BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

stoertebeker · February 8, 2016 7:13 pm

I don't really understand what the problem is, to be honest. Entertainment and seriousness are not necessarily a contradiction.

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 7:13 pm

I agree, but apparantly it is to some.

Liberty · February 8, 2016 7:14 pm

stoertebeker wrote:
I don't really understand what the problem is, to be honest. Entertainment and seriousness are not necessarily a contradiction.

Seconded!

besleybean · February 8, 2016 7:15 pm

Yes, I am serious about my entertainment! Ha.

SolarSystem · February 8, 2016 7:35 pm

Mah, that's a good one, besleybean!

Harriet · February 8, 2016 7:37 pm

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

nakahara · February 8, 2016 9:02 pm

Oh, look, Sir Arthur... they are fighting again.
On this thread called "It´s Canon". When they never ever discuss you, nor your stories, nor your books.
On this Sherlock Holmes forum, where it´s such a rare occurence to discuss SH adaptations or various SH actors, where nobody is really interested in cases and weird mysteries you have created, in Sherlock´s observation and deductive skills, mysterious atmosphere of London, classical detective stories etc., etc.
No, the only subject worth discussing is the sexuality of your ambiguous characters.
For entertainment.
It only passes for an enterntainment, of course, if one sees Sherlock as straight or completely asexual.
Otherwise it´s an "overdose", and people shouldn´t see it and enjoy it. Because this kind of "entertainment" somehow stands in the way of other people´s entertainments.
Because you would never write Sherlock Holmes that way, that´s why.
Super smart bully John Watson, ninja Mary Morstan, deus-ex-machina Mycroft and female Ku-Klux-Klan instead of your various female characters are OK, on the other hand. For these things only "fixed" your faulty writing.
In case you didn´t know that....

SolarSystem · February 8, 2016 9:20 pm

Isn't it great though that sometimes things aren't just black and white?
That one can love a show called "Sherlock" because it's entertainment, really good, clever, intelligent entertainment?
And because in it one also finds that beautiful thing called "Johnlock"?
And then one also has a huge problem with a character called Mary because one doesn't see a strong female character in her?
And then again, one hopes that Gatiss and Moffat will dare to go where Billy Wilder didn't go?
And at the same time one is still keen on entertainment?

Well. Do not mock. It's probably just me.

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 9:26 pm

It's all great, in my view. From non-lock to Johnlock and every nuance therein.

Whisky · February 8, 2016 9:28 pm

As I have used the wording "Johnlock overdose" earlier, I just want to confirm that I didn't mean it in the sense you used it, nakahara

I like this thread, though I'm never sure why that is, actually... disagreement seems to be addictive, somehow

Last edited by Whisky (February 8, 2016 9:33 pm)

stoertebeker · February 8, 2016 9:32 pm

Can somebody explain to me, since when the word "entertainment" has become a curse word? Or does the word has a different meaning I don't understand?

Harriet · February 8, 2016 10:37 pm

*Just for the record: context was "spicing one's life up with Johnlock just for one's entertainment assuming it will not happen anyway, and not caring about the hurt of queer people being fooled again.*

Vhanja · February 8, 2016 10:39 pm

Harriet wrote:
*Just for the record: context was "spicing one's life up with Johnlock just for one's entertainment assuming it will not happen anyway, and not caring about the hurt of queer people being fooled again.*

Please quote where I said ""not caring about the hurt of queer people being fooled again".

Thanks.

besleybean · February 9, 2016 7:00 am

Ok, Here we go.
I have been aware of gay rights, since I was ...well, certainly age 11, if not before...little knowing at that point that my own beloved sibling was going to go on to define themselves that way.
Most of my historical, literary, political and theatrical heroes belong to the gay community...if there is such a thing and individuals wish to be defined that way.
My first ever political activity was marching for gay rights.
I am also proud how far gay rights have come in 21st century UK. I personally will not support any organisation that is not gay-friendly: religions, political groups or anything else.
As I have mentioned before, I lead a human rights group at my school. A primary school and we are proud that as far as we know, we are the only one in Scotland. We only KNOW we are the only one in our county.
Anyhow, so I don't really feel a need for us to all clamor to show our gay friendly credentials, but I just wanted to give context. Also possibly partly explain why I'm a tad sensitive over any even hint that somehow(and god knows how this is even supposed to work)not seeing Johnlock instantly makes one a homophobe.
This is for me, not only ridiculous, but also grossly unfair. More importantly to me, it is inaccurate.
Then, we may all identify ourselves with any number of groups, causes, ideologies or whatever and some of us may have a particular thing that we feel defines us or is indeed just very important to us- for whatever reason.
Further, some of us may feel that BBC Sherlock strikes a certain chord with us and we feel on some level we can identify with it.
Again as I think I have mentioned before. This certainly happened to me. From my last forum, I was led to an asexual site and I have described it as my Road to Damascus moment, though individually I would prefer to designate it as a moment of enlightenment.
Now, when I saw the first trailer for Sherlock(among other things)I thought, oh looks like they may be going down the gay route.
As gay rights have always been so important to me,I was delighted and I would have watched anything. Sherlockian anyway- but this possibility was one of the things that made the show more appealing to me.
But I wasn't long in, before I realised I was mistaken. But no issue, it was a brilliant TV series anyway.
Now, I am very sorry if anybody feels let down by Sherlock, from whichever group and for whatever reason.
But I still hold fast to my view that none of us can claim any TV show for ourselves.
I really don't want to go over too much old ground again.But I will re state that I think writers should be free to write what they want and also actors to act roles the way they see them.
We really are passive in that sense.
Now obviously the BBC is slightly different, in that we(in the UK) do have a say.
So if people honestly feel they have a real complaint, or in fact just a vaid comment. Then contact the BBC and say so.
But AGAIN, this is not an original show: to a certain extent the scope has been preset for the Sherlock team.
I wonder if it's really fair for any of us to feel every show has to meet certain criteria.
Anyhow for me:
I don't feel BBC Sherlock has promised anything they haven't already delivered.
I'm only sorry that others cannot fully enjoy the show, because they feel they have in some way been let down.
BBC Sherlock remains the best TV and I do not feel it owes anybody anything, for what ever purpose.
It is a drama, not a current affairs programme, documentary,or historical or scientific piece.
It is a piece of art.
We can enjoy it, walk on in the gallery...or go home and paint our own work.

Last edited by besleybean (February 9, 2016 5:15 pm)

Liberty · February 9, 2016 2:52 pm

Well said, Besleybean. Like you, I was supporting gay rights, long before they were fashionable. I've been reading/watching gay fiction since my teens (and used to write some - but sadly, I'm not a gifted writer!). (And I'd probably have been more interested in Sherlock and watched it years ago, if it had been marketed as a gay story). As I've mentioned here before, I used to identify as bisexual. Like you, I'm not somebody who would want not to see Johnlock*, or try to avoid seeing it, whether it's for reasons of heteronormativity or homophobia or whatever. I just don't think it's the story we're being told - I'm happy to admit I could be wrong about that, but not happy to be told that my reasons for not seeing it are somehow morally suspect (which is what seems to be hinted at).

(*To qualify that, I would have been more than happy to see it from the beginning, and I could see it working if it was brought in later - after all, people can know each other for years and suddenly fall for each other. But as I don't think we've been given it so far, I wouldn't like to see it bolted on to the story with the claim that it has been there all along, just to fend off accusations of queerbaiting or whatever).

besleybean · February 9, 2016 5:18 pm

Couldn't agree more with your qualification and I find it very upsetting that Mark and Steven have a queer baiting charge thrown at them.
I would always want to challenge that accusation.

Vhanja · February 14, 2016 5:19 pm

I'm rewatching the original X-files series now, and am looking for similarities between how the relationship between Mulder and Scully are shown, and Sherlock and John. Was the Mulder/Scully romance out of the blue, or were the clues beforehand?

I'm only in S1, Ep4, but in this episode we have Scully trying to go on a date and "getting a life", in contrast to Mulder who is "obsessed" with his work and nothing else. Mulder calls Scully while she is on her date to talk about the case. By the end of the episode, Scully turns down future dates with the man in question to instead join Mulder on his case.

I found that interesting. Of course, that alone says nothing about anything, but it will be interesting to see if I can recognize more of these as the series progresses.

besleybean · February 14, 2016 5:23 pm

I still need to catch up on the X Files.
But I guess it depends if the writers seem to have set up the possibility of the leads getting together.
Which for me would be the obvious difference!

Vhanja · February 14, 2016 5:25 pm

besleybean wrote:
I still need to catch up on the X Files.
But I guess it depends if the writers seem to have set up the possibility of the leads getting together.
Which for me would be the obvious difference!

Did they do that in the X-files, though? Did they always plan for Mulder and Scully to get together and put in clues throughout the series that would eventually culminate in the romance? Or was it something they decided later on, so that it's more out of the blue with very little leading up to it?

tonnaree · February 14, 2016 5:30 pm

An excellent science project to pursue.