It's It's all about the triumph
of intellect and romance over
brute force and cynicism

awwww-cute:

My friend had her daughters at a zoo when she heard, “Ma’am, there’s a lemur on your baby

lesbipocalypse:

punchdeck:

semideusa-idiota:

Black and white twins 

I didn’t realize this was possible.

YEAH! GENETICS, BITCH!

If you notice, most of their features are the same, the only difference is skin colour (ultra rare genetic twist).

tinalikesbutts:

Fucking kids care more about each other than we do

The Princess Bride, Moffat, and TJLC

loudest-subtext-in-television:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

In my reading, TJLCers!

If you didn’t know, one of Moffat’s favorite movies (and books) is The Princess Bride:

I’d recommend reading The Princess Bride. It’s a wonderful book; it’s about storytelling. It’s supposedly him adapting a story his father used to tell him, for his son — by cutting all the dull bits out, and any kissing, and getting rid of it all.

I think it’s both a wonderful book —and a film, which is a double whammy.

— Steven Moffat (x)

Consider this as a summary of The Princess Bride (which has some of its own parallels with ACD canon):

The audience for the story is a kid who explicitly says he doesn’t want to hear a kissing story; he thinks they’re gross. His grandfather sells him the story by making it sound like an adventure story. As the adventure story goes on, the kid starts shipping Westley and Buttercup and caring a lot about their relationship.

Westley returns from the dead in a disguise and pisses off Buttercup, his true love. She forgives him rather quickly, however. Unfortunately she is engaged to someone else she doesn’t truly love because she thought Westley was dead for years; she says the engagement all happened too quickly. Westley rescues her from a kidnapping plot and fire but then has to return her to fiance, who turns out to not be in love with her at all, but rather is a murderous psychopath who is lying to her as part of an elaborate plot. Buttercup is unaware for a while, however, because her fiance seems so nice. Buttercup has nightmares because she’s in love with Westley but thinks she must marry her fiance. She makes a last-ditch effort to break things off with her fiance and get with Westley. Meanwhile her fiance kills Westley, who comes back via a “miracle” wherein someone asks him what he wants to live for: he awakens gasping “true love.”

At this point the kid REALLY wants Buttercup and Westley to be together, and for Buttercup’s fiance to be killed because he’s so awful: he killed Westley, and has been lying to Buttercup.

Westley manages to outsmart Buttercup’s fiance with the help of some friends. Westley and Buttercup literally ride off into the sunset and, according to the grandfather, the kiss is more passionate and pure than every other kiss ever. By the end of the story the kid is heavily invested in their relationship and wants to hear the kissing part, going so far as to become agitated when his grandfather tries to skip it.

Now reread that, but replace Westley with “Sherlock” and Buttercup with “John.” And substitute “John Watson is definitely in danger” for “true love” as the trigger that brings Sherlock back to life — which, of course, according to TJLCers isn’t much of a substitution at all.

Meanwhile the audience, who would have not willingly watched a romance they perceive to be gross, is taken in by the adventure story facade and gradually comes to root for Johnlock. By the end, they care more that John and Sherlock end up happy together than they care about any particular adventure in the story. Softly, softly, isn’t it?

Also fun: the entire cabbie confrontation in ASiP is an homage to The Princess Bride. Westley engages in a battle of wits with a man over which of two glasses of wine are poisoned: the man has to pick which of the two he’ll drink, and then they’ll both drink their glasses to prove who is smarter. He does this by working through whether it’s a double bluff, a triple bluff, etc.

Scheduled reblog for the afternoon. A couple notes:

Several people have pointed out that the poison comes from A Study in Scarlet, which I apparently wasn’t very clear about because I assumed that was common knowledge; that’s what I was getting at with “The Princess Bride (which has some of its own parallels with ACD canon)”: TPB includes a play on ASiS, which I thought was obvious and thus not the interesting thing about the TPB scene compared to ASiP. But I realize now that’s only probably obvious if you’ve either seen TPB, or perhaps seen it recently: what’s interesting is the scene with the cabbie in ASiP contains elements from TPB that are not in ASiS at all; it is an homage to an homage. Either way, watch TPB and read ASiS and you’ll see that the cabbie showdown scene in ASiP is a very clear homage to TPB in particular. Here are the key things:

  • In ASiS, the cabbie does not offer Holmes the choice between the pills or anything. Holmes just calls a cab and has him arrested; we never see a poison showdown or battle of wits, we only hear the cabbie explain that he offered two pills to his victim. In TPB however, like Sherlock in ASiP, Westley has a poison showdown with Vizzini.
  • In ASiS, the poison choice has nothing to do with proving who is smarter. The cabbie tells his victim, “Let us see if there is justice upon the earth, or if we are ruled by chance.” It is a matter of religion and justice, not wits. In TPB, however, just like ASiP, the choice is explicitly about proving whether Westley is smarter than his opponent. From TPB:

Vizzini: “I can’t compete with you physically, and you’re no match for my brains.”
Westley: “You’re that smart?”
Vizzini: “Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?”
Westley: “Yes.”
Vizzini: “Morons.”
Westley: “Really. In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.”
Vizzini: “For the princess?” [Westley nods.] “To the death?” [Nods again.] “I accept.” [Sheaths dagger.]
Westley: “Good. Then pour the wine.” [Sits, pulls out a small vial, uncorks it, and offers it to Vizzini.] “Inhale this, but do not touch.”
Vizzini: [Sniffs vial.] “I smell nothing.” [Returns vial.]
Westley: “What you do not smell is called Iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.”
Vizzini: “Hmm.”
Westley: [Turns away from Vizzini with the goblets, to pour the poison in. Goblets replaced on the table, one in front of each.] “All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.”

(x)

  • In ASiS, because it’s not a battle of wits, there’s no real talk of getting into the head of one’s opponent and trying to predict their decisions. That would actually seem to go against the cabbie’s aims or whatever in ASiS; it’s important to him that his victim be killed by divine justice. Again, the cabbie just says the line above, and we don’t see any actual scene. However, in TPB just like the cabbie in ASiP, Vizzini talks at great length about getting into Westley’s head to determine whether it’s a bluff, double bluff, triple bluff, etc:

Vizzini: “But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.”
Westley: “You’ve made your decision then?”
Vizzini: “Not remotely. Because Iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.”
Westley: “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”
Vizzini: “WAIT TILL I GET GOING! Where was I?”
Westley: “Australia.”
Vizzini: “Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.”
Westley: “You’re just stalling now.”
Vizzini: “YOU’D LIKE TO THINK THAT, WOULDN’T YOU? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.”

(x)

One cool thing several of you pointed out that I missed, though, is that Mycroft tells us in ASiB that Sherlock always wanted to be a pirate, and Westley was disguised as a pirate while he was dead. :-)

Anonymous: Hello Geny! Is the actor that plays Wilkins in the Dunlop ads the same one that played the Bank of England "boss" in the Fall of the Reichenbach? Or I'm just crazy? lol

dudeufugly:

darnedsock:

dudeufugly:

imageimageIt would seem so, yes!
here is his IMDB - credited with playing the bank director in Sherlock S2 E3
image
good eye, anon! 

Not only that, but he also plays Lord Stanley in RIII with Martin ;D

image

grandmafupa:

Painfully average looking with a great sense of humor and always down to get drunk

chessys:

stop leaking female celebrities nudes and start leaking the sims 4