Having defeated the threat of the giant toxic insects, Jo accepts Professor Jones’ proposal of marriage. But this means no more travelling with the Doctor, so the two bid each other a fond farewell. Bittersweet moment from The Green Death, first shown in 1973.

The Doctor Who moment that inspired the ending of The Sign of Three.

(x)

intellectualfangirl

intellectualfangirl:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

violethuntress:

rcertainetymolo:

loudest-subtext-in-television:

like I mentioned this in all the Johnlock stuff buried in M-theory but: if TJLC isn’t real and there is nothing intentionally hidden in the show, then why in TSoT do we get literally a SINGLE frame (that you cannot see without pausing and going frame-by-frame) where there’s an article about a guy…

Interesting tidbit. When do we get to see that? And, wow, how were you meticulous enough to find that?

It IS interesting. And here’s the thing: I love the idea that even this tiny obit in one frame can mean something. Can it mean TJLC? Sure! It can also mean other things other than just being a joke…

But why do any of those things in a single frame no one sees? They could have started with the frame of the first obituary, instead of wedging this in front of it like they did. They made the conscious choice to write this article. In editing, they made the conscious choice to insert this single frame. So, seriously: why bother making those points in a frame no one sees? Why include a frame no one sees unless they’re looking for it?…

(Unfortunately, I’m on my phone so this will be short)

I’m to a point where I assume that setlock people (aka set design, production, costuming) either ship Johnlock or just think it’s funny enough to add in little clues. So, the possibly less fun answer to the question of why this is there is that someone thought it would be funny, or would continue a running theme in the set, or whatever. Again, it comes down to the fact that there are so many people working on Sherlock and yet Johnlock only can truly become canon if certain people make it so.

Shipping theories are Not My Division, so I have no comment to make on any of that right now. BUT I’m seeing this conversation bounce around and I have relevant information… so at some point it seems silly to sit here not mentioning it.

You remember how one of the obits in TSoT mentioned “Benedict and Martin,” and everyone knew that was a reference to our lead actors?

"John Mooney" is the name of one of Sherlock's sound mixers.

If you look through the other obits (someone’s typed a bunch of them up on Livejournal), more of these pop up.

Like “Llio Fflur,” who was a production runner at Hartswood (makers of Sherlock).

And “Charlotte Doreen Knightman nee Lee” — Charlotte Lee works at the BBC.

Not all names may be crew & periphery, but some of the names do look like they could be multiple crew members’ first names smooshed into a first, middle, and last name for a single obit subject.

So whatever these obits are, they are at least on one level pretty certain to have been somebody on the crew having fun with crew stuff. (I mean, even if the audience can pause, see the name “Llio Fflur,” Google it, and figure it out, I think it’s hard to argue that including that reference was really meant for “us.”)

For the rest… I leave you to your deductions. (What a perfect time to be abandoning the internet for a long weekend. Thank you, universe.)

allysongrono
A few times I’ve cried while writing something. And that sequence there [Sherlock’s best man speech], I was blubbing (sic). The sad stuff doesn’t make me cry when I write it, because I know I’m being manipulative. But a simple declaration of devotion in the manner of the man who simply decided, “That is what you do.” He’s read it in a book: “You state how you feel about your friend.” Right. Will do that. And he does it with forensic perfection. So it kills you when it happens. It’s tremendously powerful. And it’s very key to the character of Sherlock Holmes because he has no shame in admitting that he can feel that way. When he likes people, he’s perfectly happy to like them. It’s just that he doesn’t like very many.

Anonymous asked:

>Though I say “almost” because the footage they shot of her on that day has mysteriously never appeared, just like the rest of the fall solution footage they filmed during Reichenbach. It was not used in The Empty Hearse. They filmed false footage so setlock wasn't accurate.

I wasn’t referring to the fake stuff they filmed last year. I was talking about the extra shots they did as they filmed Reichenbach.

We’ve worked out how Sherlock survives, and actually shot part of what really happened.

Steven Moffat, January 2012 (aka just after Reichenbach originally aired)

And we know he wasn’t lying about filming extra stuff, because if he was then Louise Brealey wouldn’t have been there in costume at that time.

Setlock wasn’t setlock back then. Seriously, just try to find as many photos as you can of them filming the original fall for Reichenbach. I bet the total number will be less than the number of photos you can find of just Martin lying on the ground during Empty Hearse filming.

The footage I’m talking about isn’t plastered all over the web, and we currently have no reason to believe any of it was filmed as a red herring. (You could argue that they totally changed their minds about the solution and threw the old stuff out, but given the preponderance of the evidence I say they’re saving it for the true explanation to be seen in Series 4.)