blue scarf. But they are paler shades of those colours than Sherlock’s coat and scarf were, because Mary is but a pale imitation of the person we are used to seeing standing beside John Watson (even once, when they were handcuffed together, holding John Watson’s hand in a manner similar to what we see here). Her coat and scarf look cheap, “less than,” and her denim jeans are “less” than Sherlock Holmes’s designer trousers. Her dark hat is a visual echo of Sherlock’s dark hair. This whole shot is set up not only to remind us that Sherlock used to stand here at John Watson’s side, but also that This is some lesser, fake, replacement-Sherlock standing at John Watson’s side, and whether consciously or unconsciously, John has chosen a pale imitation indeed.

I love this, it’s brilliant. Just want to add… the black hat, I’ve never even noticed this before but it completely blocks out every part of her head/face, you can’t even see her hair. To me it’s like a nod to the ‘real’ Mary, the assassin who we see in HLV dressed all in black with a gun to Sherlock. That’s what people do when they do bad things, they dress to disguise and hide themselves so as not to be recognisable. They’ve put her in that staple ‘bad guy’ hat (when they so easily could have had her in something lighter/less threatening) right from the very start. They’re telling us from the first second we see her that she’s not to be trusted. Just brilliant.

So good. All these little hints—even the first time I saw the promo shot of her from before S3, in her purple dress with the black jewels, I thought “what a film noir femme fatale”—the black jewelry really had an impact on character design. Imagine if she had been decked in pearls instead on the night of the engagement scene? These little touches add so much.

If I have any predictions about S4 or the Christmas special, it’s that Mary is going to be dressed in a lot of red, her other major defining color. Gray, red, that smoky purple, black—these are her mystery/assassin colors; blue is in scenes where she is strongly aligned with John (reading the blog/shaving scene; planning the wedding with John and Sherlock).

I like too that it’s the same view of her that Sherlock gets when he walks in on her in CAM’s office. It’s like, when she finally turns around in that scene, she is finally turning around in this scene to look at us. To reveal herself.

But here she doesn’t turn around, because here she is still disguised. That means that Mart Morstan, the woman John married, is not in any way the real person who is here.

With John she is completely disguised. We don’t see her, we don’t even see a glimpse of who she is with John.

We don’t see a glimpse of who she really is until she shoots Sherlock.

Reblogging with caps for @cartopathy’s observation.

Reblogged from scaredpotter

kahtiihma:

bless-the-child:

scaredpotter:

Oh, know the perils, read the signs,
the warning history shows,
for our Hogwarts is in danger
from external, deadly foes

And we must unite inside her
or we’ll crumble from within
I have told you, I have warned you…
let the Sorting now begin.

I’ve been waiting for this gifset. look how great is is that the houses are interacting and not everything is so black-and-white-and-we-all-hate-slytherin. I love it. 

INTER-HOUSE FRIENDSHIPS. SLYTHERINS HOLDING HANDS WITH GRYFFINDORS. HUFFLEPUFFS DANCING WITH SLYTHERINS. RAVENCLAWS DRINKING AND STUDYING WITH GRYFFINDORS AND HUFFPUFFS. AHHHH.

(via apitnobaka)

Reblogged from lip-lock

lip-lock:

City Map Illustrations | by Anna Bond of Rifle Paper Co.

Check out these delightful prints of city map illustrations by Anna Bond, co-founder of Rifle Paper Co. I’m a big fan of her work, and I’d gladly add everything on Rifle Paper Co.’s website to my wishlist! Purchase these prints here

(via apitnobaka)

Reblogged from nystic

nystic:

this is important please spread

This is astounding. How can this happen in a country in peace? Where I live police can’t fire their gun if they aren’t shot first… Truth is that there is only a handful of people that have guns here.

(via songofages)

Reblogged from karakamos

Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.

A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.

So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.

“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.

When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.

So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.

In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.

So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.

Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?

[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]

I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.

Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?

She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.

Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.

Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via karakamos)

(via apitnobaka)

Reblogged from tomhiddles
Reblogged from thewinterizzy
Reblogged from schifnimrod

schifnimrod:

galaxy kids

(via songofages)


Reblogged from fyodorpavlov
fyodorpavlov:

The Adventures of Toby: The Tandem Bicycle.

fyodorpavlov:

The Adventures of Toby: The Tandem Bicycle.

(via songofages)