#working on barn raising 2.0 and having myself a little MOMENT here | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fandomtrash465 · 5 years

Text

Time Fluff: Chapter 3

A/N: Hi lovelies! Sorry that this chapter took a little bit longer to get posted, I just wanted to make sure that this one is really good with the action and everything. I hope that you guys still like it as much as the other two chapters! And special thanks to all of you that commented on my last post, luv you all <3

Summary: Bucky x reader. Bucky and reader have liked each other for a long time but they’re both in denial of the other’s feelings. What will happen when Tony’s new invention accidentally brings 40sBucky and 40sSteve to the present? If this were to go in the actual MCU timeline it would probably be sometime before infinity war and before they actually figured out time travel. And for anytime that 40sBucky or 40sSteve are mentioned I used * to make it less confusing for which Steve or Bucky it is.

Word Count: 1595

Warnings: Like two swear words

Other Chapters: Time Fluff Masterlist

*Howard Stark’s lab, 1943*

“I’d be careful with that if I were you pal, you’ve got no idea what you’re messin’ with over there” Howard says this to Steve when he starts looking around the area at all of the contraptions.

“How do you keep track of all this? Do you even know what everything here is?” Bucky asks while holding up a small metallic object.

“I-“ Howard begins to respond but a faint blue light coming from the wall catches his eye before he can finish his thought. “I guess I don’t?” He cautiously walks toward the wall, gaining the attention of Bucky and Steve.

“What the hell is that?” Bucky slowly reaches out to touch the growing light.

“No, Bucky stop!” Steve shouts and grabs Bucky’s arm, but it’s too late and by the time that Steve had a hold of Bucky the blue circle of light had already sucked them in, and they disappeared.

*Tony Stark’s lab, present day*

“Oh my God! What was that thing!?” Bucky exclaims while trying to catch his breath and takes in his surroundings.

“I have no idea what that was or where we are. What is all of this? This is even crazier that Howard’s lab” Steve gets up from being thrown on the floor, also trying to regain his breath. He starts to hear footsteps coming toward the door, a benefit of the super soldier serum. “I hear someone coming, quick Buck, hide” Bucky runs to grab something that looks like a gun and hides behind a large machine. Steve is just barely able to grab something to defend himself with and hide behind the big object near Bucky before the door to the lab starts to slide open.

*Reader’s POV*

In the middle of having a delicious dinner with the whole team we all heard a loud bang come from the lab upstairs. I took a quick headcount of everyone at the table and noticed the others doing the same, no one was missing so who could have made that noise? “Did we leave something on?” I asked Tony and Bruce in a quieter voice than I normally would have.

“Not that I know of…” Bruce answered cautiously.

“I’ll go check it out” I say and begin to get up when Bucky gently touches my arm.

“I’ll go with you, we’ve got no idea what’s down there” He says and rolls up his sleeves.

“I’ll come too” Wanda adds, knowing that if there is a threat that she will be one of the most powerful people to have up there. We start heading up normally and get quieter as we approach the door.

“Be careful” I whisper as quietly as possible to them. Just before I open the door I hold up my fingers and do a countdown from three down to zero. I push the door open silently and hold out the gun that I almost always have on me. The three of us look around and I notice something off about the time machine, whereas before we only needed one more part now almost the entire thing has been demolished. I suddenly gasp and aim my gun as I see a figure crouching behind one of Tony’s inventions.

“Who are you and what do you want?” Wanda asks calmly when she notices what I have. The figure slowly starts to move to a standing position and I can now see their face.

“Oh my God you freaking jerk. How did you get down here before us?” I ask as I now come face to face with Steve Rogers*. I set down my gun and roll my eyes at his prank even though he for some reason looks confused. I look over to Bucky as he’s been oddly quiet and I notice him staring at a different machine of Tony’s.

“I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about, ma’am” Steve* says politely as if he doesn’t even know me.

“Who’s that?” Bucky asks in a small voice and as the figure comes out he falters a bit because of how shocked he is at staring at himself from 70 years ago, the “other Bucky*” also looks very shocked. My eyes widen and I look between the two of them and Steve* trying to make sense of everything.

“Okay what is going on here?” Wanda looks just as confused as I am, if not more so.

“Friday? Please tell Tony, Steve, Bruce, Natasha, and Vision to come into the lab” I ask Friday without taking my eyes off of Bucky* and Steve*. She doesn’t respond and I figure that that’s because she didn’t want to frighten Steve* and Bucky*, but I knew that she had told the rest of the team because I could faintly hear their rushed footsteps.

“Y/N! Friday told us that you needed us” Steve bursts in, immediately followed by all of the others. He takes a quick inventory of the room and freezes when he sees himself dressed in garments from the ‘40s. “What is this? Who are you?” They ask each other at the same time.

“My name is James Barnes, his is Steve Rogers, but I have a feeling that you already have that figured out” Bucky* says and looks all of us over, I notice his gaze lingering on himself, Steve, and I a bit longer than the others.

Tony comes up behind me and says quietly “I think that the time machine worked” My eyes widen when I finally put the pieces together.

“How did you guys get here?” I ask, now wondering how they would have traveled over without us making anything happen.

“The jerk over here decided to touch this glowing light coming from a wall in Howard’s lab” I can almost hear Tony’s breath hitch at the mention of his dad’s name.

“Alright, well to be safe and make sure that you’re telling the truth I’m going to go set up a lie detection test” Natasha says with her arms crossed and gives me a look that says ‘you owe me an explanation’.

“With all due respect Miss Romanoff, I could do a scan of these two and find out what timeline it is that they are from” Vision suggests while raising a hand to interject.

“That’d work, thanks Vision” Nat responds with a smile and looks relieved that she won’t have to set up an entire interrogation when we all already feel the need to believe the two of them. Vision rises up and starts to visibly scan the pair while they look absolutely terrified, and rightfully so seeing as the craziest thing that they’ve seen science create is Steve.

“Scan complete. Their DNA suggests that they are indeed from 1943 and are telling the truth” Vision sinks back to the floor while giving his evaluation.

I sigh and rub my head for a moment and try to stay calm, especially because both Steves and Buckys look like they’re about to lose it. “Okay, Tony and Bruce? Can you go explain all of this and everything that we were doing to Steve and Buck, our Steve and Buck. Vision, go tell everyone else what’s happening. I’ll explain everything to Nat and then I guess I’ll have to show these two around the compound seeing as with this thing the way that it is they could be here for a while” I say and end with a gesture towards the charred-up time machine.

“That is if you two are comfortable with me showing you around?” I ask Steve* and Bucky* to make sure that they’re at least somewhat okay with how we’re trying to handle this situation.

“Of course, doll” Bucky* says and nods in my direction politely with a small smile and it feels odd to be called ‘doll’ by someone other than the Bucky that I know. I notice Bucky almost glaring at his younger self but I don’t think much of it.

“Okay then. Let’s go people” I say and everyone goes in their respective directions. I pull Nat aside and begin quickly explaining everything to her.

“So, you spent almost two weeks huddled up in this lab figuring out time travel?” Natasha recaps while deadpanning after I finish explaining myself.

“Yeah pretty much” I say cautiously, unsure of how she will respond.

“I honestly don’t know what else I expected. I mean it was you, Tony, and Bruce in here for two weeks, I’m kind of surprised you didn’t get done with this sooner” We both exchange a light laugh “But seriously, be careful with those two, especially with Barnes 2.0, don’t want a jealous super soldier on our hands” She finishes with a wink before walking out and I blush a bit at the thought of being able to make Bucky jealous.

“Okay you two. You have basically no idea what is going on, do you?” I ask while trying to ignore how weird it is talking to my two friends as if we’ve never met before.

“I’ve put together that we somehow time traveled to the future and there is somehow a Bucky and me here that look almost exactly the same as us” Steve* tells me kindly as if he can tell how close I am to freaking out about this whole thing.

“Yeah, and why does future me have a metal arm and looks like he’s homeless?” Bucky* asks curiously with a hint of concern in his voice.

“I’ve got a lot to explain to you guys” I say while looking between them both.

#bucky x reader #bucky barnes x reader #bucky barnes #40s bucky #tony stark #natasha romanoff #40s steve #steve rogers #vision #wanda maximoff #time travel #marvel #avengers #mcu

59 notes · View notes

brilliantorinsane · 7 years

Text

Sherlock Holmes, 1899: Detective 2.0 (Part 1)

Note: As always, please let me know if you want to be tagged or untagged :)

… Look, I said I wasn’t going to write about this one. And I know that it hardly counts as an. ‘obscure’ adaptation, although to be fair it doesn’t appear often in tumblr discussions. But Sherlock Holmes by William Gillette is the first ever licensed Holmes adaptation, so of course I had to read it, and then I had thoughts and—well, here we are.

This is the fourth installment of my series on obscure Sherlock Holmes adaptations. For a master-list of previous write-ups, see this post.

Production and Reception

William Gillette’s Sherlock Holmes exists in two primary iterations. The first is a play released in 1899 (you can read the script here), and the second is a 1916 silent-film starring several of the stage actors, including Gillette as Holmes. This post will discuss the play only; I will review the film in part 2.

The original script for Sherlock Holmes was written by Doyle, but his script was rejected and heavily reworked by William Gillette. Gillette’s script showcases an original plot, although it features Moriarty and Alice Falukner, a loose Irene Adler analogue. Disappointingly, the parallel between Alice and Irene is purely circumstantial: Alice has much of Irene’s courage but none of her active cleverness, and is reduced to a paper-thin damsel-in-distress. This is even more unfortunate given that—contrary to Doyle’s wishes—Gillette makes her Holmes’s love interest, thus initiating the hellish proliferation of Adler/Holmes storylines. So … thanks for that one, Gillette.

The play was wildly successful, and Alan Barns asserts that it has been “crucial to the development of Sherlock Holmes on film … [i]ts impact cannot be overestimated.” Even Doyle appears to have softened towards the play after seeing it performed, and is quoted by Vincent Starrett as saying: “I was charmed both with the play, the acting, and the pecuniary result." Whether Doyle was more pleased by the art or the currency is perhaps unclear.

For myself, insofar as it is the first Holmes adaptation I find this play fascinating; but insofar as it is just one of many retellings, my feelings are mixed. I confess I kept comparing it to Doyle’s stage adaptation of The Speckled Band (you can read the script here and my analysis here), and Gillette’s play seldom looked better for it. I found Doyle’s plot more compelling, his villain more threatening, and his characters more vibrant. All the same I was not bored reading Gillette’s play, got a few laughs, appreciated Gillette’s Watson and was intrigued—if not wholly pleased—by his Holmes.

But I hope you don’t think me terribly petty if I confess that I struggle to entirely forgive Gillette for launching the legacy of Holmes adaptations with a ‘straight’ Holmes.

William Gillette as Sherlock Holmes

There are things I quite like about Gillette’s Holmes. He is deeply composed, but fully capable of action and self-defense. He has plenty of snark, is openly affectionate with his Watson, yet is deeply troubled—he cannot be accused of being without feeling.

Nevertheless, I suspect that he played a large role in establishing the stereotype of the hard-boiled detective, the DFP, the detached and cold-hearted reasoning machine. Gillette consistently leans into Holmes darker and more reserved qualities: his Holmes is almost always composed and never excited—although he is often quietly amused—and there is little sense of his love for an audience. The extremity of his cocaine habit is emphasized, to the point that he is clearly suicidal—an aspect that is belabored rather frequently.

But the thing that really irks me is the case. The case is loosely based on A Scandal in Bohemia, in which Holmes is working for a prince in an attempt to gain incriminating letters/pictures from a woman. Scandal is an anomaly in the canon insofar as Holmes is not strictly on the side of justice—either in the audience’s eyes or his own—and yet goes through with it (x). This is distinctly unusual for a man who ordinarily allows nothing, including the law, to sway him from what he sees as true justice. And yet it is this dark deviation that Gillette chooses as the framework for presenting Holmes to a new and wider audience.

And look—there’s nothing wrong with exploring Holmes’s darker side. But I still struggle with the characterization on two levels:

I’m not saying the persistence of this darker Holmes in public imagination was Gillette’s fault; he’s hardly responsible for all adaptations that followed his. I just … I just would have liked the legacy of Holmes adaptations not to begin with a straight, hard(er)-hearted Holmes.

Frankly, I find the ‘borderline-cruel straight white guy is redeemed because a pretty young girl saw his secret golden heart’ plot infinitely more tired and less compelling than the complex, transgressive, damaged, but deeply kind character Doyle created.

Edward Fielding as John Watson

If Gillette perpetuated some of my least favorite Holmes stereotypes, on the whole the same cannot be said of his portrayal of Watson. Yes, Watson is sidelined to make room for Alice, and like the other characters in the script I found him a bit … flat. But he is never portrayed as a fool, his role was somewhat larger than I expected, his connection to Holmes is palpable, and if I had a checklist of characteristics a good Watson ought to posses, he would do a surprisingly good job checking them off.

The first thing we know of Watson is Holmes’s affection for him. The second is Watson’s protectiveness of Holmes as he expresses his distress over Holmes’s cocaine habit and the danger posed by Moriarty. We also get a sense of Watson’s attraction to danger when he observes, “this is becoming interesting,” as matters become tense.

My favorite moment, however, comes near the end when Watson is alone and two false patients come in, attempting to set a trap for Holmes. Watson not only catches on to their facades immediately, he also notices that the blind had been raised when he briefly stepped out of the room. So thanks to Gillette’s script, we get to see Watson be clever, observant, and a great doctor all at once—a rare occurrence in early adaptations.

As much as I enjoy this scene, however, it also gets at my one major disappointment with Gillette’s Watson: although he is entirely capable, he is never given anything to do. In this instance, when Watson realizes his ‘patients’ are setting a trap he begins to act; but then Holmes appears and takes charge. Later Watson blocks the window and closes the blinds to avoid a signal being sent out to Moriarty—but only at Holmes’s instructions. And this, sadly, is the consistent pattern of the play.

In the end, I was left with a confusing dual sense that on the one hand Gillette seems to have a fairly good grasp of Watson and his capabilities, but on the other doesn’t really seem to know what to do with him. He seems to know that Watson is important, but not how he is important.

So … What About Johnlock?

After everything I’ve said, that’s clearly a hard ‘no,’ right? Well, sort of—they certainly aren’t riding off into the sunset together, but I still find myself with rather too much to say on this topic. To my mind, there are four categories worth touching on: a). The relative strength of the Holmes/Alice relationship vs the Holmes/Watson relationship, b). subtext carried over from Doyle’s stories, c). queer elements of the Holmes/Alice relationship, and d). assorted moments.

a). Holmes/Alice vs Holmes/Watson

Here’s the thing: my complaints about the Holmes/Alice romance aren’t just because Holmes is gay and in love with Watson. They are also because Gillette couldn’t have written more of a dime-a-dozen (+vaguely sexist) hetero romance if he tried. Here is a point-by-point summary of their ‘relationship’:

Holmes is on the point of further stripping agency away from a helpless girl who has been physically and psychologically abused for months.

Alice cries.

Holmes doesn’t do the cruel thing (he’s still planning to do it, but Alice doesn’t know).

They are now in love.

I’m not exaggerating here: in terms of length the above scene is hardly a blip in the play, and yet next time they see each other Alice is saying that if Holmes dies she wants to die too. Yep.

On the other hand, the relationship between Sherlock and Watson is established and their care for one another is palpable. Watson first appears immediately after Holmes refuses to see Mrs. Hudson, clearly wishing to be alone. But then his boy Billy comes up, and this exchange follows:

BILLY: It's Doctor Watson, sir. You told me as I could always show 'im up. HOLMES: Well! I should think so. (Rises and meets WATSON.) BILLY: Yes, sir, thank you, sir. Dr. Watson, sir!

(Enter DR. WATSON. BILLY, grinning with pleasure as he passes in, goes out at once.)

HOLMES (extending left hand to WATSON): Ah, Watson, dear fellow. WATSON (going to HOLMES and taking his hand): How are you, Holmes? HOLMES: I'm delighted to see you, my dear fellow, perfectly delighted, upon my word.

The affection, intimacy, eagerness for one another’s company, and trust evident in these first lines remains throughout the script, and puts Holmes and Alice’s hurried and stilted relationship to shame.

Ultimately Holmes marries Alice and Watson is sidelined, but the relationship between him and Watson remains the more palpable and affecting.

b). Subtext carried over from Doyle’s stories

There are at least two threads that are strongly reminiscent of subtextual cornerstones in Doyle’s canon. Perhaps they are intentional, or perhaps Gillette borrowed them from the stories/Doyle’s original script without reading them the way we do, but they exist nonetheless.

The first is Holmes’s cocaine use. In the canon Holmes occasionally claims that he uses drugs to escape the crushing boredom of inactivity between cases, but The Sign of Four in particular makes it clear that he also uses them for emotional comfort—specifically to cope with loosing Watson to Mary. A similar pattern is evident in Gillette’s play: his Holmes claims that the threat of Moriarty “saves me any number of doses of those deadly drugs,” and yet Watson points out that Holmes has been using the drugs “in ever-increasing doses” despite the fact that he has been engaged in his most all-consuming case—fighting Moriarty—for fourteen months. But the cause of Holmes’s increasing drug use and attendant suicidal depression is far less clear in here than it is in the canon.

Hollow as his semi-frequent ‘because I’m bored’ explanations ring in light of Moriarty, I am inclined to think Holmes is most honest near the end when describing his distress over his treatment of Alice:

HOLMES (turning suddenly to WATSON): Watson—she trusted me! She—clung to me! … and I was playing a game! … a dangerous game – but I was playing it! It will be the same to-night! She'll be there —I'll be here! She'll listen—she'll believe—and she'll trust me—and I'll—be playing—a game. No more – I've had enough! It's my last case!

To me this clearly reads as an ongoing distress which was brought to a head by Holmes’s association with Alice rather than originating with it—“I’ve had enough! It’s my last case” indicates that the dilemma is linked to Holmes’s work as a whole, not the affair with Alice particularly. The surface (and likely intended) reading of this is that the work was a decent antidote for boredom for a time, but was ultimately too empty of real connection to be fulfilling in the long term, resulting in Holmes’s ultimate spiral into depression.

However, it also works surprisingly well for a queer reading: Holmes’s prior life was in some way a facade, “a dangerous game” perhaps involving the ongoing deception of someone he cared about. Interesting ...

A queer reading of his deterioration is further supported by the fact that Watson is married in this story. While we don’t now how long he has been married, one wonders whether his absence might coincide with the increase in Holmes’s drug habits—it seems possible that Gillette recognized the link between cocaine and Watson’s marriage in the cannon and intended committed fans to likewise make the connection in the play.

Another interesting moment comes when Holmes is lamenting ‘the good old days,’ and in theory he is complaining about the un-originality of criminals. But although he begins by speaking of what “I” used to do, later he slips into “we.” Is he really missing the old days of criminal creativity, or is he missing the time when he had a constant companion to share them with?

In short, although Gillette is likely appropriating the cocaine and never-quite-explained melancholy of the canon merely to portray Holmes having a mid-life crisis, it works surprisingly well—and in my opinion more compellingly—to read it as the fallout from the loss of his companion for whom he had socially inadmissible feelings which kept him playing a duplicitous game. (Unfortunately the side-effect of this reading might be that the solution is for Holmes to step out of the ‘dangerous game,’ leaving his old life in Baker Street in literal ashes, and into the clear light of a heterosexual relationship, which is, uh … Wrong).

One other brief matter of note: to my great amusement this play also joins canon in playing the game of the vanishing wife. Watson has scarcely entered the story before Holmes comments on Mary’s (timely as ever) absence on “a little visit,” and near the end we discover that Holmes and Watson have planned a trip to the continent (!). How long is the trip? Is Mary coming? Does she have other plans? How does she feel about her husband gallivanting off to another country with a man pursued by a master criminal??? Meh. Who knows.

Miss Plot Device does, however, appear briefly and silently offstage when Watson wants Holmes to peek in at her for a quick lesson on domesticity.

c). Queer elements of the Holmes/Alice relationship

We’ve established that their relationship is as dime-a-dozen and cringey as literary relationships come. However, in the final scenes Holmes has admitted his affection for her to Watson but believes he must set them aside for the following reasons:

HOLMES: That girl!—young—exquisite—just beginning her sweet life—I—seared, drugged, poisoned, almost at an end! No! no! I must cure her! I must stop it, now—while there's time!

And again, when Alice has confessed her love for him:

HOLMES: no such person as I should ever dream of being a part of your sweet life! It would be a crime for me to think of such a thing! There is every reason why I should say good-bye and farewell! There is every reason—

So essentially, he sees his love for almost as some sort of disease, even a crime, something that would endanger the one he loves, that he ought to resist for their sake; only he is quite wrong and that love is in fact the way to happiness for them both … Hmm. Well then.

d). Assorted

There were a few moments in the script which do not fit within a wider thematic arc, but which I couldn’t go without mentioning.

1. Upon Watson’s first appearance, Holmes greets him and then says:

HOLMES: I'm delighted to see you, my dear fellow, perfectly delighted, upon my word—but—I'm sorry to observe that your wife has left you in this way.

Okay, so Mary has only left for a visit and is back the next day, but is it just me or did Holmes make it sound like she’d left Watson for good?? Because if that was intentional, that a first-class Petty Gay antic.

2. The cocaine scene near the beginning ends with these line:

WATSON (going near HOLMES—putting hand on HOLMES' shoulder) Ah Holmes—I am trying to save you. HOLMES (earnest at once—places right hand on WATSON'S arm): You can't do it, old fellow—so don't waste your time.

Partly I’m just struck by the tenderness of the moment, which is heightened by the stage directions. But I also wonder—why couldn’t Watson save Holmes when Alice presumably can? Apparently Holmes needs romantic affection to move forward. If he believed that Watson was capable of offering him that, would Gillette’s Holmes accept it?

3. In a confrontation with the criminals, one of them reveals that they struck Watson at an earlier stage of the conflict. Holmes’s response?

HOLMES (to ALICE without turning—intense, rapid): Ah!

(CRAIGIN stops dead.)

HOLMES: Don't forget that face. (Pointing to CRAIGIN.) In three days I shall ask you to identify it in the prisoner's dock.

Its not necessarily romantic, but I can’t pass over protective!Holmes, especially given its slight Garridebs vibe. I also can’t resist mentioning that this bit all but interrupts the first clearly romantic moment between Holmes and Alice.

4. Near the end, when Moriarty is captured and spewing threats of revenge, he declares that Holmes will encounter his retribution during his planned trip to the continent with Watson. Ever the optimist, Watson suggests that they cancel the trip, but Holmes replies:

It would be quite the same. What matters it here or there—if it must come.

There is nothing strange in the moment; what is curious is that, for all Holmes’s fears about the damage a relationship with Alice might do her, the very real threat of Moriarty is never mentioned. Realistically this is likely a bit of sloppy writing, and yet the resultant image of an omnipotent web (and yes, the spider’s web metaphor is used for Moriarty in the play) which will inescapably pursue Holmes and Watson wherever they flee and yet leaves the appropriately heterosexual Holmes at Alice alone is, um, Really Something.

5. Finally, as I wrap up I cannot resist calling your attention to a number of lines and stage directions which are (almost definitely) meaningless in context, but out of context are too delightfully gay to ignore. Here they are, presented entirely without context for your viewing pleasure:

HOLMES: Mrs. Watson! Home! Love! Life! Ah, Watson!

HOLMES: I must have that. (Turns away towards WATSON.) I must have that.

HOLMES: (Saunters over to above WATSON'S desk.)

HOLMES: Why, this is terrible! (Turns back to WATSON. Stands looking in his face.)

… I’ll just leave those there.

After everything, the question of whether Gillette might have seen or suspected a romance between Holmes and Watson is unresolved. For myself, I vacillate regularly on how likely I think it is. This excellent post gets into why it is quite likely that Gillette may at the least have seen Holmes and Watson's relationship as a homoerotic (but strictly sexless and ultimately woman-mediated) friendship. Thus at minimum he could have intended to hint at the pain of moving away from such a deeply bonded friendship. From there it is not difficult to imagine the that he could have speculated the possibility that something in their relationship or desires moved beyond what was acceptable in Victorian society. Even if he did there remain two very distinct possibilities: a). That he was secretly supportive and despite protecting himself with a socially acceptable paring tried to hint at the pain of a forbidden love and even queer-coded the heterosexual resolution, or b). That he saw himself as ‘saving’ Holmes from ‘self-destructive game’ of his old love, redeeming him through the all-healing power of heterosexuality (ugh).

On the other hand, there is also a highly eminent possibility that I’m just looking too hard, and nothing I thought I might see was intended to mean anything in that way.

Ultimately, at this stage my only conclusion is that the evidence is inconclusive. But I will say this: regardless of intention, the relationship between Holmes and Watson remains the strongest and most poignant in the play, and faithfulness to elements of the cannon results in moments that sure do make it look like something is up. If nothing else, that made me smile.

Conclusion: Should You Read It?

Well, it depends on what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for a particularly compelling/unique/vibrant take on Sherlock Holmes, or even just a story with a thrilling plot, intriguing concepts, and living characters, this isn’t a bad choice—but you could do better. (This is where I remind you that Doyle’s play, The Adventure of the Speckle Band, is genuinely excellent). But if you’re looking for an entertaining play which also happens to be the first Sherlock Holmes adaptation in existence and which had an enormous impact on every adaptation that came after—then yeah. Go read it. It’s right here! Have fun! And if you post about it, whoever you are, I would deeply appreciate a tag :)

@devoursjohnlock @thespiritualmultinerd @a-candle-for-sherlock @ellinorosterberg @cuttydarke @inevitably-johnlocked @alemizu @astronbookfilms @battledress @disregardedletters @materialof1being @sarahthecoat @spenglernot @authordrawingmusic @hewascharming @infodumpingground @rsfcommonplace @the-elephant-is-pink @johnhedgehogwatson @lokis-warrior-queen @sonnet59 @sherlocks-final-resolve-is-love @artemisastarte @tjlcisthenewsexy @nottoolateforthegame

#william gillette #sherlock holmes 1899 #sherlock film meta #sherlock holmes adaptations #johnlock #sherlock holmes #John watson #Arthur conan doyle

29 notes · View notes

toomanysinks · 6 years

Text

These ad execs have a venture fund they’d like to sell you

Mike Duda comes from the world of advertising. In fact, he spent 13 years at the renowned ad agency Deutsch, becoming the youngest partner in the company’s history until another creative, Brent Vartan, came along and stole the title. Little wonder that in 2010, when Duda struck out on his own to create Bullish (formerly known as Consigliere Brand Capital), he stole Vartan, later making him the firm’s second managing partner.

It isn’t that the two wanted to outgun their former employer exactly. Instead, the idea from the outset was to create an ad agency that also happens to be an investment firm. In a way, they stole a page from many Silicon Valley service firms that, beginning in the go-go dot com era of twenty years ago, worked for pay and, when the right opportunities arose, for equity.

It’s turned out to be a pretty good approach. Bullish, which is based in New York and works on a pay-for-performance compensation model, has managed to sneak checks into some of the biggest consumer new brands out there, including Warby Parker and Peloton and Harry’s and Casper, companies that have happily agreed to include Bullish as a syndicate partner including because of its advertising know-how.

In the meantime, to keep the lights on as those privately held companies have continued to operate privately, Bullish has also managed to land more traditional big-league clients, including Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, Nike and Walmart. It also counted GNC as a client and reportedly turned heads when it dropped it in order to invest $250,000 in the three-and-a-half-year-old vitamin supplement startup Care/of.

With Bullish now contemplating fund two, we decided to sit down with Duda last week to learn more about how the whole things operates, and where he and Vartan are shopping now.

TC: You’d spent your career in advertising. What circles were you traveling in that you were also seeing seed-stage startups — good ones — in need of funding?

MD: It was through outlier circles. Like, Peloton struggled to raise money, so it got104 angels to invest, including high-net worths, and us, who looked institutional, though I laugh at that now. [Founder and CEO John Foley] didn’t know how to play the VC game. He’d been the president of Barnes & Noble and he had this idea that people thought was crazy. He had a PPM for his fundraise — he didn’t have the [traditional] ten-page PowerPoint. So a lot of people in New York passed, and those same people now funding the Mirrors of the world and Tonals of the world.

It was a similar situation with Birchbox. It trouble raising money because its founders are women, and most of the guys they were talking to were like, ‘Well, my wife would get bored of this after a couple of months.’ But the target audience doesn’t have a seven-car garage in Palo Alto. It’s a mom of two in Cleveland who subscribes to the New Yorker.

On the agency side, we worked on Revlon for two years, so we get that a consumer doesn’t have to be like just someone we know. It isn’t, ‘Oh, it’s a product for women; let me ask my wife.’ We actually do focus groups to [find] consumer insights.

TC: So the pitch is that it isn’t just money you’re bringing but a full marketing group, too.

MD: A marketing group with people from places like Deloitte and A.T. Kearney and Goldman Sachs and RBC who try to understand what’s really going on among the says 330 million Americans out there – – not just in New York, San Francisco, L.A. or Boston, which are the hotbeds for consumer investment in VC. We look at stuff that could be disruptive for the normals, which is sometimes unsexy stuff like a stationary bike with a TV.

TC: A $3,000 stationary bike is for normal people?

MD: There were 1.6 million stationary bikes being sold in the U.S. every year [when Foley first began pitching investors]. Harry’s taking on Gillette before Dollar Shave Club came along [is another example]. The jeans I’m wearing are from a company called Revtown in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, founded by Henry Stafford, who was the North American president of Under Amour and [previously worked for both] American Eagle and Gap. So this was a first-time entrepreneur who had corporate experience was paranoid about raising too much money and promising investors too much too soon. And we’re attracted to entrepreneurs who don’t want to raise tons of capital before they build a profitable business.

That’s not the case with all of our investments, obviously. Casper and Peloton have both raised a fair amount of money, but their growth kind of followed suit.

TC: Why jeans?

MD: I think [Stafford[ was kind of ticked off and wondering why do people have to choose from either the Gap or a $200 pair of jeans. He wanted to build a great pair of jeans that sell for under $100 and that he can sell through great advertising. The pair I’m wearing right now is $75 and it’s a great pair of jeans. Not that I have the ability to stretch, but if I could put my foot over my head without them on, I could do it with them on, too, because they’re stretchy and durable and well-made. Also, from an operations from business standpoint, this is an adult who has built up businesses before and brings that sensibility so that we can get the scale right. Though a direct-to-consumer brand, it’s not too precious to go into physical retail earlier, either.

TC: Most direct-to-consumer brands are showing up in the offline world faster.

MD: DTC 2.0 is definitely going to be more about going where your customers are. When Harry’s went into Target, it was a genius move, because there are people in Overland Park, Kansas who may not see its digital banners, but they’re in a Target, and they’re like, ‘That’s new, that’s interesting.’ So it’s another form of marketing.

TC: What about social media? All the platforms are already saturated. Who’s doing really novel things out there, in your view?

MD: I’ll maybe start with the stuff that just annoys us. First, I think a lot of VCs and other people involved with early-stage companies think marketing is a customer acquisition cost and it’s not. If you have to rely on Facebook and Google, you’ll never grow because your [costs] never go down.

When we think of DTC companies, we’re looking for is, what can you do that gets talk value, not just at your initial PR launch but that [produces] advocates in a kind of flywheel talking about you. People do talk about this stuff. People like to be the one to discover something before anyone else and like to talk about it.

TC: What about TV spend? I’m always astonished to see fairly new brands spending what I’d guess is a lot of money on television ads.

MD: With digital marketing, the accountability is not there as much as people thought. And that’s why about a year ago, you started see the [men’s wellness company] Hims start spending $6 million or $7 million a month on TV advertising during March Madness. Was that a flawed strategy? No. TV works. That’s why you see companies that reach a certain size go to TV; it’s like some sort of validation that this a real company. TV is a storefront for companies that may not have one.

TC: I do wonder how these brands, many of which are great, deal with fickle customers. There are some old brands that I will always love — Patagonia, Hermes – – but a lot of newer brands that I love but I will throw over in two seconds for a newer, shinier brand when it also has a compelling product.

MD: It’s more like someone is probably not serving you well enough. They’re letting you forget about them. Is it Amazon’s fault that RadioShack and JC Penny are going out business? Probably not. They weren’t serving the customer. If you build a relationship with your consumer rather than advertising to her, you have a much better chance of keeping that person as a customer longer term. Patagonia makes great stuff, but so do other people. It’s that the company’s values are bigger than the product itself [that keeps people coming back].

TC: You’re going to start raising a fund later this year. How it will it be different than what you put together the first time around?

MD: We undershot our proposition the first time around. Being an executive at an ad agency, I wanted to be more conservative rather than sell the dream and not achieve it. It was actually harder to raise $10 million than what I was told it would have been if I’d been raising $25 million or $30 million. But we wanted to show proof of concept. Now, a lot of people have left the seed and pre-seed area as investors have raised bigger funds and we see a great opportunity, in a world where there is literally trillions of dollars in play, to get in as early as possible, then play pro rata defense [to maintain our stake]. And in our case, we’ll probably offer up later rounds to the [limited partners] who support us.

TC: A lot of seed and pre-seed deal flow comes to investors from Series A investors. Which are those firms in your universe?

MD: By and far, the most helpful firm to us was First Round Capital. Without their time, we wouldn’t be where we are.

I’m dating myself, but back in 2009, they did office hours. They were commercializing this angel VC investing thing. And I went to one of their office hours and [firm founder] Josh [Koppelman] spent 10 minutes with me and gave me his card and it was like a ‘Dumb and Dumber’ moment. I called my wife, and I was like, ‘He’s saying I have a chance!’ Then I flew to San Francisco to do another office hours . . .

TC: You flew cross country expressly for another of these office hours?

MD: Yes. And 78 people showed up. And it was like the land of broken toys. There were older gentlemen in three-piece suits, and a 19-year-old guy who showed up with a Rock’em Sock’em Robot and people who flew in from San Diego and Portland. And they just gave every one 10 minutes and I was like, ‘Here’s our proposition. It’s a marketing agency with a fund.’

And 75 of of the 78 people got 10 minutes, and two got 30 minutes, and one of them — me — got an hour and a half with Chris Fralic and Kent Goldman, who were kind enough to spend time with someone who kind of wanted to do what they do in a different way. Really, they’re the ones who gave me the confidence that this could work.

Photo above, left to right: Mike Duda, Brent Vartan. Courtesy of Mike Duda.

source https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/19/these-ad-execs-have-a-venture-fund-theyd-like-to-sell-you/

0 notes

fmservers · 6 years