In which Elle Woods is smarter than Sam Winchester.
If we are going with the premise that Elle will be better than Sam at anything she puts her mind to because she is just that awesome, can you imagine how awesome at hunting, or at least research for hunting, she would be?
Just the thought of Sam’s pout upon meeting her makes me giggle.
I want this crossover at least 90% more than all the other crossovers.
We shall call it Supernaturally Blonde.
Supernaturally Blonde. Yes. I want it. Elle killing demons with a perky attitude.
OH MY GOD I DIDN’T KNOW I NEEDED THIS UNTIL NOW
I’M NOT EVEN IN THE SUPERNATURAL FANDOM ANYMORE AND I NEED THIS.
SHE’D SHOW UP TO A HUNT IN PINK KITTY HEELS AND RECITE THE LATIN FOR AN EXORCISM PERFECTLY AND HAVE A BEJEWLED SHOTGUN AND DEAN WOULD HAVE AN ANEURYSM
"You killed a tulpa by yourself?"
"What, like it’s hard?"
Harry Potter and the Year he thought it was Snape but it was Quirrel
Harry Potter and the Year he thought it was Draco but it was Ginny
Harry Potter and the Year he thought it was was Sirius but it was Wormtail
Harry Potter and the Year he thought it was Karkaroff but it was Moody/Crouch Jr
Harry Potter and the Year everyone knew it was Umbridge
Harry Potter and the year it actually did turn out to be Snape
Harry Potter and the Year it turned out to be Harry all along
I’ve seen posts like that, too, and really any attempt to morally equate these instances is ridiculous.
Like, okay, let’s talk about three characters who have shot someone: John, Mary, and Sherlock.
John first. He had his gun with him because Sherlock was working on a case involving a serial killer, and then John got kidnapped by someone he didn’t know at the time was NOT a villain, and then Sherlock hinted that they might be doing something dangerous. And then John finds Sherlock in a room with the serial killer who has killed four people and is attempting to kill Sherlock and John shoots him. It’s textually stated in the script that Sherlock doesn’t think John would be convicted for his actions.
Now Mary. She got caught doing something illegal while trying to hide her unsavory past and then shot an innocent man who was offering to help her because she was afraid of him outing her secret, which would force her to deal with unpleasant consequences. She then threatened this man in the hospital, then pursued him to his hiding place after he fled, where she threatened him again because she prefers killing an innocent person to having her husband find out she’s an assassin. She herself states that the stuff in her past is enough to get her imprisoned for life.
And last, Sherlock. He made a spontaneous choice to kill an unarmed man for the sake of John’s well-being, while accepting the fact that he himself was committing a heinous crime that would result severe consequences such as imprisonment or death, and he was prepared to accept these consequences for someone else’s sake.
IMO: John isn’t a murderer and is the least morally culpable of the three. Sherlock IS a murderer but was motivated by selfless reasons and was fully willing to accept the consequences for his choice. Mary is a murderer who is willing to murder for the sake of self-preservation, without thought for anyone else, and she is determined to avoid consequences by any means necessary.
These three situations cannot be equated unless a person’s entire overly simplistic criteria for comparison is “someone pulled a trigger and the bullet went into someone else.”
Prince William, Prince Charles, and now Prince George…
The royal family is slowly transforming into the Weasleys.
AND THEN THERE’S HARRY
WHO IRONICALLY IS THE ONLY GINGER ONE
best post ever