#the three musketeers but Sherlock version

[silvascribble]

Using portrait studies to draw more Sherlock & Co fanart

[denimbex1986]

'Many iconic heroes from literary history, due to their status within the public domain, have been adapted countless times to the big screen. There's bound to be a new film or series about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Zorro, Tarzan, or the Three Musketeers every few years, but there isn’t a character with more screen appearances than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. Many adaptations of the character have tried to replicate the tone intrinsic to Doyle’s original stories, but the BBC series Sherlock made the radical decision to set the character in modern times, completely inverting expectations about his mythology. Although Sherlock did a great job of revamping some of the most iconic stories from Doyle’s era, Andrew Scott’s scene-stealing performance as the brilliant Jim Moriarty instantly ranked among television’s greatest villains.

Andrew Scott's Moriarty Added Legitimate Stakes to 'Sherlock'

What was most remarkable about Sherlock is that, despite minor shifts meant to reflect the new historical setting, the show was relatively faithful to the dynamics at play in Doyle’s original stories. Benedict Cumberbatch’s version of Sherlock is a dogmatic, isolated loner whose expertise at deduction makes him an integral (albeit obnoxious) ally to London’s Metropolitan Police Force, including Detective Inspector Greg Lestrade (Rupert Graves). After pairing with the veteran John Watson (Martin Freeman) to work on the “A Study in Pink” case, Sherlock realizes that the two have a potentially lucrative opportunity to work together in solving London’s most beguiling cases. As entertaining as the chemistry between Cumberbatch and Freeman was, Sherlock needed a legitimately intimidating villain in order to raise the stakes. Without a larger threat at play, Sherlock risked becoming just another network buddy cop mystery series, such as the rival Doyle adaptation Elementary.

A sure way to introduce a greater level of intensity to the series is to add Holmes’ most iconic villain, and the series did a great job at building up to Scott’s first debut as the character. Although initially Sherlock’s brother, the governmental agent Mycroft (Mark Gatiss) appears to be a barrier within his new detective agency, it’s eventually revealed that there are more insidious forces at play. Scott’s version of Moriarty is the show’s only character who is Holmes’ intellectual equal. While many of the most entertaining moments on Sherlock involve Cumberbatch belligerently proving his opponents wrong, Scott’s Moriarty is a man whose motivations he cannot crack. The conversations between Scott and Cumberbatch spark with energy because Holmes can’t be two steps ahead of his new rival; for once, Holmes is the one who is just trying to keep up.

Beyond the intellectual threat that he poses to the titular detective, Scott’s Moriarty has completely opposite morals compared to Holmes. Although Sherlock is often bewildered and willfully ignorant of the patterns of human behavior, he seeks to bridge a great understanding that would allow him to connect with others. None of that empathy is present within Moriarty; he views his intelligence as a commodity and callously disregards anyone who can’t keep up with him. While Sherlock seems to enjoy pointing out the errors in others’ ways, Moriarty takes a sick pleasure in creating scenarios where people are forced to make morally compromising decisions. By showing the negative effects that extreme intelligence can have, Moriarty forces Sherlock himself to find his inner heroism. It’s a level of nuance that simply isn’t present in other depictions of the character.

Andrew Scott’s Moriarty Is the Best Version of the Character

Scott certainly isn’t the first great actor to step into Moriarty’s shows; Jared Harris memorably appeared as the ruthless professor in Guy Ritchie’s action sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. While other versions of the villain tend to emphasize his formal background and influence upon London’s high society, Scott’s interpretation of Moriarty embodies modern fears about internet terrorism and outsiderism. Often concocting various schemes in order to catch the attention of the media, Scott’s Moriarty revels in the opportunity to “play the bad guy” on a public stage. While there are escalating stakes once he begins putting real people in danger, Moriarty can’t help but view his plans as one part of an elaborate game.

Sherlock utilized many of the best works from Doyle’s bibliography as inspiration for Moriarty, with great episodes inspired by the classic stories “The Great Game” and “The Reichenbach Fall.” Despite these classical inspirations, Moriarty’s depiction on Sherlock was retrofitted to reflect Scott’s personality. This is a version of Moriarty who is flamboyant, comically manipulative, and desperately seeking attention; in one instance in the finale “The Final Problem,” he has an entire dance sequence dedicated to Queen’s “I Want To Break Free.” It was a bold reimagining of the character that nonetheless reflected his literary roots as an agent of chaos, leading to Sherlock's Moriarty becoming one of the most defining villains of the modern “prestige television era.”

‘Sherlock’ Suffered Without Moriarty

While the early seasons of Sherlock sparked lively reactions with their creative new versions of classic narratives, the series began to suffer dramatically in terms of quality as it moved forward. Sherlock’s decline can partially be linked to the absence of Moriarty within the story; without a character that showed what Sherlock could become if his more chaotic impulses took over, Cumberbatch’s portrayal felt rather one note. The dark sense of humor that Scott had introduced to the series was also largely absent, leaving Sherlock in an uncomfortable place of self-seriousness.

Although the show attempted to introduce a few new antagonists, there wasn’t another villain on Sherlock who matched Moriarty’s screen presence. Compared to the energetic performance that Scott gave, Lars Mikkelsen’s Charles Augustus Magnussen felt like just another brooding terrorist, and Sian Brooke’s Eurus made for more of a half-hearted tie to Sherlock’s past. While these actors can’t be faulted for their performances, it’s hard living up to the incredible work Scott did in modernizing one of the greatest villains of all time.'

[patriciavetinari]

For the bookworms' ask thing, if you've time...

14. Favorite humor and satire book(s).

37. The only example of your least favorite trope being written in such a way that you enjoyed it.

43. Title of a book you own that's in the worst physical condition you have. Explain what happened to it. Post a picture if you want.

44.The book(s) whose stories have become part of your very makeup.

Hey! Thanks for asking!! Right, let's get to it *rolls up imaginary sleeves*

14. Oh that's easy, Pratchett. Probably can be guessed by long-time listeners of this blog, but yeah, I nothing fantasy is complete without a touch of satire about real world.

37. Ugh. I wouldn't say I have least favorite tropes, really. I mean, the Worst one due to my personal corcumstances should be Fat Character Becoming Thin and Thus Better and I genuinely don't think I've read anyone handle it well or make it not offensive. I wouldn't want this trope to have a good version, it would just feed the sorry fatphobic state of the world. Also not a fan of Nazi Turns Out To Be a Good Guy or such, also can't imagine it working well unless it's a real good spy story like maybe 17 Moments of Spring, but the protag there was never a nazi to begin with.

43. 'Soviet Chess School' is definitely in the worst condition technically. The reason for its condition is that it was printed in 1955.

44. This is a tough one because I've been a voracious reader and went through phasea since I got concious thought. There was a children's book about sex in my childhood that I remember reading at age 6 I think which got me really interested in the topic at that mature age. The drawings were silly but they didn't shy away from depicting two grown people naked and entwined. After that it was greek mythology, Three Musketeers, Sherlock Holmes, Mary Popping, Tim Thaler, Chekhov, Master and Margarita, etc etc etc I'll be here all day. The latest impact was by Lemony Snicket I think.

[agentnico]

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan (2023) Review

Anyone feels that tad bit more sophisticated and intelligent when they watch a film in a foreign language with subtitles on? Nope? Just me? Alrighty then, je suppose que c'est juste moi.

Plot: Young D'Artagnan arrives in Paris, trying to find the attackers who left him for dead. He instead finds a real war brewing and joins the king's three musketeers - Athos, Porthos, and Aramis - as they work to ensure the future of France.

The way I heard of this movie was surprisingly my dad who turned to me and said he watched yet another movie iteration of the Alexandre Dumas classic, and what made this version so fascinating to him was the fact that all the characters are super dirty. And no, not in a sexual way you perverted sods, but in the literal sense. The characters are all greasy-haired with faces covered in mud and sweat. Gone are the trademark bright blue cloaks and instead the musketeers are stuck wearing very old and worn-out grey and brown garments. So of course I wanted to see some super dirty musketeers, so here we are.

There have been many versions of The Three Musketeers adapted to screen. One could say too many. Like Sherlock Holmes and Godzilla (never thought I'd ever reference those two in the same sentence!), these stories have consistently entertained us over and over again, showing us the test of time. Not going to lie, I absolutely adore Dumas' original novel, and as such have seen a few of the adaptations. There were most certainly some terrible ones out there, but also some interesting ones too like the amusing 1978 Soviet comedy-musical version (yep, that's a real thing!), and then there is the 2011 steampunk one with airships and a pompously over-the-top Orlando Bloom which is all good fun. However with D'Artagnan it's the first time where I'm actually discovering a French version, and it would be shocking if the French were to ruin their own classic, right?

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan is a highly entertaining historic romp. It takes a lot from the book but also changes things up quite a bit, resulting in a familiar yet fresh feel to the now-modernized story. The atmosphere is dark and the action was superb. There were many sequences of swordplay where the camera would literally zoom around the battle area in one singular take, frenetically capturing all the detailed fencing choreography, and it was actually really impressive. Director Martin Bourboulon evidently has an eye for action (bet he watched a lot of John Wick and The Raid for his homework) and manages to keep an exhilarating energy through all the epic sequences. There are some very creative choices too such as an impressive sweeping shot of a horse chase over the cliffs of Dover.

The movie also feels very French. It sounds to put it like that, but it is indeed very romantic in a way only the French can be. The central love between D'Artagnan and Constance is innocently adorable and playful, and the love triangle between Louis XIII, his Queen and the Duke of Buckingham was amusing, forgetting the immoral involvement of adultery at play. But yes, it is very romantic, and I haven't seen a good love story at the movies in a while so this was simply delightful.

The cast were all very game here too. Francois Civil as D'Artagnan had the pride, naivety and boyish charm that was befit of the young Gascon. Romain Durin as Aramis found the perfect spirit of the character's duality between faith and seduction with his constant swaying towards the female gender. Louis Garrell and King Louis XIII exhibited the stupidity and blindness of the royal really well, yet also managed to give the character an element of strength which made way for a solid interpretation. Vincent Cassell as Athos was solid, but also made me wonder why such an old actor was cast as Athos? I guess they wanted to physically portray the hero's tortured past, but it just felt strange to have Athos be so old. And then Eva Green - look, I think Eva Green can be very powerful in the right role, but her role here was so minimal that it hardly left an impression. With the Milady sequel already filmed and on the way I expect her to have a bigger role in that where she will most likely be allowed to properly bring her mischievous character to life, but yet for now she has been heavily under-used.

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan is a super enjoyable take on the classic that adds some modern touches of finesse and takes some own liberties to change up the story, however, the result is very entertaining and makes for a swashbuckling historic adventure. And so whilst I await the upcoming sequel, I shall look back at that aforementioned Soviet version, and the amusing song lyrics that go along the lines of the following: "Let's be happy in our time, with the beauty and the goblet, with the lucky blade; While we swing the feathers on our hats; To destiny we'll whisper more than once "merci beaucoup"."

Overall score: 7/10

[babischlong-six]

10 Characters, 10 Fandoms, 10 Tags

10 Characters you love or 10 Characters you want to stab in the eye

Tagged by lovely @gosiksmallspace ❤️

In no particular order, here are ten of my many, many favorites. (See if you can detect a pattern 😂)

1. Luo Fei – Detective L

He's a gentleman, he's a bitch, he's kindhearted, he causes problems on purpose, he respects women, he's a genius, but he's not an arrogant prick, as is the current wont of writers writing smart people. Luo Fei is unselfconsciously weird, ridiculously cute, and has the best sense of humor. Not to mention drop-dead gorgeous and played by Bai Yu. Luo Fei stole my heart from the moment he showed up on screen. Also he gives very bisexual energy.

2. Lan Qiren – Mo Dao Zu Shi

A pissy, honorable, rigidly uptight old man who spends his entire life picking up the slack of his ridiculously messy family. As you may come to find after reading through this list, I am partial to the characters archetype known as a "DILF." He's not even a main character, I'm just viscerally into him.

3. Han Jaeho – The Merciless

He's a terrible person, but GOD, he's irresistibly charming. Han Jaeho does the absolute worst things, but he still manages to inspire sympathy. Is it the magnetic personality? That weird cackle? The way he looks in a suit, covered in blood? The screwed-up, homoerotic relationship he has with the protagonist? We may never know.

4. Elim Garak – Star Trek: Deep Space 9

I can't even express how much this character is beloved by me. He's a fussy middle-aged tailor. He's a terrifying super-spy in exile from a fascist alien superpower. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He's completely devoted to what he believes is his duty. His first appearance onscreen, he makes a blatant come-on at a young man. I love him.

5. Lin Nansheng – The Rebel

The character development on this guy is just *chef's kiss*. He's honorable, but he's a spy. He's idealistic and self-sacrificing, but he's also way too devoted to the "cause," capable of but not wanting to to endanger and sacrifice those closest to him. He is absolutely miserable and incredibly hot – especially later on in the series when he comes into his own.

6. Wu Xie – Tomb of the Sea

Wu Xie specifically as played by Qin Hao has a special place in my heart. He's a bastard in the same way that a cat pushing things off a table is. He's middle-aged and tired. He has intense chemistry with literally anyone he's on screen with. Morally ambiguous with ultimately noble goals, which is so sexy.

7. Tatsu – Way of the Househusband

I fucking love that manga. A former gangster turned househusband approaches the everyday struggles and triumphs of domestic life from a very unique perspective. Also, he can get it.

8. John Watson – The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson

I grew up on this serial, absolutely fuckin love it. Vitaly Solomin's Watson is great – a perfect balance of spirit and enthusiasm, whole being a companion rather than a sidekick to Holmes (like in so many other adaptations). At this point with how I've grown up watching this serial and keep revisiting it, he and Livanov's Holmes feel kinda like my uncles.

9. Milady – The Three Musketeers

My very first literary/movie crush. She's such a cool, compelling villain, and a really interesting character. I was entranced by her as a kid (and confused about why 😂) and I still am. Again, the Soviet Three Musketeers serial version of her is paramount in my heart because it's what I grew up with.

10. Xiao Long Nü – Return of the Condor Heroes

Another early crush. She kicks ass, she's gorgeous, and she's got an outwardly cold personality. Again, young me didn't stand a chance.

Anyways, that's all folks. Tagging @the-marron ❤️ no pressure tho

[scottymcgeesterwrites]

A Guide to the Best Editions and Translations of Some Classic Literature

TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA BY JULES VERNE

IMPORTANT: Whatever you do, DO NOT BUY the edition translated by Lewis Mercier. In fact, NEVER buy any translation of ANYTHING by Lewis Mercier. Mercier’s translation is unfortunately the most “standard” and popular translation. This translation is said to have removed about 20-25% of the original novel, and also removes a lot of Verne’s original meaning. In short, it was a botched translation that somehow became very popular and accessible up until the 1970′s, but always still check for before buying. Barnes and Noble still has his translation lying around for sale.

If the name of the translator isn’t on the cover or back cover of the book, you can check the first few pages where they write the publication history. It might be in fine print.  Frankly, any translation that is NOT by Lewis Mercier is good. The pictures I have attached here are of the edition I bought published by The Franklin Library. It was translated by Mendor T. Brunetti. It also includes the original illustrations, which is cool.

THE HOLY BIBLE

Oof. This one can get really dicey. But I’ll explain it the best I can.  There have been dozens of translations of the Bible, if not hundreds. Not everyone uses the same one, especially evangelical groups like Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These more radical groups have willingly altered the Bible to further their views. So, a Bible that a Jehovah’s Witness holds is not the same Bible that a Roman Catholic priest holds.  The King James Bible (KJV, or King James Version) has often been considered the most popular version of The Bible throughout modern history. Many of the Bible’s most memorable quotes are directly taken from the King James Bible. It’s considered dignified, poetic, and beautiful. It’s also wrong. So very, very wrong. It’s quite possibly the worst translation of the Bible ever made. I grew up in Catholic school and even there we never once touched the King James Bible. The problems with the King James Bible include certain “theological biases” (i.e. implying Jesus appeared somewhere when he didn’t) and all-around bad translations (i.e. it says there were unicorns but the real meaning is supposed to say “horned beasts”) (see ReligionForBreakfast). The other annoying thing about the King James Bible is that quotation marks are not used. This can be very confusing for readers as it becomes unclear who is speaking.  If you’re curious to see how an exact literal translation of the Bible into English goes, check out the Interlinear Bible. It has the original Hebrew and Greek text with the English words underneath (or besides). You will quickly realize just how complicated translating the Bible is, as Hebrew does not have many words. The English prose in the Interlinear Bible therefore can read like gibberish.

If you want to read the Bible with as close to the original intent and meaning as possible while also being readable, then go for the New American Standard Bible. It can still be a bit difficult to read though. The current popular edition is the New Revised Standard Version. This newer edition from 1989 is considered the most neutral of all translations, as it does not hold any denominational bias. The translators even placed gender-neutral words, such as “people” instead of “mankind”. 

FRANKENSTEIN BY MARY SHELLEY

The original 1818 text by Mary Shelley has been given more spotlight as of late. The text that we are most commonly familiar with from 1831 had the story toned down because of course it would be scandalous for a woman to write about such things at the time. Mary Shelley had suffered critical outrage and pressure for editorial changes from her husband Percy for her original vision. For the 1831 edition, she was forced to edit the novel so that Dr. Frankenstein would be a more moral character, whereas the original Dr. Frankenstein in the 1818 text did not go through much moralizing. 

Penguin Books recently released an affordable edition of the 1818 text.

THE THREE MUSKETEERS BY ALEXANDRE DUMAS

There are numerous translations but I want to highlight the one I read by Richard Pevear. This made the story very readable while also remaining faithful to the story. Pevear didn’t censor Dumas’s original meanings at all like previous translations did for their time. I thoroughly enjoyed his translation and was lucky enough to get the hardcover of his first edition back in the day. My mom completely surprised me by buying that book for me, and it ended up happening to be the best translation. The best thing about Pevear’s edition is that it includes footnotes for archaic terms. The original hardcover of Pevear’s edition is difficult to find by now, but his translation has been re-released by other publishers. As of a few years ago, a new translation by Lawrence Ellsworth has been released. I have not read that one but have heard good things. The publishers of the Ellsworth translation have also been republishing ALL of the Musketeer stories to provide a series of consistent editions, which has always been rare for the Musketeer saga. 

HOMER’S ODYSSEY, ILIAD, and VIRGIL’S AENEID

First off, read these epics in verse form. I cannot believe there are editions out that written in prose form. I’m sorry but that should be illegal. I grew up reading Robert Fagles’ translation, which is pretty damn good and is the standard in schools. However, also look for Richmond Lattimore’s translation. Lattimore translated The Odyssey and The Iliad in the original rhythm that Homer intended. Fagles wrote in freeform for the sake of being easier to read. Both translations retain the original meaning, so it’s up to you really what you prefer. As for The Aeneid (Lattimore only translated Greek classics), go with Fagles.

DON QUIXOTE BY MIGUEL DE CERVANTES

Read the translation by Edith Grossman. That’s all I can say. I devoured that book in days. Grossman did to Don Quixote what Pevear did to The Three Musketeers. It’s just that good and readable. Ormsby is the second-best, being the most scholarly of all translations. The translation is the most accurate but the humor can be dry and doesn’t pack the same punch as Cervantes probably intended. The translations to avoid like the plague are by Motteux, Smollett, and John Phillips. SHERLOCK HOLMES BY SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE

Surely, most people reading this have a copy of the Sherlock Holmes tales in one form or another. But which is the best?  Every text out there is the same no matter the publication, but I prefer to read the way it was originally formatted with all the illustrations. The automatic assumption people might have is that all the original Sherlock Holmes stories were published in The Strand Magazine. This wasn’t the case. There were several stories published in other magazines at the time, such as A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four, to name a few. Therefore, if you find an edition boasting to have “all The Strand illustrations” it probably only has the stories that were published in The Strand Magazine. More confusing yet, some editions do say “All the Strand illustrations” but also include A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four.  Keep in mind this magical number: 60 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a total of 56 short stories and 4 novels with Sherlock Holmes. If the copy you are holding does not add up to 60 stories, don’t bother. You might get a copy that comes in two or three volumes. 

[twistedtummies2]

Ele-May-ntary - NUMBER ONE

Welcome – for the last time – to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month of May, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes. I’ve talked about different versions from movies, television, radio, and even video games! And now, the time has come to unveil my number one choice. Now, we’ve covered a LOT of takes on Sherlock Holmes, obviously. I’ve talked about versions that are very popular, and I’ve talked about versions that are more obscure. Who could possibly top all of the different versions I’ve discussed? For some people, this may be a no-brainer…but to many others, it might seem surprising. NUMBER ONE IS…Jeremy Brett.

I recently saw a report from GQ Magazine, of all things, that claimed Jeremy Brett’s Holmes was “vanilla.” I frankly find this statement to be offensive. People are entitled to their own opinions, and I won’t deride anyone for having different favorites from me, but…“vanilla”? That is about as far from Jeremy Brett as you can GET. Until Benedict Cumberbatch came around, for many people, Jeremy Brett was tied only with Basil Rathbone as perhaps the single most definitive take on Sherlock Holmes. Brett starred as the character in the long-running Granada TV series – initially released under the title of “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” but retitled with every other season to sort of emulate the books. He also played Holmes in a play titled “The Secret of Sherlock Holmes,” in which one of his two Watsons, Edward Hardwicke, also appeared. (Hardwicke, for the record, has played Watson more than any other actor; before him, Brett’s Watson was one David Burke, who I actually personally like a little more, but I digress.) What I love about Jeremy Brett’s Holmes is what I love about nearly every Holmes worth their salt: they capture everything about the character, but they also make it their own. And by Gadfrey, does Jeremy Brett make it his own. Brett had a long standing career on television and in theater before playing the character of Holmes. He appeared in various Shakespeare productions, tackled the role of D’Artagnan in “The Three Musketeers,” and even played the character of the lovesick Freddy in “My Fair Lady!” (Yep. Sherlock Holmes was in that movie. As if it wasn’t good enough.) Interestingly, not long before getting the role of Holmes in the Granada series, Brett actually played Dr. Watson in a stage adaptation of “The Sign of Four,” entitled “The Crucifer of Blood.” He was a highly versatile actor, and no two performances were ever quite the same. As Holmes, Brett does something very, very clever. His Holmes has all the qualities you would want Holmes to have, in all of the right places: all of his virtues and all of his flaws. But there’s a different sort of flair Brett has. He doesn’t MOVE like any other Holmes, doesn’t SPEAK like any other Holmes; there’s a very specific and particular way he does things and says things that is entirely his own. His mood swings are extreme, and there are so many little quirks and nuances to what he does it’s hard to keep track of them all. Even when he’s just standing perfectly still, there’s always something going on in his eyes, and when he’s in motion, he’s a whirlwind. His disguises are a bit more transparent physically than some other takes, but the way he actually PERFORMS in those disguises does allow you to believe that others would be fooled. He was just that great an actor. I really feel that Brett captures the freewheeling thought processes of Holmes in a way that others seldom do; in one episode, he moves around a room methodically, totally silent, picking up hints and clues from all over the place…and when he’s done, addresses the room as if he’s been telling them everything. When Watson says to him, “Holmes, can’t you tell us anything now?” he suddenly realizes he’s been pondering everything to himself the whole while, and then begins to detail his findings and theories to the rest of the characters present. He gets so wrapped up in his hunting and deducing that he forgets everything else. I love seeing Brett’s Holmes work, and I love seeing his relationships with the various other major figures of his canon. Jeremy Brett is both the definitive Holmes and yet not definitive at all; he is one of a kind, taking everything you know and love about the stories, and translating it into a totally unique, fascinating performance that captures your attention thoroughly, stealing every scene he has. He captures both the darkness and the light perfectly, and gives us a portrait of the super sleuth no one has truly managed to match up to, in my opinion: neither before nor since. It is no surprise that he is My Favorite Portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Thank you for joining me for Ele-May-ntary! I have another countdown planned for October. See you all in a few months on that front! ;)

[datcloudboi]

List of films turning 10 years old in 2021:

- 50/50

- The Adventures of Tintin

- Arthur Christmas

- Bad Teacher

- Battle Los Angeles

- Bridesmaids

- Captain America: The First Avenger

- Cars 2 (ugh)

- Conan the Barbarian (the remake with Jason Momoa)

- Contagion

- Cowboys & Aliens

- Crazy, Stupid, Love.

- Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules

- Drive

- Drive Angry

- Fast Five

- Final Destination 5

- Footloose (the remake with Miles Teller)

- Fright Night (the remake with David Tennant)

- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

- Gnomeo and Juliet

- The Green Hornet

- Green Lantern

- The Hangover Part II

- Hanna

- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

- The Help

- Hop (that terrible Easter Bunny movie)

- Horrible Bosses

- Hugo

- I Am Number Four

- The Ides of March

- In Time (great concept, so-so execution)

- Insidious

- Jack and Jill

- Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer

- Kung Fu Panda 2

- Mars Needs Moms

- The Mechanic (the remake with Jason Statham)

- Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

- Moneyball

- Mr. Popper's Penguins

- The Muppets (the one with Amy Adams)

- No Strings Attached

- Paranormal Activity 3

- Paul

- Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

- Puss in Boots (the spin-off of Shrek)

- Rango

- Real Steel

- Red Riding Hood

- Rio (that one movie with the blue birds in it)

- Rise of the Planet of the Apes

- The Rum Diary

- Scream 4

- Season of the Witch

- Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

- The Smurfs (the one with Neil Patrick Harris)

- Soul Surfer

- Source Code

- Spy Kids: All the Time in the World (the 4th one)

- Sucker Punch

- Super 8

- The Thing (the prequel to the one that everyone likes)

- Thor

- The Three Musketeers (it's not the Mickey Mouse version; therefore, it's shit)

- Transformers: Dark of the Moon (the 3rd one)

- The Tree of Life

- The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

- A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas

- War Horse

- Winnie the Pooh

- X-Men: First Class

- Young Adult

- Your Highness

[isay]

How many have you read?

The BBC estimates that most people will only read 6 books out of the 100 listed below. Take the list, bold the titles you’ve read completely and italicize the ones you only read partially (watched the movie counts as well as partial).

NB: of course the list has nothing to do with BBC, somebody just made up a click-baity title. But tag game is tag game so here's my list, as requested by @nobeerreviews 

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen 2 Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien 3 Jane Eyre – Charlotte Bronte 4 Harry Potter series 5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee 6 The Bible 7 Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte 8 Nineteen Eighty Four – George Orwell 9 His Dark Materials – Philip Pullman 10 Great Expectations – Charles Dickens 11 Little Women – Louisa M Alcott 12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles – Thomas Hardy 13 Catch 22 – Joseph Heller 14 Complete Works of Shakespeare  15 Rebecca – Daphne Du Maurier 16 The Hobbit – JRR Tolkien 17 Birdsong – Sebastian Faulks 18 Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger 19 The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffeneger 20 Middlemarch – George Eliot 21 Gone With The Wind – Margaret Mitchell 22 The Great Gatsby – F Scott Fitzgerald 23 Bleak House – Charles Dickens 24 War and Peace – Leo Tolstoy (the recent BBC adaptation is thoroughly recommended) 25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams 26 Brideshead Revisited – Evelyn Waugh 27 Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky 28 Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck 29 Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll 30 The Wind in the Willows – Kenneth Grahame 31 Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy (the Garbo version is great) 32 David Copperfield – Charles Dickens 33 Chronicles of Narnia – CS Lewis 34 Emma – Jane Austen (Clueless is better) 35 Persuasion – Jane Austen 36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe – CS Lewis 37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini 38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres (I really should watch the film as it has Oscar winner Nic Cage in the lead) 39 Memoirs of a Geisha – Arthur Golden 40 Winnie the Pooh – AA Milne 41 Animal Farm – George Orwell 42 The Da Vinci Code – Dan Brown 43 One Hundred Years of Solitude – Gabriel Garcia Marquez 44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney – John Irving 45 The Woman in White – Wilkie Collins 46 Anne of Green Gables – LM Montgomery 47 Far From The Madding Crowd – Thomas Hardy 48 The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood 49 Lord of the Flies – William Golding 50 Atonement – Ian McEwan 51 Life of Pi – Yann Martel 52 Dune – Frank Herbert 53 Cold Comfort Farm – Stella Gibbons 54 Sense and Sensibility – Jane Austen 55 A Suitable Boy – Vikram Seth 56 The Shadow of the Wind – Carlos Ruiz Zafon 57 A Tale Of Two Cities – Charles Dickens (the Ronald Colman version obvs) 58 Brave New World – Aldous Huxley 59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time – Mark Haddon 60 Love In The Time Of Cholera – Gabriel Garcia Marquez 61 Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck 62 Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov 63 The Secret History – Donna Tartt 64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold 65 Count of Monte Cristo – Alexandre Dumas (Colman again) 66 On The Road – Jack Kerouac 67 Jude the Obscure – Thomas Hardy 68 Bridget Jones’s Diary – Helen Fielding 69 Midnight’s Children – Salman Rushdie 70 Moby Dick – Herman Melville 71 Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens 72 Dracula – Bram Stoker 73 The Secret Garden – Frances Hodgson Burnett 74 Notes From A Small Island – Bill Bryson 75 Ulysses – James Joyce (I made it about halfway through and decided life is just too short) 76 The Bell Jar – Sylvia Plath 77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome 78 Germinal – Emile Zola 79 Vanity Fair – William Makepeace Thackeray 80 Possession – AS Byatt 81 A Christmas Carol – Charles Dickens 82 Cloud Atlas – David Mitchel 83 The Color Purple – Alice Walker 84 The Remains of the Day – Kazuo Ishiguro 85 Madame Bovary – Gustave Flaubert 86 A Fine Balance – Rohinton Mistry 87 Charlotte’s Web – EB White 88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven – Mitch Albom 89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 90 The Faraway Tree Collection – Enid Blyton 91 Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad 92 The Little Prince – Antoine De Saint-Exupery 93 The Wasp Factory – Iain Banks 94 Watership Down – Richard Adams  95 A Confederacy of Dunces – John Kennedy Toole 96 A Town Like Alice – Nevil Shute 97 The Three Musketeers – Alexandre Dumas (the Richard Lester films are truly excellent) 98 Hamlet – William Shakespeare 99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – Roald Dahl 100 Les Miserables – Victor Hugo

64 including partials/movies (which really upped my score) although seeing as it took me about four months to make it through William Gibson’s last novel (thanks 2020/COVID attention span) I have no idea how long it will take me to plough through anything else.

[amachja-moved]

𝚃𝚆𝙴𝙻𝚅𝙴 𝙿𝙴𝙾𝙿𝙻𝙴 𝙸'𝙳 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴 𝚃𝙾 𝙺𝙽𝙾𝚆 𝙱𝙴𝚃𝚃𝙴𝚁

tagged by: @gerichteter​

tagging: @meerkyojin @atenden @aendeious​ @the-cost-of-freedom​ @libartes​ @abritons​ (ok twelve people is hard when you have one brain cell, the community is small and you don’t want to clog people’s notifications by tagging them several times fhbfhb)

ONE ( ALIAS / NAME ): Charline / Cha / Ventium (will probably be changed to Cha for the blogs, much simpler)

TWO ( BIRTHDAY ): December 1st.

THREE ( ZODIAC SIGN ): Sagittarius.

FOUR ( HEIGHT ):  Ongoing debate, somewhere between 180 and 182cm (I relate to Bertholdt’s struggles as the resident bean pole)

FIVE ( HOBBIES ): Writing, drawing, video games, films, hiking.

SEVEN ( FAVOURITE BOOKS ): Frankenstein (Mary Shelley), The Three Musketeers (Alexandre Dumas), The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (Carson McCullers), Life of Galileo (Bertolt Brecht), Faust (Goethe), all of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot (Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie), Writings About Cinema (Henri Langlois)...

EIGHT ( LAST SONG LISTENED TO ): Ella Elle l’a - France Gall (lovely tribute to Ella Fitzgerald).

NINE ( LAST SHOW / MOVIE WATCHED ): Erased (live-action version to compare with the anime).

TEN ( INSPIRATION FOR MUSE ):  I rely quite heavily on canon material (manga and anime) and like to dissect every single tiny detail and extrapolate on them, so I guess that’s my main source of inspiration. For more aesthetic inpiration or general themes pertaining to Sasha, anything nature-related is always a big yes, looking into 19th-20th century history too. I like looking at Sylvia Plath’s poetry, some stuff from Virginia Woolf, Jack Kerouac, Bertolt Brecht and Hannah Arendt for more literary and philosophical inspiration. And Doctor Who. Always.

ELEVEN ( MEANING BEHIND YOUR URL ): I wanted something simple that echoed Sasha’s background as a huntress, but I didn’t want to use the English word because of the DC characters of the same name and to avoid any confusion. I turned to German, and because ‘jaegerin’ was already taken, I went Aesthetics and added an extra i. As for Eld’s blog @seggr​ I read that ‘Eld’ came from Old Norse, so I found an Old Norse dictionary and looked until I found a word I liked, and ‘seggr’ happens to mean ‘hero’ apparently, which sounded appropriate for a member of the Survey Corps.

[musicprincess1990]

Questions About Sherlolly

I was tagged, several days ago (sorry), by @mychakk, and... well, I had a bit too much fun with this. A few of them ran off and dragged me with them, so... yeah, these are more ficlets than headcanons.

Also, I want to tag @writingwife-83, @kietzemaze, @thisisartbylexie, @lilsherlockian1975, and @hobbitsdoitbetter. 😘

1. Coffee shop AU: Who is the barista, and who frequents the coffee shop?

This one always gives me Uni!lock vibes. Molly is the fresh-faced, ever cheerful barista, and Sherlock is the customer. He starts off barely paying attention to his surroundings as he gets his coffee. The first time she sees him, Molly notices the bloodshot eyes and the dark circles beneath them, and being the brilliant pre-med student that she is, recognizes the symptoms immediately. The next time she makes his coffee she writes a little note on his cup: Life is too short to waste. You could do something brilliant with yours.

Sherlock appears the next day, eyes scanning each barista, until he sees the mousy girl with brown hair and a look of recognition on her face. He seems angry, and he demands to know what her “little note” was about. Shyly, but still firmly, she says, “I think you know, or you wouldn’t be here. And I meant what I said. You could be brilliant.”

“I am brilliant.” And then he deduces her. Harshly.

She just stares at him, tears forming, but she doesn’t slap him or run off. Instead, she whispers. “You are brilliant… but think how much more you’d be able to see if you stopped clouding your brain.” This completely shakes him, and he leaves that day without coffee.

She doesn’t see him again for months, and when he comes back, he looks so much better. Dark circles gone, eyes bright and clear, and a healthy tinge of pink to his skin. He walks directly over to her and orders his coffee—“Black, two sugars, please”—and says nothing more. But Molly grins at the gratitude in his eyes, and in the use of the word please. She hands him his cup, with another little note: Told you so, with a smiley face. He meets her eyes, gives her the faintest smile, and says, “Thank you, Molly.”

He ends up coming in every day after that, and… well, you can guess the rest.

2. High school/College AU: Who is the straight-A student, and who’s the back row slacker?

Pfft, this one is obvious. Molly is the hardworking med student, Sherlock slacks off because school is too easy, and too dull, to bother with. But his parents refuse to give him any of the money they’ve set aside for him until he earns a degree, and finds something to do with his life. So he shows up to class, turns in the assignments, and gets the best grades in the class… until Molly shows up.

In advanced chemistry, she beats him by one point. But rather than being annoyed that she did better than him (because really, he wasn’t even trying), he’s intrigued. She doesn’t look like the kind of girl who would be suited for the sciences. She’s all smiles and colorful clothes and quirky habits. He starts watching her during class, her careful note-taking, her rapt interest in the subject matter. He deduces things about her – her father’s death, her mother’s disdain for her field of study, her older brother’s protectiveness, her love for animals, her tendency to trust people too easily – and his interest is piqued even more.

Soon he starts noticing other things about her. The faint hints of red in her hair when the sunlight catches them. The way she gnaws on her bottom lip when she’s thinking deeply. The absent twirling of a strand of hair when she’s bored. She chews gum on the days she hasn’t eaten breakfast, overly worried about her breath. Her hair is usually pulled into a hasty ponytail, but she leaves it down when she has a date. (He ignores the twisting in his gut when he makes that deduction.)

One day, she happens to look back at him, and oh, he tries not to catalogue the exact shade of pink her face turns as she blushes. And suddenly, he realizes he’s in over his head. He tries not to look at her, but she’s like a magnet. And now she keeps looking back at him, and he can see the curve of her small, pink mouth, the light dusting of freckles on her nose, the twinkle in those bottomless brown eyes.

He finally gives in and asks her out on the last day of term. She beams up at him and says, “It’s about bloody time!”

3. Rivals to lovers AU: Who takes their rivalry seriously, and who is half in it just to push the other’s buttons?

I guess I need to write more Uni!lock, because that's what comes to mind yet again! This time, when Molly gets better marks than Sherlock on an exam, he is OUTRAGED. He sulks and pointedly ignores her, until they get paired together for a project.

Molly is shy at first, and apologetic even when she hasn't done anything wrong. He finds it annoying, and tells her as much. She gets mad at him and calls him out for being so horrible to her when he's the one who didn't put in enough effort for the exam.

For reasons neither of them understand, he kisses her. And she slaps him. Then she kisses him back.

After that, she becomes much more confident. She challenges him more than any of his classmates, past or present. Also, she's absolutely adorable when she's cross with him. He begins to think this won't be such a bad arrangement after all.

4. Enemies to lovers AU: Which one switches sides?

Ooh, I'm thinking Revolutionary War. Molly is a nurse in the Colonies, Sherlock is a reluctant red-coat. He gets badly injured in a skirmish, and is one of only four survivors in his regiment. The other three ran before they could be captured, leaving him for dead. And who is the lucky nurse charged with his care? You guessed it!

Molly surprises him by being kind to him, even when he takes pains to belittle and insult her. He flat out asks her one day, why she's being so kind to him, when he's her enemy?

"I do not have any enemies," she replies calmly, tending to the dressings over his wound. "And as of yet, you have done nothing that would cause me to think of you as one."

"Perhaps I will," he counters, "once I am able to stand and find my musket."

She laughs at that. "I did not take you for the sort of man who would care about his own pain when confronting an enemy. If you truly wished us all dead, we would be." Her smiling eyes meet his. "And yet, here we are."

And HOLY SHIT I NEED TO KEEP WRITING THIS.

5. Soulmate AU: Who is eager to meet their soulmate? Who absolutely does not want to meet their soulmate?

Molly loves the idea of having a soulmate, and can’t wait to fall in love with whoever hers may be. She’s a little wary of the timing, however, because she wants to have a career, and worries her soulmate will want to get married immediately and start making babies. Sherlock, on the other hand, resents the little mark on his left shoulder, is determined to make his “soulmate” hate him the moment he meets her, so she won’t want him to marry her and start making babies.

Of course, things don’t go as planned. They meet on Molly’s first day at Bart’s, but they don’t figure out that they're soulmates until much later. When he fakes his death, and Molly has to do his autopsy, that’s when she sees the mark, identical to hers. She’s not surprised, because she’s already in love with him, but she knows his feelings on that subject, so she pretends it means nothing to her.

Then the phone call happens. Oh, the phone call! Sherlock turns up at her flat that night while she’s showering, and she doesn’t hear him pick her lock. He waits in her bedroom, and she comes in, wrapped only in a towel. She screams, only just hanging on to that towel, and then he sees it. He jumps up and turns her to get a better look at it. It'so mistaking it, that’s definitely the same mark. Which means… when she saw his, after he “died,” she knew… and didn’t say anything.

“Why?” he asks on a whisper.

“Because you don’t want it.”

He meets her eyes and says, “I didn’t. Not until you.”

....Fuck, I need to write this one, too.

6. Single parent AU: Which one is the single parent? (Alt. if they’re both single parents: Which one is open to starting a new relationship from the start? Which one is never planning on finding love again…Until they meet the other and are instantly smitten?)

Ooh, my favorite version of this has already been done, at least twice. Parent Trap AU!!! I recommend A Trap of Parental Proportions by 16magnolias, and also Brilliant Beyond Brilliant Idea by OccasionallyCreative. BOTH SO GOOD.

7. Doctor AU: Which one is the long-suffering doctor? Which one is the patient?

Um… this isn’t AU. This is canon. I totally believe Sherlock’s #2 reason for using Molly’s flat as a bolthole is because she patches him up. (#1 reason is because it's Molly, and she calms his mind. And he’ll never admit it, especially not to John, but he rather likes being the big spoon. 😉)

8. Bodyguard AU: Who is the bodyguard? Who are they protecting? Which one is secretly pining for the other?

Once again, this has been done already, masterfully so. I would like to direct you to The Queen’s Man, by @writingwife-83. It’s perfect. Also, MUTUAL PINING ALL THE WAY!!

9. Pirate AU: Who is the pirate? Who is the member of the royal family who did not sign up for this?

Again, obvious. Sherlock is the pirate. Molly is a royal, maybe a cousin of whichever historical monarch you think fits best (I say George III, because after #4, I'm digging the Revolutionary vibes). She gets kidnapped by the dastardly Captain Moriarty, who intends to kill her and frame his rival, Captain Holmes. Sherlock gets hired by his brother, who initially offers a great deal of money, which Sherlock declines. Then he offers freedom, for him to continue being a pirate without government interference. This, Sherlock accepts, and he sets off to rescue the royal damsel.

However, when he finds her, he discovers she is no damsel. She has won over Moriarty’s entire crew, and Moriarty has been marooned. He doubts his rival will stay on the little island they chose for very long. He tells her as much, and offers to help her bring him down, after which he will return her to London.

Of course, by the time they finish with Moriarty, they’ve fallen in love, and she has no desire to go back to her life of excess. Sherlock decides he much prefers the thrill of having to stay one step ahead of the government, and removing that challenge would spoil the fun.

Yep... gonna have to write this one, too.

10.   Childhood best friends AU: Which one was super obviously in love with the other the whole time? Who was oblivious until they were older?

They were both madly in love, and it was obvious to everybody, except them. Neither of them knew how the other felt, and Molly only realized her own feelings when she was 12 or 13, somewhere around there. Sherlock took much longer, refusing to admit it until they were both adults. ALL THE MUTUAL PINING!!

Yep... these bear continued study and attention. I bet I can get a few one-shots out of them at least. 😊

[aion-rsa]

From Lupin III to Inspector Gadget: Examining the Heirs of Arsène Lupin

https://ift.tt/3p5oPe7

This piece contains spoilers for Netflix’s Lupin.

As Arsène Lupin, the gentleman thief created by Maurice Leblanc in 1905, is a renowned master of disguise, it is fitting that he has inspired a number of literary characters to take up his mantle. Arguably the most recognizable riff is Lupin III, a copyright-infringing, quasi-canonical descendant by way of Japanese manga and anime. Yet it wasn’t until Netflix’s new French mystery comedy-drama series Lupin—which reinvented the source material through Omar Sy’s Lupin and the lenses of immigration, racism, and fandom—that readers and viewers have truly been challenged to consider what it means to inherit, whether through blood or through books, an iconic character’s legacy. Consider this a field guide to the many different Arsène Lupins.

What is immediately intriguing about both Lupins is that neither is as white as the top-hatted, monocled thief that Leblanc created over a century ago. Assane Diop (Sy), the charismatic lead of George Kay’s Lupin, is a Senegalese immigrant whose father Babakar (Fargass Assandé) brought him to Paris for a better life. The lethal mix of elitism and systemic racism that they encounter via Babakar’s employers, the Pellegrini family, are what shape young Assane’s life into a revenge narrative, but also become tools in his career as a gentleman thief. Yet even Lupin III, created in 1967 by manga artist Monkey Punch (a.k.a. Kazuhito Katō), is introduced as the French-Japanese grandson of Leblanc’s Arsène Lupin. In the Lupin the Third Part II episode “The Southern Cross Looked Like Diamonds,” which concerns Japanese casualties of the Pacific War, Lupin discusses his dual heritage. Both adaptations add texture to their Lupins’ stories by not allowing them to move through society quite as smoothly as the original French thief.

That said, Monkey Punch’s Lupin III certainly benefits from a fair amount of family legacy by carrying on his grandfather’s and father’s reputation as a world-renowned thief, marksman, master of disguise, womanizer—you name it. He’s almost more of a reincarnation of the original than a descendant, with the only real change being the shift in period from the early 20th century to the swingin’ sixties. Monkey Punch also drew from Lupin III’s contemporary James Bond to enhance some of those darker and more adult aspects in the manga, while basing Lupin’s on-again, off-again romance with bombshell spy Fujiko Mine on D’Artagnan and Milady de Winter’s relationship from Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers.

According to a 1995 issue of Manga Mania, Monkey Punch had initially considered keeping the blood connection a bit more under wraps, having not obtained the legal rights from Leblanc’s estate, but was convinced to embrace the Arsène Lupin connections. While Monkey Punch’s adoption of the Lupin persona wasn’t kosher by copyright standards, it was also very much in the spirit of the character—asking for forgiveness rather than permission—as well as the creator himself: Leblanc borrowed Sherlock Holmes for a few Lupin adventures before Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized, and only then changed the detective’s name to “Herlock Sholmes” for subsequent showdowns. Still, it did eventually backfire for him, though it also led to, fascinatingly, beloved animated character Inspector Gadget (more on that later).

Read more

TV

Lupin Part 2: 2021 Release Confirmed by Netflix

By Kirsten Howard

Perhaps the most beloved iteration of Lupin III is in Hayao Miyazaki’s 1979 film The Castle of Cagliostro. Monkey Punch’s manga cast Lupin III as a rather unsympathetic master thief: callous about his victims, a caddish ladies’ man who often harassed women he saw as little more than sex objects. While the anime quickly established a moral code—stealing from rich people who either deserved it or would not overly suffer for it—it was Miyazaki’s film that gave Lupin III real heart. In rescuing princess bride Clarisse from a Gothic marriage, he displays a surprising sense of chivalry, especially when the plucky girl wants to be his sidekick. Lupin’s silent agony over turning her down lends the otherwise carefree heist film a shocking touch of melancholy, and lays the groundwork for a more well-rounded Lupin III in future outings.

The Lupin III bloodline has extended several generations into the future, though none of these descendants made much of an impact beyond their respective adventures. First there was Lupin III Jr. (yes, that’s his name), the son of Lupin III and Fujiko, who only ever existed in the manga. Elusiveness of the Fog, the nineteenth Lupin III TV special, uses a time machine to jump ahead to 2883 and glimpse Lupin XXXIII, a.k.a. Lupin the 33rd, identical to his green-jacketed ancestor. He gets three whole lines and mostly seems like an excuse to show that thirty generations later, little about the iconic thief has changed.

In between those two there was Lupin the Eighth, would-be star of a 1982 spinoff created in collaboration between Lupin III studio TMS Entertainment and French-American studio DiC Entertainment. The Lupin VIII series would have jumped a conservative five generations ahead, with the familiar crew’s great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren carrying on the same names, traits, and rivalries and romantic entanglements. But when the Leblanc estate got wind of this Japanese/French collaboration showing up on their continent, they put the kibosh on the project; only the pilot was animated, and was shut down before vocals had been recorded.

Because TMS and DiC had already lost their investment, they scrambled to come up with a replacement for the timeslot. And so Inspector Gadget was created, with the trenchcoat-clad cyborg bumbling his way into viewers’ hearts. Despite his complete lack of suaveness compared to any version of Lupin, you could say that, in terms of staying power, Gadget was Lupin III’s true successor.

Yet while Lupin III had every familial and financial resource at his disposal to continue his grandfather’s and father’s work, everything Assane Diop needs to know he learns from a book. The Arsène Lupin books, which Babakar gifts him right before he is framed for stealing the priceless Queen’s Necklace from the Pellegrinis. Babakar’s arrest, guilty plea, and prison suicide leave Assane burdened with a strange inheritance of misfortune, words, and blood money—as Madame Pellegrini (Nicole Garcia) pays for fancy schooling he otherwise would not have been able to afford. Attending a prestigious academy is where he forges friendships with fellow morally gray criminal Benjamin Ferel (Antoine Gouy) and his eventual partner Claire (Ludivine Sagnier) and learns how to code-switch among his peers. 

Presumably, that upbringing creates the scaffolding of connections that allows him to move through high society, but his wealth and prestige in adulthood is all due to Arsène Lupin. Assane studies those books like religious texts, like instruction manuals, like the last connection to his late father. His obsessive fandom provides him the blueprints for foolproof heists that he enhances with his own experiences at playing with disguise. Though he does later employ prosthetics for his appearance as Twitter user Salvator, for the most part Assane doesn’t obscure his face. Instead, he trusts in his marks’ implicit racial biases that they will buy him as a deadbeat dad and immigrant janitor Luis Perenna, then not blink twice when staring him in the face as millionaire Paul Sernine in the course of the same evening. In prison, he literally counts on a white guard’s inability to differentiate between two black men to switch places with a prisoner.

Assane also continues his father’s tradition of gifting the Arsène Lupin books to his own son for his 14th birthday: Raoul (Etan Simon), French-born, mixed-race and equally enamored of the gentleman thief’s adventures. While it’s unlikely that Assane wants his son to make the same dangerous enemies, he clearly wants Raoul to see himself in the character—and to see his father, who understandably has difficulty showing his true self to anyone.

This by-the-book adaptation (Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in 2012) engages with the notion that anyone can embody an iconic character—that their skin color or class upbringing doesn’t have to match the original, that they don’t have to be a blood relation to inherit a persona. For all that Lupin III exists in his own right and will endure as a classic franchise, Assane Diop’s Lupin may be the truer heir to the gentleman thief’s legacy.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Lupin is available to stream now on Netflix.

The post From Lupin III to Inspector Gadget: Examining the Heirs of Arsène Lupin appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2XVYtzq

[lupismaris]

Favourite books, and favourite TV shows!

Thank you!!! Now allow me to scream while I try and pick a couple for each I guess??? Oh lord uhm-

Favorite books is gonna have mostly oldies on it cause I am desperately trying to figure out where to start with new books? So this is gonna sound pretentious probably I'm sorry lol (I am eager and open to any new recs)

Hound of the Baskervilles / homes canon- my favorite book is probably HOB and I go back to the holmes canon a lot as my comfort series. Holmes was one of the first characters I ever related to on a deep level growing up and so it's like a security blanket. I also love how it's able to be analyzed by the queer community in so many ways.

Master and Commander / several of the Aubrey-Maturin novels- I have been working my way through the series this year as a new quarantine hobby/coping mechanism and I genuinely enjoy them so much. I love the nautical backdrop and just how balls to the wall wild things get during the books. They're also much funnier than I remember them being when I was a teenager reading them, so I'm gonna put them on the list.

Lady in the Lake and The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler- shhhhh don't look at me I have a slight weakness for pulp noir detectives

Folklore and the Sea by Horace Beck- I love love love this anthology of sea myths, traditions, and folklore from around the world it's one of the most thoroughly put together collections and I can't get enough of it.

The Three Musketeers by Dumas- I had to read the tiny abridged version as a kid for French class and ended up reading the whole book instead much to my teacher's dismay. Gotta love a bunch of himbos being dramatic and homoerotic. Dumas is also just, one of my favorite ppl I got to cry at his tomb last year in Paris and it was great.

Gay New York by George Chauncey- basically a history book on gay male culture in NYC from 1890-1940, it is one of my favorite historical nonfiction books to read through. It sugar coats absolutely nothing so there's moments that are hard to stomach but it's equally joyous and unapologetic in its discussion of gay life, tradition, and love. I'm hoping to get my hands on "when Brooklyn was Queer" as a follow up.

Tv shows!

Black Sails- I mean [gestures at the whole show] yeah

Wynonna Earp - I am so behind on this one but it is just such good americana monster mayhem with a byronic female lead and lots of wonderfully developed characters. They took a historical legend and built something phenomenal on it, rather than just going the usual route of machismo nonsense.

Bbc The Musketeers- SACCARINE HIMBO GOODNESS with a heavy dose of found family tropes and one of the most fun adaptations tbh the casting was A+++ across the board (capaldi as richelieu was just -chefs kiss-) and while I could nitpick I won't because it never tried to be bigger or more impressive than it was and it's just a damn good time. Also gender envy 101 for me I swear.

In the Flesh- I don't like zombie media, I've never cared about zombie media, but this show fucking killed me. It's probably the only zombie related things I will watch because my god the premise and the philosophy of it is just phenomenal on every level.

Derry Girls- I don't want much comedies these days but my gods does derry girls do my heart good.

Jeremy Brett' Sherlock Holmes- again, my security blanket of a tv show but also one of the best adaptations I've ever seen. I could probably recite every episode but it's just wonderful.

[buzzdixonwriter]

Super Duper Supermen

This will be a long one, so pour yourself a cuppa and settle down.   We may seem to meander, but we’ve got a destination.

. . .

I’m tired of superheroes.

I’m tired of a lot of genre fiction.

Part of the reason is that too much of the current material is ugly and loud, but the real reason is it isn’t fresh, it isn’t fun.

I tried watching The Boys.  I got to the end of the second scene of episode one and realize, “This ain’t for me” and turned it off and went over to YouTube and watched guys build model airplanes.

At least they look like they’re having fun.

. . .

Look, superheroes are a power fantasy and they’re okay for little kids who want to believe there’s always going to be a mommy or daddy who will protect them, but they’re an absurd genre at best and when you start taking them seriously -- and recently even the funny parodies and spoofs take themselves Too Damn Seriously -- they become horrific.

What prompted me to realize this is an article posted on The Vulcan by Abraham Riseman “The Boys Is the End of the Superhero As We Know It.”

Highly recommended, by the way.

. . .

It’s not like Riseman was the first to make this observation.

30+ years ago Gary Groth observed:

“Superman is one version of the hero with a thousand faces -- to employ the title of Joseph Cambell's excellent book on the subject -- and his appeal should therefore not surprise us.  But Superman is a crude version of the hero; if you will, an elementary one.  Unlike his more developed analogues in all the world's great religions, Superman does not offer love or goodwill, self-knowledge or contemplation as keys to man's salvation.  He offers his own physical powers.”

And he ain’t the only one.

Alan Moore recently chimed in:

“They have blighted cinema and also blighted culture to a degree. Several years ago I said I thought it was a really worrying sign, that hundreds of thousands of adults were queuing up to see characters that were created 50 years ago to entertain 12-year-old boys. That seemed to speak to some kind of longing to escape from the complexities of the modern world and go back to a nostalgic, remembered childhood. That seemed dangerous; it was infantilizing the population.

“This may be entirely coincidence, but in 2016 when the American people elected a National Socialist satsuma and the U.K. voted to leave the European Union, six of the top 12 highest-grossing films were superhero movies.  Not to say that one causes the other, but I think they’re both symptoms of the same thing — a denial of reality and an urge for simplistic and sensational solutions.”

. . .

I don’t like cruelty.

I used to enjoy old weird horror films back in the day -- movies like The Reanimator -- because I appreciated their absurdity and never took them seriously.

When the torture porn sub-genre came along, I lost interest in horror films.  

The Babadook is the only modern one I’ve seen in the last 5 years and I enjoy it because like earlier horror films (and here I include both classic Universal / RKO movies and the artistry of Mario Bava and Dario Argento) it’s essentially a very dark fairy tale, not an exercise in cruelty for the sake of cruelty.  

Violence doesn’t turn me off.

Sadism does.

And sadism is all about power and fascism is all about power, so when I remark on modern superhero and thriller and horror stories as being fascist, I know whereof I speak.

. . .

Superhero stories may not necessarily be tales told by idiots, but they are full of sound and fury, and signify nothing.

Ultimately superheroes fail because:

they can’t lose

they can’t win

There is no finality in the superhero genre.  The damn Joker keeps crawling back, Les Luthor constantly schemes, Dr. Doom and Galactus pop up whenever things lag in the sales department.

Superheroes as a genre are failures insofar as they can’t permanently deal with these existentialist threats, nor can they step out of the way to let others deal with them.

Superheroes promise salvation but deliver bupkis, slapping a band-aid on a cancer and telling us it’s all better.

They can’t permanently defeat their greatest threats, yet neither can they be truly harmed by them.

I’ll grant you the occasional Captain Mar-Vel but they are very minor exceptions to the rule.  Gwen Stacy was bumped off in The Amazing Spider-Man #121 in June 1973, first reappeared as a clone in May 1975 then several times thereafter, and most recently shows up as Spider-Gwen in Edge of Spider-Verse #2 (September 2014).  

As Roy Thomas aptly observed:  “In comics they’re only dead if you have a body and even then only maybe.” 

(In fairness, there’s no finality in most formula / genre fiction either, but we’ll get to that in a bit.)

. . . 

Before we delve deeper, let’s be clear as to what we’re discussing when we say “superheroes”.  

They don’t need to possess “powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men”.

As noted above, they just have to be:

always victorious

never in real danger

You can bash ‘em / trash ‘em / slash ‘em / smash ‘em and they still bounce back -- heroically -- to save the day.

Break both legs, riddle them with machine gun bullets, hit them with a car, cave in their skulls with sledgehammers, and yet somehow they summon up the super-human reserves needed to keep in the fight.

Mind you, in the real world there are people who display super-human endurance in horrific situations and not merely survive but go on to achieve incredible success.  They don’t do such things every year (as do heroes in movies), much less every month (comics) or every week (television). They sure as hell don’t make a career out of it.

Let’s veer away from brightly colored naked people flying & fighting to superheroes in a different genre than costumed crime fighters.

Mike Hammer is a superhero.

Sherlock Holmes is a superhero.

Philip Marlow might actually be a literary character.

Look at the criteria:  Can they lose?

Never in Hammer’s case.

Rarely for Holmes (and when he does, it’s always with bittersweet irony).

Frequently enough with Marlowe that one can’t anticipate if any of his stories will end with him victorious (yeah, he solves mysteries, but always at profound personal cost, and in more than one novel he ends up realizing he’s been a sucker all along).

Here’s another example that snaps the dichotomy into ever sharper relief:  

Samuel L. Jackson’s Shaft is a superhero.

Richard Roundtree’s Shaft is just a hero.

Roundtree’s Shaft is aware he can fail.

No “macho bullshit irony” as they say over at the Church of the Sub-Genius.

. . .

Superheroes don’t grow -- they decay.

They never truly use their power for good (because that would involve changing the world) nor do they adequately protect the innocent.

They serve no true function except to entertain and to be exploited.

Series novels and television shows can feature character growth, but the concept has to be baked in from the beginning (Jan Karon’s Mitford series and Armistead Maupin’s Tales Of The City books are two examples that spring immediately to mind).*

More typically, in series fiction the character/s show little actual growth; they are more or less the same at the end of their adventures as they were at the beginning, maybe a little greyer, maybe a little creakier, but essentially the same person.

Sometimes, particularly in military or nautical or police series, they may start out as a callow cadet but soon wise up to the stalwart hero we want to see.

As perfect an example of superhero decay can be found in the Die Hard movies.

The original’s superhero character, Detective John McClane, implausibly goes through a night of hell yet actually shows some character growth:  By the end of the film he’s able to swallow his pride and admit to his wife he was wrong.

A very farfetched movie but an emotionally satisfying one.  We’ll overlook a multitude of injuries that would have rendered him hors de combat in reality in exchange for the movie actually being about something.

All that gets chucked out in the first sequel, Die Hard 2, where the characters are thrown into a contrived situation to mirror the first film without the satisfying emotional growth but with far more ridiculous action;  Die Hard With A Vengeance jettisons McClane’s marital relationship except as an afterthought and ups the absurdity of the story (indeed, it’s best viewed as an action comedy); Live Free Or Die Hard totally trashes all the character growth before it; and A Good Day To Die Hard not only trashed previous character growth but went so badly over the top that it and the star’s aging out hopefully are the one-two punch needed to end the series once and for all.

. . . 

Look at non-superpowered / non-comic book superheroes and see how they fare.

D’Artagnan and the Three Musketeers are superheroes (conversely, Cyrano de Bergerac is not because the focus of his story is on who he is and not the what but the why of his actions; all the cool sword fighting is just bonus material).

Natty Bumpo is a superhero; anybody who can jump into a birchbark canoe from a tree branch 30 feet overhead without crashing through is a superhero because that character simple Can Not Lose.  

For that matter, most 1950s TV cowboys and virtually all Italian Western protagonists are superheroes.

Tarzan is a superhero. 

James Bond is a superhero (the SPECTRE / Blofeld arc in the novels and short stories actually do end up with him going through significant growth and personal change, ending with Smersh brainwashing him and sending him back to assassinate M…but then the British Secret Service intercepts him and a couple of paragraphs later he’s all better and off after The Man With The Golden Gun).

Modesty Blaise is a superhero.

Claire Starling is not a superhero, but Hannibal Lecter is (don’t give me that; even if you’re evil, when you’re the central character of a series of books / movies / TV shows you’re a damn superhero).

They’re all superheroes because they can’t lose and they can’t change their world and more importantly they can’t change themselves.

. . .

There is one exception to the above re superheroes, and that’s in the realm of sci- fi and fantasy stories.

Occasionally we find a character who becomes a king (viz Howard’s Kull) or a demi-god (viz Herbert’s Paul Atreides) and does alter their world for good or ill.

That, of course, is the ultimate power fantasy.

. . .

Fascism focuses on the Will and the Act.

It is a philosophy of movement.

It’s a philosophy that attracts the weak and the sadistic, because it promises protection from and power over others.

It’s a philosophy that actively seeks conflict, not necessarily overt violence, but the promise of same is always there.

. . . 

A brief sidebar to the other side of the comic book spinner rack.

Funny animals are essentially anti-authoritarian.

From Aesop forward to Carl Barks, their characters, filled with all too human foibles, can and do fail.

And when they win?

Ah, then it’s almost never by force or action, but by cleverness.

Funny animals are tricksters, accurately sussing out a situation and maneuvering to gain the best outcome for themselves without obtaining dominance over their opponent.

Bre’r Rabbit and Bugs Bunny.

Ducks Donald, Daffy, and Howard.

Superhero stories seems obsessed with keeping everything orderly and in continuity.

Without continuity, anything goes, and that’s fatal to the superhero trope as it annihilates authority.

Funny animal stories rarely feature continuity and when they do, it’s rarely rigorous.  If Porky Pig needs to be a businessman or a farmer or a studio executive or a traveling salesman, so be it.

He’ll be something else in the next story.

As tricksters, funny animals are bounded by one rule: They may save themselves and seek justice, but they will pay a penalty if they try to use trickery for selfish gain.

Howard the Duck -- “trapped alone and afraid / in a world he never made” -- is just trying to stay survive.

Daffy Duck -- greedy little miser that he is -- inevitably gets it in the neck when he tries to cheat someone.

Donald Duck -- floating somewhere between Howard and Daffy in his motivations -- finds no guarantee of success and reward, yet achieves success often enough to keep striving.  

He may battle mummies or a reluctant coke machine, his stories may take him around the world on an adventure or no further than his kitchen to fix dinner.

It doesn’t matter.

Who he is makes his stories compelling far more than what he does.

He’s not on a power trip.

He doesn’t feel he has to win every time.

And as a result, he has a much richer life than Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark.

. . . 

“So whaddya sayin’, Buzz?  ‘Superheroes is bad’?”

No.

I deny no one their pleasure.

But I also think there are times when we have to demand not just more of creators but of ourselves as an audience with the media we consume.

I only saw the first two scenes of the first episode of The Boys.

That was all it took to convince me not to watch it anymore.

For similar reasons, I have no desire to watch Mad Men or Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul or Game Of Thrones.  

I’ve picked up a strong enough vibe from each to know I’m not going to connect with them.

I’m certainly not saying you can’t enjoy them if you like.

Bu I am saying we’re cheating ourselves by not demanding more.

And until we start demanding more, the studios and streamers are only going to offer us less and less variety.

C’mon, people, we deserve more than that.

  © Buzz Dixon

  *  I’m sparing you a whole long analysis of The Mary Tyler Moore Show because frankly it goes too far afield of this essay’s central thesis and besides I can use it for another blog post in the future.

[vgriffindor]

Currently reading: The Club Dumas by Arturo Perez-Reverte

Chapter One Thoughts

-We begin with a prologue, and a dead body. The investigators at the scene notice a cryptic message: beneath the body, a cheap copy of The Vicomte de Bragelonne lays open to a page marked in red, to draw attention to this quote:

“They have betrayed me,” he murmured. “All is known!”“All is known at last,” answered Porthos, who knew nothing.

-Then, Chapter One opens with Boris Balkan, a rich book collector and literary essayist, who is narrating. He tells us of his meeting with Lucas Corso, a clever and ruthless rare book dealer.

-Lucas Corso is unscrupulous, shrewd, and not what he seems, but he sure does know his fiction.

-Even though Balkin claims we can trust him – can we? He keeps mentioning phrases like, “after it all happened,” and insisting his version of events is true.

-So far, Corso has two tasks. One is to authenticate a chapter manuscript of the “Anjou Wine” from Dumas’ The Three Musketeers that he has acquired (he refuses to say how, only mentions a name: Telleflier.) In addition to this, he is going to travel to Paris and Spain, in order to see whether or not the copy of The Nine Doors he has is the one, only, remaining copy, or a forgery. (It’s an old book, believed to be a manual that instructs the reader to summon the devil, and all the other copies were burned, along with their author, in the Middle Ages.)

-So many squee-worthy moments for readers; this book is truly for book-lovers. Balkin and Corso have an entire conversation about The Three Musketeers, where they discuss some background history on both Dumas and the real-life Musketeers themselves. The chapter is also filled with quotes and references to War and Peace, Sherlock Holmes, Ulysses, Moby Dick, Scaramouche (I haven’t read it,) Watership Down, and Madame Bovary, to name just a few

-It’s dense. A ton of passing, literary references, and a slew of characters all appear within the first chapter. There is a lot to keep track of, and I could barely gather what Corso will be up to.

-Despite being told that he is untrustworthy, and despite his somewhat mercenary attitude, there is certainly something about the enigmatic Corso that pulls you in. Maybe it’s his intelligence, or the fact that he quietly helps a friend in trouble with the police after a gay rights march. His clear passion for literature has me wanting to trust him – after all, how can somebody who has such a love for books be all that bad?

Favourite quote from the chapter:

He was one of those compulsive readers who have devoured anything in print from a most tender age – although it was highly unlikely that Corso’s childhood ever merited the term “tender.”

[eru-duma-blog]

The ‘Chill Fan’ List of Fandom

Just in case anyone wondered what exactly I would be happy to talk about for hours, e.g. my fandoms, then here’s a list which is NOT in order:

Thunderbirds (both Gerry Anderson’s and the new series)

Legend of Zelda (all games)

Pokemon (all games and tv series)

Transformers (yep. All of it)

Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Chat Noir (all episodes)

Lord of the Rings/Hobbit/Silmarillion/basically anything Tolkien (yes.)

Sonic the Hedgehog (games, comics, tv series, movies, you name it!)

Dinosaur King (uh-huh)

Broken Sword (George Stobbart is the sassiest guy I’ve ever known)

Sherlock Holmes (books, movies, tv ser- am I repeating myself?)

Tomb Raider (the original games)

Fruits Basket (all manga, both anime series)

How To Train Your Dragon ( all of it )

Star Wars (I’ve only watched the movies. Need to catch up on the series)

Star Trek (the OG series and the movies)

(Yes, I am allowed to like both!)

Jurassic Park (the movies, the books... yep)

Marvel (and some DC such as Batman, the Flash and the Teen Titans!)

(I said, I AM allowed to like both!)

Attack on Titan (all manga, all anime s- I’m definitely repeating myself!)

Doctor Who (since Christopher Eccelston. Want to watch the OG series...)

The Elder Scrolls (I have been ‘finally awake’ since Morrowind)

Critical Role (Started with Campaign 1. Now we here!)

Time Riders (the books, you know)

Horrible Histories (terrible Tudors, gorgeous Georgians...)

Red Dwarf (the BBC version, obviously)

Disney (I’m the same age as Toy Story 1 )

The Three Musketeers (and D’Artagnan, naturally)

Cells at Work (because I like biology irl)

Geek Out and Chill on the outside. Geek Out and Hype on the inside.

That’s the DaydreamingDuma way of life. ✌️😎