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

lil · May 3, 2015 10:16 pm

Which is why they may put something in the Shspesh to counter the queerbaiting..giving them plausable deniability....but allows them to continue the ambiguity in the actual series.
If I had said ..covering their arses.....would have just turned out a bad a pun.

tonnaree · May 4, 2015 12:28 am

Oh Lil, feel free to pun as badly as you wish!

ancientsgate · May 4, 2015 3:13 am

Vhanja wrote:
Thanks for a good reply, ancient. So if I read you correctly, you think it's deliberately put in there - and just as deliberately never acted upon - for profit? Keep it ambigious enough to increase interest and discussion, but "straight" enough to not shift the focus away from the detective story of Sherlock for the masses?

I imagine Johnlock was originally included for fun. And also because ACD's original canon has a strong element of Sherlock-John friendship throughout the stories. So there was a foundation there, of a deep friendship or even a bromance, and I guess the writers decided to play that up (or at least, not quash it).

But yeah, now that Sherlock has become a huge mega-hit, not just in the UK but in other countries as well, sure, I think there's profit to think about. I can't imagine anyone at BBC thinking that making a major change about who S/J are and shaking things up in that major way, thus possibly risking their profits, would be a good idea.

After all, what they've been doing, being ambiguous but also straight enough for the masses, as you say-- it works! And there's no reason to believe it won't continue to work, so why would they shake it up?

ancientsgate · May 4, 2015 3:26 am

I don't use the queer baiting term in my personal life, so whenever it comes up on the forum here, I have to look up what it means, lol. Wiki says: The term refers to what happens "when people in the media (usually television/movies) add homoerotic tension between two characters to attract more liberal and queer viewers with the indication [ag: I presume this is a typo, and they meant intention] of them not ever getting together for real in the show/book/movie.

I don't know what the writers' thinking was when they decided several years ago about what direction they would take their characters. They don't strike me as mean or calculating people, and I just cannot picture them having a meeting and deciding to deliberately mislead liberal and/or queer people in order to gain viewers, can you? I just think Mofftiss et al have been having fun playing with the characters, as though Sherlock and John were their own pesonal paper dolls, and trying to keep up viewer interest, while we all watch and wonder about the "what if's" and "what now's". It's like relationship intrigue.

I'm not angry at Mofftiss for what they've done with S/J, and I fully expect them to continue to string us along. I do get impatient, but it's only because I have a hard time with the long waits between seasons. I will defend to the death their right to write what they want, for BBC to market it any way they want, for viewers to either watch or not watch, as they want. It's a free market, after all! And that's the way it should be.

"Queers" aren't stupid, not any more than anyone else, and if they feel used and abused by the direction of Johnlock in the show, they pick up their remotes to change the channel, just like the rest of us.

Perhaps I'm missing your point? Interesting discussion (to me).

Last edited by ancientsgate (May 4, 2015 3:29 am)

ancientsgate · May 4, 2015 3:27 am

Harriet wrote:
But then, it's highly based on US experiences, which are not necessarily the same in Europe.

Gay themed shows are almost unknown in the US. I can only think of a couple, and they were shown on premium cable channels.

SusiGo · May 4, 2015 7:11 am

I do not think it is queerbaiting either (especially since several of the actors, one of the co-creators, the man who writes John's blog, and the head of BBC drama are all gay). But if it is not queerbaiting and no "gay joke" I can only quote Holmes: whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Harriet · May 4, 2015 7:57 am

I agree with Susi. Because I find the queerbaiting theory not convincing in this case.
It might, if it weren't for the BBC and the writers and actors who have too much (self) respect for such a concept.

Vhanja · May 4, 2015 7:59 am

I am curious - if you were to make a poll and ask all people who are interested in the show (from hardcore fans to the more casual people who follow it but nothing more than that): How big a percentage would actually mind Johnlock, to the point of them not liking the show anymore and stop following it?

Harriet · May 4, 2015 8:06 am

I think very few. It might even attract more viewers who are interested in how the writers deal with it.
The acceptance of homosexuality has risen a lot in western Europe, and for the young generation it is much less of an issue.
By the way, the BBC policy paper is quite telling, I remember providing you with the link a while ago.

SusiGo · May 4, 2015 10:55 am

Since we mentioned the BBC Three tweets from last year - here are some examples. They did more, commented on fan art, and casually ignored the fact that John gets married apart from Vhanja's above quote about the shooting.

ukaunz · May 4, 2015 11:16 am

I can't quite read the third one... It's a bit fuzzy on my screen (or maybe it's my eyes!) Anyone care to help me out?

BBC three
No. of times John's looked at his date: 3
No. of times John's looked at Sherlock ??? on this date ???

Vhanja · May 4, 2015 11:29 am

LOL, BBC3 ships them harder than Mrs. Hudson. This is gold! (Especially hilarious with the comment from BBC1).

SusiGo · May 4, 2015 11:41 am

ukaunz wrote:
I can't quite read the third one... It's a bit fuzzy on my screen (or maybe it's my eyes!) Anyone care to help me out?

BBC three
No. of times John's looked at his date: 3
No. of times John's looked at Sherlock ??? on this date ???

I think it is the mathematical symbol for infinite.

ukaunz · May 4, 2015 11:53 am

Oh thanks Susi. I just worked out the other bit I couldn't read is "whilst"

tonnaree · May 4, 2015 11:56 am

Vhanja wrote:
LOL, BBC3 ships them harder than Mrs. Hudson. This is gold! (Especially hilarious with the comment from BBC1).

But they still don't ship it harder than me.

Lilythiell · May 4, 2015 2:37 pm

Vhanja wrote:
BBC3 ship Johnlock!

Nothing new, here. I think they've had a visit from Mrs H. ;)
Let's keep an eye on their tweets when ASIP airs, shall we?

Lilythiell · May 4, 2015 2:40 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I do not think it is queerbaiting either (especially since several of the actors, one of the co-creators, the man who writes John's blog, and the head of BBC drama are all gay). But if it is not queerbaiting and no "gay joke" I can only quote Holmes: whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

I like your way of thinking, Susi.

Lilythiell · May 4, 2015 2:43 pm

BBC Three are just gold.
And that comment from BBC One? Another way of saying "Shh, don't state the obvious", maybe?

SusiGo · May 4, 2015 2:46 pm

Yes, I think so. They are playing a little game between BBC 1 as strict parent and BBC 3 as naughty child spilling the beans.

ancientsgate · May 4, 2015 4:16 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I am curious - if you were to make a poll and ask all people who are interested in the show (from hardcore fans to the more casual people who follow it but nothing more than that): How big a percentage would actually mind Johnlock, to the point of them not liking the show anymore and stop following it?

I'd first ask who is even aware of it (Johnlock)! People who tune in, looking for a good Sherlock crime-solving story, might remain blissfully unaware of any ship. Most people are into male/female romance, and even then, if the man and woman aren't shown outright getting it on, any subtlety could be lost on the casual viewer. In the US anyway, very few people would be looking for male-male or female-female ship. And in a case like this one, where it's all pre-slash (nothing romantic shown) and all hiding under a large umbrella of friendship, I imagine most viewers couldn't care less.