Ozma wrote:

I don't think Sherlock was teasing John, they weren't in that stage of their relationship yet - they hardly knew each other. He was being serious - not sure if his deduction was actually that, a deduction, or just him reacting to what John said... but he was serious.



I do think it's true what Mofftiss have said - John isn't wired that way - but it's also true that Moffat lies - trust me on this, please.  
I think everybody thinks John is in denial.
I am convinced they want to keep their options open.

This ^ 
 

I don't unnderstand why people think these programmes are made in a vacuum.

We have evidence from books, writers and actors.

One of the places where this series has really deviated from canon is in giving both boys too many other people to be attracted to.

In the originals, I don't know if Holmes and Watson were gay, but they lived together and acted like "life partners" in every other sense much of the time. Even when Watson was married and had his own medical practice,  he dropped everything when Holmes came to him for help. And he pretty much only had one love interest / marriage - Mary. 

Canon-Holmes may have been asexual, but there is NO doubt that the human being he cares for most in the world is Watson. He is mean to Watson sometimes, but not to the degree of this series.

He did try to talk to Watson out of getting married, and, during the years of Watson's marriage, seemed to come up with every excuse to go and see him (even when it was clear his assistance wasn't really needed for the case.)

In canon, Holmes really didn't have much interaction with Irene Adler at all; in this series there was WAY too much sexual tension between them. 

Then there's Molly, whom he is mean to, but also kisses at one point, and who is apparently in on the faked death. (Which means he confided in her when he didn't confide in John.)

I guess my point is, their relationship doesn't have to be sexual, but canonically, Sherlock, at least, should love Watson or no one. If Sherlock Holmes is not receptive to sex of any kind, fine; but don't have him be more attracted to / distracted by a woman than by Watson.

besleybean wrote:

Exactly and the writers have said they are not going to write Johnlock.

  Besley.....I'm with you.

Look, other person whos name I cannot see, and therfore cannot write it down:  If YOUR John and Sherlock are closeted...Cool.  You enjoy that.  Since, again, they are not real humans, they won't have any problems with you thinking that.  And just as you are entitled to beleive that, we are entitled to believe they are just super close homies.  

This is kind of the same thing as arguing weither or not unicorns are lactose intolorant.  Since they aren't real, we won't have a real answer.  OTHER THAN THE ONE the creators have made...which is:Nope.

This is a modernisation of canon...in canon the spine of the storyline was the relationship between the two, and Watsons obsession with Holmes.
At that time writing a story about two men living happily together for decades was dangerous...look at what happened to Wilde.
So Doyle adds on Johns wives, but he obv. Was not intrested in them as a story arch or as characters. He told us nothing about them and even on occasion mixed up the names.
They were a means to an end.
Studying the relationship between John/Sherlock is completly in keeping with canon. Both now and then , that was the story.As it is now.

Doyle said said Holmes wss as likely to fall in love as a babbage machine.......a computer.
But look at computers today..in a modern version would such victorian...fears and moralty and behavior s be relevant.

Look, you guys....

VaticanCameoBrooch wrote:

Look, you guys....

You know, the first time I saw Benedict and Martin as Holmes and Watson, I was reminded of Sheldon and Leonard.
 

Oh god I didn't notice that...must look next time!

Last edited by besleybean (January 13, 2014 8:01 pm)

Didn't John and Mary have children in The Canon?