Offline
lil wrote:
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.
Wait.
Either I don't understand you properly or you are on very thin ice here.
Are you saying that being gay or straight is nurture? Really?
Surpressing ones real feelings instead of living them might be nurture. But being attracted to men or women is nature.
Nurture would mean to me that those "doctors" who claim they could "cure" homosexuality would be right.
Offline
@Matt..oh lol....what I am saying is orientation does not exist.We are all born bi..there's history @ science @ stuff.
Most people are set in a preference because of nurture.
idk where you got crazy drs would want to cure homosexuals came from..? If your asking if they can..idk..science does wierd things without much thought and the possibilities are endless..wouldn't it be better for the planet for drs to cure heterosexuals tho?
Will deffo hide and hit the wine now.....
@lol no Sherlock is not a god..he was just trying to be..
Offline
I don't even accept that Sherlock is trying to be a god...whatever Steven Moffar says.
Offline
lil wrote:
@Matt..oh lol....what I am saying is orientation does not exist.We are all born bi..there's history @ science @ stuff.
Most people are set in a preference because of nurture.
idk where you got crazy drs would want to cure homosexuals came from..? If your asking if they can..idk..science does wierd things without much thought and the possibilities are endless..wouldn't it be better for the planet for drs to cure heterosexuals tho?
Will deffo hide and hit the wine now.....
@lol no Sherlock is not a god..he was just trying to be..
There have been doctors and therapist for decades who claim they can "cure" homosexuality.
Offline
I don't think Sherlock really is a god, but I do think there are allusions to him being god-like. And maybe he believes it a little himself (Irene's comment about his belief in a higher power - himself).
nakahara wrote:
Here is a good meta on the scene you are discussing and the use of colour green that traditionally signifies jealousy:
Those same walls that are green here were BLUE in TSOT that preceded the apisode:
I meant to get back to this, sorry ... I'm not sure if this was the post I'd read or not (about the use of colour). This writer is seeing "horror" and anger on John's part, which I just don't see at all. (... after John has time to sit and process while Sherlock and Janine finish their shower (and he’s making them coffee - how ragey do you think he felt? I’m picturing broken mugs as he slams them around), John still looks angry ...). It just shows how differently people see it, even when looking really closely. I'm betting there are some people who see jealousy but don't see horror (why?) or rage.
The writer also says John may be wondering what Sherlock is recruiting him for (because Sherlock is about to take his clothes off). I do think Sherlock is possibly slightly flirty there , but I think it's obvious how he's recruiting John. Here's the dialogue:
- It's for a case, you said?
- Yep
- What sort of case?
- Too big and dangerous for any sane individual to get involved in.
- You're trying to put me off?
- God, no. I'm trying to recruit you.
I think it's "answering" John's dream-wish near the beginning of the episode (when he dreams about Sherlock "Want to see some more?" "Oh God, yes"). They're back as a couple (if they were ever really apart!), ready to do dangerous and exciting things together.
Last edited by Liberty (November 4, 2014 2:42 pm)
Offline
The meta intrigued me not because of John´s facial expressions (as you correctly noted, everybody can interpret them in a different manner), but because it pointed out how much green is used in the scene in which John is presumably "happy" for Sherlock and Janine hooking up.
I think that the green tone was deliberately used there to strenghten the impession that John is grievously jealous in the scene. Especially because the walls that are green here were mostly blue in TSOT, or definitely not as sharp green as here.
Offline
It's just odd how some of us see no jealousy in the scene at all.
Offline
Not odd, just brilliant ambivalent filming in general.
Offline
Now, they did say something about the colours, but I think it was mainly about the lighting - that they went for a warmer look for 221B in HLV (green is slightly warmer than blue, I suppose?), and also that in those early scenes it had to look like morning at the start of a long day. (I'll see if I can find the bit and transcribe it, if it's at all interesting). But I think it's now pretty certain that whatever the colours, they're not trying to show jealousy. I would love to see the first cut that they thought did (by accident) show jealousy! It would be great to compare.
Offline
I'm glad that I agree with the team on something!
Offline
What the artist aimes at, what the artist actually shows and what the audience percieves in his art are three different things - and they sometimes do not overlap.
Green hue doesn´t signify anything warm for me, because it´s still a "cold" colour - in my opinion they should paint Baker Street 221B with orange, ochre or light brown colour, if they indeed aimed for that. Grren with connection with that colour means green-eyed-monster = jealousy for me.
Similarily I do not see any "happiness" from John´s side in that scene, but something between jealousy, confusion and disbelief.
And I do not think I see it "wrong" - art is open to many interpretations and to officially ground one, firm way in which to interpret a poem, a painting or a ambiguosly fimed movie is preposterous.
Even law - that must be compulsorily obeyed - can be interpreted in many ways....
Offline
Though even law sets precedents.
Offline
In UK and US... not in the rest of Europe.
Offline
And Sherlock is a UK show, made by Brits.
Offline
I've found that little bit where they mention it:
Steven: Now, we've got Neville Kidd lighting 221B - slightly different. I rather like his rather warmer version of it. It's cosier somehow.
Mark: We did, you know, do you remember? We had a long talk about how this had to be very, very, VERY early morning, because this day is very long.
So they had Neville Kidd for just that one episode, and Steve Lawes for the rest of S3 (and S1), so that maybe helps explain why it looks different.
Green is a little warmer than blue, if I remember ... although there are different shades and tones, but blue is to the colder end, whereas green is more yellow, so warmer. The greens shown in the link do look warmer to me. But that's Steven Moffat's description of the look, rather than necessarily Neville Kidd's.
I do agree about there being more than one interpretation, and I do think a lot of what we see is ambiguous (and never gets clarified!). It's just that in this case, I think they're telling us that they didn't want to show jealousy - I think it's clear when you hear the commentary and the way they're talking.
Last edited by Liberty (November 4, 2014 9:29 pm)
Offline
Well, if I percieve something as sad for some reason, then Steven Moffat or Queen Elisabeth II. or the Pope himself can persuade me that the thing was funny... but my perception probably remains the same. It´s up to your own feeling, up to the way the thing touched your own heart, not up to the other people´s opinions.
Offline
besleybean wrote:
And Sherlock is a UK show, made by Brits.
So British 'laws' apply for viewers all around the world. Right. Case closed.
Offline
nakahara wrote:
Well, if I percieve something as sad for some reason, then Steven Moffat or Queen Elisabeth II. or the Pope himself can persuade me that the thing was funny... but my perception probably remains the same. It´s up to your own feeling, up to the way the thing touched your own heart, not up to the other people´s opinions.
I think it´s all fine, as long as the notion is "I perceive it as such" and not "they clearly want to show it as such"..
Offline
Liberty, I agree with nakahara. Of course Mofftiss and the team do everything on the show for a reason. Nothing just happens. And if they are convinced that they are not showing jealousy in that scene, that's fine with me. But I still see it. So either Mofftiss do have a different idea of what jealousy looks and feels like than I do, or they did something wrong. And since I firmly believe that there is no 'wrong' in arts, I would say that their idea of jealousy and my idea of jealousy just don't comply with one another.
Last edited by SolarSystem (November 4, 2014 9:30 pm)
Offline
Yes, art isn´t geometry or mathematics - everybody can see something different in it.