And plenty of us don't see Johnlock...because we get the gay joke.

But all those things are about their relationship as it is, and not about sexual attraction.

There's another example of John being surprised at 221B, when he comes across Sherlock's parents there.  It's not the same, but there are some similarities - there's surprise and amusement, and smiling.   Then he realises that the parents knew about the fall and his expression completely changes - more frowny.  His expressions in the Janine scenes are more similar to the first bit (Sherlock with lovely, "normal" parents?! Sherlock with a girlfriend?!) than the second bit (you told them and not me).    So I don't think they were expecting people to rely on the commentary - people have already seen the parents scene, and there is consistency in the acting there. 

(Although there's not consistency in the directing, obviously - which maybe throws things off course a bit).

Another thing to consider is that at this point, we know John has been craving Sherlock, and has just been whole-heartedly welcomed back and included by Sherlock.  They're on a case together again.  You'd expect his feelings towards Sherlock to be warm at that point - he doesn't actually have reason to be jealous. (I know jealousy isn't always amenable to reason!). 

When i tell that i am straight (which i am) i do not think for one moment that i  might imply that i am bi or that i include the possbility of bi and i say "straight" only because i am in a straight relatioship. So, when someone would tell me that he is or not gay, i won't include or assume the "bi" with it.

In my reading there is difference between the acting in the parents scene and Janine scene. Look how proud John looks to Sherlock till he realize that the parents knew about the lie. 

Should we believe what the writers and actors say only when it works with what we want from the show or should we ignore it completly? Because for the best of me i cannot see that Sherlock is a machine like Benedict say in one of his last interviews or that he fakes his tears on the fall scene ... I think both the writers and the actors make a big deservice to the film when they go from truth to lie (or to don't care to give a truth image). Because it let a big question mark on whatever they say and i start to be tired about it. I don't know if that is tipically only for this show, i haven't fallowed any other show "backscene" to know if that is am usual thing to do, but this misleading puts me off. 

I will put on hold getting the Chronicles for now because i have the feeling i would hate it if they makes the same game. And in the future for me, i would stay away from their interviews and commentaries as they ruin slowly but for sure the show for me. 

 

Totally agree, Susi. First and foremost the finished product should speak for itself, and of course the people who watch it won't all see the same things. That's the nature of art. And that's totally fine. 
I think it's wise to not take interviews, commentaries or Q&As too seriously. We really know by now that Mofftiss enjoy fooling us. And since they sometimes talk about things in the show that I just don't see (and this goes for all sorts of things, not just Johnlock), I've decided not to rely on their statements too much. Even if all of a sudden they would announce that Johnlock will happen in S4 - I'd be very suspicious. 

@ A lovely light - to give an example ... if I asked a man if he fancied Benedict Cumberbatch and he said something like "No, because I'm not gay", what he's saying is that he doesn't fancy men.   So that implicitly includes "bi" and its variations, but often people will just use the shorthand of gay, instead of always saying "gay or bi".  Saying "no, because I'm straight" would be clearer, and straight wouldn't include bi, because again, he'd be saying that he doesn't fancy men.   Now, if I asked a woman the same question and she answered "No, because I'm not straight", then straight would include bi, because she'd be saying the same thing - that she's not attracted to men.  And if she said "No, because I'm gay", gay wouldn't include bi, for the same reason.  I hope that's clearer - wish I could make points more concisely!

But it's true that gay often will include bi, simply because bi is being left out.  Gay Pride, Gay Rights, etc.  LGBT is a bit of a mouthful (and it also lumps in T, which is kind of a different thing, and leaves out some other variations.   There seemed to be a fashion a few years ago for using "queer" as a coverall for a wide range, but it didn't really catch on - certainly not in general usage). 

With the parents scene - that's what I mean - we see a clear change of expression when John feels something more like jealousy.   But in the Janine scene he keeps the original "flabbergasted" expression.  (That was the word I was looking for!).  But have a look at the scene with Sherlock being jealous of Sholto too (to see the more negative expressions that go with jealousy in that case). 

I don't think you have to take on board everything the actors and writers say, and there are different directors and writers for different episodes who might have different views so it's possible that they don't even all 100% coincide themselves.  In the commentaries, if you hear the whole thing, a lot is left open-ended or ambiguous.  It just happened that the bit I quoted was very clear (unless I've misheard!). 

But I think some of the comments are misunderstood, or are open to interpretation.  When Benedict talks about Sherlock being a machine, he's clearly talking about him in that particular situation - well, I think that's clear, but he doesn't actually explicitly say it.  I think it's the kind of thing that comes across differently when you're talking to somebody - like when he says (about the fiction) that it's "always" whatever - of course, he doesn't believe that it's always like that. It's just the way people talk.    If you imagine listening to him rather than reading his words, I think it's clearer. 

Personally, I love hearing about the team's views on the series, the characters, their motivations, etc.   If there's something that really, really doesn't fit with what works for me, then I can ignore it.   But I do want to hear it! 

Oh, I don't think Mark (or any of us) is trying to box people up by using "gay".    It's mainly just a useful shorthand - easier than saying "mainly attracted to the same sex" or whatever.   (And it has a role in politics, identification, etc. too).

I think the "joke" is different every time.  I think lots of people do believe that Sherlock and John are in a relationship - it's sometimes assumed of two men of that age living together, or even going out for a meal together, and that's what we see with Angelo and the innkeepers.  I don't think Irene believes they're in a sexual relationship, but she's making a perceptive comment about their relationship.  Mrs Hudson probably assumes (like Angelo) to start with, but then, it seems, she denies the evidence because she wants to keep them close . 

This is kind of a side issue, but I don't agree that orientation is meaningless.   I think there's a lot of change/malleability but I think that many (most?) people will tend to be drawn to one sex or the other, rather than constantly changing between.  Let's face it, if there was no leanings to one or the other, then in a homophobic society nobody would choose to be gay - and yet people are gay even when it's illegal or dangerous, or when they desparately don't want to be. 

We've all probably got slightly different definitions of what gay is and slightly different cut off points, but for me, it's really about sexual attraction - if Sherlock was mainly attracted to men rather than women, then he'd be gay.     Loving John doesn't make him gay unless there's sexual attraction, I don't think.  But people are entitled to have their own definitions.  I imagine that Sherlock does know where his interests lie - it's no mystery to him.  He just lets it be a mystery to other people.

Sherlock and John both seem to know what they're looking for.

I believe that orientation is nature.

That would mean humans are sexually attracted to themselves...because there is a whole lot of self love in the world.....thus libido is expressed through fantasy...and fantasy is made up from what we have been taught...nurture not nature.
Notice the gazillion hilarious utube vids..of macho men getting hot @ supposed women that...turn out to be men...the lie is exposed  people are embarrassed and laugh because they want to ...be normal and conform to the bs political or religious rules or whatever...again fantasy and nurture...guess this has gone OT but check out the science its interesting.

Point being - Johns nature clicked with and wants to be with Sherlock...but Johns libido = sex = baby=love=marriage romantic brainwashing...nurture..has trapped him with Mary.

Sherlock is so fantastic because...pure brain = different...
Similarly thats why after..he 'died'..(realised he clicked with John?) He was changed...classically the only thing that can ' fell ' or change  a god..is love.

besleybean wrote:

Sherlock isn't a god.

How dare you say that? I'll rather leave this discussion before people start telling lies about Santa Clause, too.

Last edited by Schmiezi (November 3, 2014 8:48 pm)