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

besleybean · December 10, 2014 9:11 pm

You honestly think this is going to happen?
Can't wait.

SusiGo · December 10, 2014 9:13 pm

Neither can I.

besleybean · December 10, 2014 9:14 pm

Somebody is going to be very disappointed.

SusiGo · December 10, 2014 9:15 pm

Wonder who?

besleybean · December 10, 2014 9:18 pm

So when Johnlock doesn't happen, will all the Johnlockers stop watching?
Or will they just continue for the next 20 years with...it's going to happen next series.
I won't hold my breath.

Liberty · December 10, 2014 9:19 pm

tonnaree wrote:
I'm still giggling at "slasher fiction."

Me too! I burst out laughing when he said that! But it's clear from the context that he meant fan fiction, rather than slash fiction. ("Slasher" fiction would be horror/gore type fiction - I think the word he was trying to say was "slash fiction", but what he meant was "fan fiction"). Steven Moffat is famous for writing fan fiction (very good fan fiction). Benedict has been pretty clear that he's not playing it as a slash fiction.

SolarSystem · December 10, 2014 9:23 pm

And once again I wonder who "all Johnlockers" are supposed to be and why people still seem to think that "all Johnlockers" think and react alike.
So the answer probably is: No, not "all Johnlockers" will stop watching and not "all Johnlockers" will continue for the next 20 years with...it's going to happen next series.
But I suppose that most Johnlockers will enjoy S4 a lot.

SusiGo · December 10, 2014 9:24 pm

And I wonder if all the non-Johnlockers will stop watching the show when Johnlock happens …

Liberty: I wonder why we cannot simply take his words for what they are. How do you know what he meant? I think he is eloquent and intelligent enough to say what he means.

Liberty · December 10, 2014 9:31 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I would like to point out again that Benedict has NOT used the word "companion" but partner.

If you hear a sentence including the words "sex", "tastes", and "partner" what do you think this is about?

Yes, I was just clarifying a bit as people had mentioned the Doctor's companions, and the word has a more specific meaning in that universe. It does often mean a partner rather than just a friend (his companions are the people who travel with him - it's a very close relationship). (For instance, I suppose the Brigadier would be a friend, but not a companion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, more knowledgable Whovians. I know there was a line about everybody being companions in "Listen", for instance).

"Sex" here just seems to mean whether the partner is male or female. I don't think it can mean sexual partner, as Sherlock doesn't have any (although Benedict claims Sherlock had sex with Irene - but that's not in the script). He says it in a joking way as part of a list of ways in which the Doctor and Sherlock are different ("isn't reincarnated", "doesn't solve crimes quite as much", etc.), after the interviewer mentioned that he'd called the Doctor "Space Sherlock" when talking to Steven Moffat!

SusiGo · December 10, 2014 9:36 pm

Of course he means the gender of the partner. So he basically describes Sherlock as a man preferring a male partner as against the Doctor who generally chooses female partners/companions and a wife. This is how I understand it.

besleybean · December 10, 2014 9:39 pm

No, it only refers to the companions( and this is what the sidekicks are called in Dr Who!), not the wife...

Liberty · December 10, 2014 9:39 pm

SusiGo wrote:
And I wonder if all the non-Johnlockers will stop watching the show when Johnlock happens …

Liberty: I wonder why we cannot simply take his words for what they are. How do you know what he meant? I think he is eloquent and intelligent enough to say what he means.

Partly because he clearly doesn't mean "slasher" - that normally refers to very violent fare, like Nightmare on Elm Street.

Also because of the context - I think it's clear that he's talking about Moftiss being fans of ACD and writing fan fiction. (I do think that he's very intelligent and eloquent, but he has to think on his feet in interviews and occasionally says something which isn't quite the right thing, very eloquently. Here he's talking about Moftiss setting the ACD stories in the modern day - that doesn't make it slash fiction, or slasher fiction. And in other interviews, he clearly doesn't think of it as slash fiction. He seemed to be explaining why he'd called Moftiss "fan boys", which was a term the interviewer didn't seem to have heard of.).

I definitely wouldn't stop watching the show! But I wouldn't like to see it shoe-horned in - it would have to be done well.

Last edited by Liberty (December 11, 2014 1:28 am)

Liberty · December 10, 2014 9:53 pm

I just remembered as well that the end of TSOT is based on a Doctor Who episode, where the Doctor says goodbye to a companion who is getting married and leaves the party by himself. It was before Benedict's time, but he seems to be keen on looking at source material, so I wonder if he saw that? Anyway, there was definitely a parallel there between Sherlock/John and The Doctor/Jo (was it Jo?). Slightly OT, but just remembered it - although they are not meant to be very similar characters, Moftiss are open about that scene being a copy. (There's also Matt Smith's Doctor at Amy's wedding, but that's a bit more cheerful).

SolarSystem · December 10, 2014 9:54 pm

River Song was a companion before she became his wife. Sort of, because her timeline is somewhat complicated.

Anyway, good thing that I'm generally not a huge fan of the writers or actors of the show telling me what is happening or not happening in the show. It's all there for us to see, so I don't need to hear Benedict talk about Sherlock being gay. Quite frankly, I don't even need Sherlock to be gay. Sherlock is deeply in love with John in S3. He is johnsexual. It can be seen in every single episode of S3. That's all I need.

besleybean · December 10, 2014 9:56 pm

Unrequited love and unreturned?

Liberty · December 10, 2014 10:03 pm

Requited and returned, just not sexual, in my opinion .

tonnaree · December 10, 2014 10:11 pm

besleybean wrote:
Somebody is going to be very disappointed.

Won't be Sherlock because I'm betting John is amazing in bed.

*runs*
*dives under shock blanket*
*clutches Watson Bear*

SusiGo · December 10, 2014 10:11 pm

Oh, I forgot to add the source of the Sherlock/Dr Who article I posted above. It is a newspaper article from Gay Star News.

Liberty · December 10, 2014 10:15 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Anyway, good thing that I'm generally not a huge fan of the writers or actors of the show telling me what is happening or not happening in the show. It's all there for us to see, so I don't need to hear Benedict talk about Sherlock being gay.

Actually, I agree with the first part here. I do like to hear the actors and writers talking about it ... but I don't think they always have to agree with me, or even with each other. It's not like a book where's the a single writer, even - it's a team of people who might all have different interpretations, but it somehow comes together and works. In a snapshot of a scene, the writer might have intended one thing, each actor something different, and perhaps the director something different again - and then the finished product looks like something different again! It's quite fascinating.

However, I don't think everybody sees what you're seeing either. It's open to interpretation, but you do have to interpret, look for clues, etc. If it really, really is intended (and I don't think it is, but I might be wrong), it's not at all overt. And if it's not overt, I wonder, what's the point? Wouldn't they just be doing it what they really don't want to do - turning love betweeen modern men back into the "love that dare not speak it's name" of old?

SolarSystem · December 10, 2014 10:32 pm

Liberty wrote:
However, I don't think everybody sees what you're seeing either. It's open to interpretation, but you do have to interpret, look for clues, etc. If it really, really is intended (and I don't think it is, but I might be wrong), it's not at all overt. And if it's not overt, I wonder, what's the point? Wouldn't they just be doing it what they really don't want to do - turning love betweeen modern men back into the "love that dare not speak it's name" of old?

And where exactly did I say that everybody sees what I'm seeing? And are you insinuating that I'm not interpreting?
Of course I'm interpreting, we all are, Johnlock or not. And everybody is free to see whatever she/he thinks she/he's seeing. But we've been over this dozens of times here, so excuse me for just leaving it at that. Let me just say (again) that it's usually the Johnlockers who present clues and analyses, while non-Jonlockers very often just say "It's not gonna happen" or "Some people will be very disappointed".