Hope this is the right thread for this as I originally posted it in the Johnlock Debate Thread - sorry about that!

There was a preview screening of The Final Problem in London last night...

It seems that there was no Johnlock kiss or confirmation that they are in a romantic or sexual relationship.

https://twitter.com/j1mfromit/with_replies

The nasty and abusive tweets to Mark, Sue and Arwel have begun already. As I predicted a few months ago, sadly this is not going to be pleasant.

Oh yes. We'll definitely know by Sunday whether Johnlock will become canon.

However, I think it's only fair that if TJLCers are going to feel betrayed that they'd been promised "groundbreaking" "TV history" that we make sure that it is something Mofftiss actually said!

ewige wrote:

I think Ben also said something to the effect "if we can pull it off". And Moftiss too. But the amount of PR was really crazy so I won't be able to find anything specific, I'm afraid.

Well, like I say, that to me seems to fit with the reveal of Euros more than it does Johnlock. With Setlock and paparazzi following the crew around, it's a major achievement that nobody seems to have realised that Sian Brooke was appearing in 3 different roles. I don't see how "If we can pull it off" could relate to Johnlock. They would just film it and there - it's done. Canon. What would there be to "pull off"? (No pun intended!!)
 

ewige wrote:

Holmes and Watson in a romantic relationship would constitute TV history in every country.

Shani,
pretty much every interview with Moftiss had them mentioning making TV history.

Ah but in which tense: past or future? I've often heard them saying that the show was a much bigger hit than either of them ever expected and that nobody could anticipate Sherlock becoming so massive. In which case Sherlock has already 'made history'. Is that what they meant or have they explicitly said that they are going to make TV history with this particular run of 3 episodes? It's quite an important distinction: particularly if you think it's related to Johnlock appearing on screen.

And as I say, I've heard a lot of interviews with them and I don't actually recall that specific phrase being used very often. It sounds rather self-aggrandising for Mofftiss, who when discussing Sherlock are usually quite humble about its global success. I'm not saying they haven't said it, I just wonder if there is a link to an actual interview.

nakahara wrote:

Shani wrote:

I don't know how much more explicit you need the following exchange to be: 

https://twitter.com/markgatiss/status/758594590844788736

1. They give an interview saying they are not and will never write Johnlock into the show.
2. Ardent TJLCers and Johnlock shippers get angry.
3. Mark tweets that the interview is a completely accurate representation of their attitude.
4. A fan tweets him a link to the Guardian interview to ask if that was accurate as well.
5. Mark responds 'No. Case in point. A garbled mistranslation of what I said.'

Therefore he knew he was being asked about Johnlock and he chose to say that Guardian interview was inaccurate about him loving TPLOSH because he thinks Holmes and Watson fall in love in it. In my opinion, you really have to show a special kind of wilful blindness if you interpret the exchange in any other way.

No, I don´t interpret the exange the other way - I simply think to refer to something as "a garbled mistranslation" is vague and does not serve as a real explanation. As you can see for yourself, it still leaves plenty of room for speculation.

But if Mark Gatiss was asked specifically: do you think Sherlock Holmes in TPLOSH loves Watson and he responded "No, I think he was in love with Elsa", that would remove any doubt.

So why not ask him directly? He responded to a fan willingly in the exchange you just posted, he can respond to another ask just as easily.

I don't feel the need to ask him directly. I think both he and Moffat have been perfectly clear and eloquent on the subject several times. Why would I irritate him by asking him to repeat a statement he's already made many times before?

Anyway it all becomes moot in 3 weeks' time anyway. TJLCers seem certain that Johnlock will be realised in this season. If it does, then I'll eat my words and it won't matter what I think anyway. However, if it doesn't I just hope nobody has the nerve to accuse them of 'queerbaiting' and promis

He's already answered it on twitter. When he confirmed the With An Accent interview, refuting Johnlock, was entirely accurate this summer, someone asked him about the Guardian quote. He responded that it was a "garbled mistranslation" of what he'd actually said.

Well, we're heading towards some kind of conclusion fairly soon. In less than a month, we will know for definite whether Johnlock is going to be confirmed in Series 4. 
If it does happen, there will be a lot of very happy (and smug!) Johnlockers and TJLCers - and rightly so!
If it doesn't happen, what then? Will the TJLC community just defer their expectations to Series 5? So many of them are 100% certain it is going to happen by the end of 'The Final Problem'. If it hasn't by then, will they abandon the show and attack Gatiss & Moffat for not making their ship canon, I wonder?

tonnaree wrote:

When I stated that Sherlock is a bottom I meant it humorously, but I also just meant it is an accurate description of how I have viewed the character.

Sherlock presents a hard cold surface.  He likes to dominate in any social interaction he has to participate in.  But in those rare moments when he is able to let his guard down he is very soft.  I see in him a need to be vulnerable and let someone else take control.  It is also something I don't think he's ever found, but that he shows signs of trusting John enough to let him.

I intended none of this as a joke or a stereotype.  As a "B" in the LGBTQ community I am all too aware of how it feels to have your sexuality made fun of and the valid points that have been made about devaluing the "feminine."  But we in the community do have a sense of humor.  As a self-proclaimed bottom myself, I did not mean it as an insult to Sherlock.

Please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't accusing you or anyone else in this thread of stereotyping. Just someone up thread said that these terms were new and unfamiliar to them so I wanted to give a comprehensive overview of what the different terms usually mean and how they can be misappropriated or used problematically by some sections of society. (No one here I hasten to add!)

It will be interesting to see what will happen at the end of next month at the Sherlocked Convention. With Moffat & Gatiss both in attendance, presumably they will participate in panels and interviews again. I can't imagine the thorny issue of Johnlock won't arise at some point. I wonder how they will tackle it all after the vehemence of their denials in the With An Accent interview.

tonnaree wrote:

Top and Bottom are simply another way to identify on who is the dominate and who is the submissive in a relationship. 

I think we need to be careful with these kind of assumptions about gay relationships as it can easily lead to problematic stereotypes.

Many gay men do not enjoy or participate in anal sex.
Of those who do, some are exclusively active (i.e. they penetrate), some are exclusively passive (i.e. they receive), whilst some are versatile and enjoy both active and passive anal sex.

The terms top and bottom are not entirely interchangeable with active and passive, as they do include connotations of dominance and submission. Someone who enjoys receiving anal sex (i.e. being f*cked), is not necessarily a submissive person sexually or indeed in their personality in general.

A man can be dominant within a BDSM context and still enjoy receiving anal sex, and vice versa.

Gay men are often stereotyped and an attempt is made to force them into stereotypical gender roles, whereby the passive partner is more 'feminine' and the active partner more 'masculine'.

This can also be rooted in misogyny. Someone who likes receiving anal sex can be perceived by society to be more like a woman and consequently is viewed as "lesser" in some respects. Assumptions are often made that in a gay relationship, the partner who conforms to these more feminine stereotypes is therefore the 'bottom'. That can be due to either one of the following characteristics or a combination of them: they can be younger, shorter, less physically imposing or more effeminate.

So without being too po-faced about it, I do think we need to be careful about making statements such as 'Sherlock is a total bottom'.