As Harriet said, one or two things might be fun or even coincidence, but the show is full of these elements. For example I never realised that the whole of London was lit in violet and pink and that labs in morgues are full of rainbows. Or the blatant symbolism of being shot in the chest by your best friend's murderous wife in full bridal gown. Sad looks at empty chairs. Casablanca-like farewell scenes. And so on … They could have done without all that but they chose not to. And I really have no idea why common romantic tropes for which there lots of examples should stop to be romantic just because the show is about two men. 

​

Last edited by SusiGo (September 7, 2015 7:48 pm)

@Vhanja's post (everyon'e posting at the same time!) I realize it causes a lot of speculation, but whether it does or not it's still comical, so I don't think there needs to be any other reason for it.

Last edited by Yitzock (September 7, 2015 7:51 pm)

Harriet wrote:

Yitzock wrote:

Well, that moment with the picture passed so quickly and without explanation it's hard to say what it means.  But I can see how it would be easy for someone to latch onto if they already were inclined to think a certain way.

So you thjnk that first the brain of Johnlockers is weird already, and then they cannot help but see what they see?
I'd rather say we have a jigsaw puzzle with many many pieces. And they make the picture.
 

Not weird, not at all.  Just saying that I can see how it would add to what you're already thinking if that's what you're thinking.  (To be honest, I don't even remember it from when I first watched the episode.  I kept reading references to it and had to go back to figure out what everyone was talking about).  But if that's not how you're thinking, it might not mean much to you or you might not find it says much of anything.

That's fine.  This is the topic for a "debate" so I had to pick the opposite side, but I think I've said already that I will take whatever the show gives us in the end.  But until then we can talk about how it could go either way if you really see it.

SusiGo wrote:

And I really have no idea why common romantic tropes for which there lots of examples should stop to be romantic just because the show is about two men. 

​

This is what I was trying to say about the article that was linked - I think it's a misinterpretation.   I haven't said that it's because it's two men at all, and I don't think anybody else here has. 
 

Next trope: The Green Carnation. (As in Oscar Wilde)

Liberty wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

And I really have no idea why common romantic tropes for which there lots of examples should stop to be romantic just because the show is about two men. 

​

This is what I was trying to say about the article that was linked - I think it's a misinterpretation.   I haven't said that it's because it's two men at all, and I don't think anybody else here has. 
 

Yes, exactly - the reason why I think those tropes won´t actually amount to them "ending up together" in a traditional romantic-couple-sense has nothing to do with their sexes at all.
It has to do with my definition of "romance" being a bit broader than the definition the article provides - for me it´s not just "from strangers to lovers", but can also mean "a strong emotional attachment and involvement with someone; fascination and enthusiasm for something or someone" (quote taken from "The Free Dictionary"). That means around 90% of those tropes mean nothing but mutual care and commitment in my eyes. That they care deeply, more deeply than is common between friends, and it makes you wonder, of course it does - and to many people the conclusion is that this must mean they´re in love and want to be more than just friends, to others it just shows the extraordinary depth of their friendship and their determination to defend each other no matter the personal cost (such kind of selfless care does not just exist between lovers!). I would think the latter even if the same story was told with m/f-leads.
Next it has to do with my interpretation of the writer´s intent when they use such tropes - for example the remaining 10% that are romantic in a traditional "from strangers to lovers"-way. I see them, and of course agree that they hint at them being possible lovers. But I do not think they are clues to the real core of the story, and if you pick them up and deduce them correctly you solve the puzzle and see where the show and the two of them are heading at. That´s the point where I think a lot of people feel deceived and "romance-baited", because for them being flirty and committed and overall great together must ultimately lead to them ending up together or it has all been a scam. That´s where I tend to disagree, and I´d really like to challenge the notion that such an arc is the only valid and satisfying way to portray a romance.

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 8, 2015 6:42 am)

Indeed. Why take all this care? And this in a show where we know everything is considered, especially in production design? Why place these two men behind a floral arrangement with green carnations? Does anyone truly believe that Arwel Wyn Jones does not know their meaning? Or, even more improbable, Mark Gatiss?

We have two creators on the show. One has named  "The private life of SH" as the film that changed his life, a film in which all scenes alluding to a love relationship and Holmes' homosexuality had to be cut due to censure. The other is known to depict and casually introduce same-sex relationships and gay and bisexual characters in his scripts. He has created a Holmes/Watson version in which both are female and married. And these are facts, not things one "wants to see" or "reads into" the show.  

Last edited by SusiGo (September 8, 2015 7:22 am)

Liberty wrote:

But that's exactly it, Susi.  If that team wanted to do Johnlock they would do it.  It wouldn't be hidden away.   I mean, even Private Life was much more overt than Sherlock.   Why on earth would they make something that's more repressed than Private Life, when apparently Billy Wilder regretted that it couldn't have been more open?   In the example you mention (Moffat's writing for Dr Who), the couple are clearly and openly in a same-sex relationship (the fact that it's same-sex isn't an issue, or commented on) and share a kiss, in a children's TV programme - it's not hidden or coded but completely out there.    Whereas in Sherlock, there isn't even a scene as explicit as the one in Private Life  ("the answer is yes - you are being presumptuous"). 

But where would be a fun in that if they stated it so openly? Moftiss love to play with their audience and to remove all the ambiguity away from the story would rob it of most of its charm.

With around 90% of the audience shipping it from the beginning and big media-hype about Johnlock I don´t really think they could pride themselves with pulling a rug under people´s feet this time though..

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 9, 2015 9:22 am)