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

Harriet · September 9, 2015 10:13 am

Liberty wrote:
Anyway, why have the tropes and references there ... I think there are three main categories:
- romantic tropes fitting well with depicting an unusual, loving friendship with romantic (in the broad sense) elements (how else would you show it?)
...

The problem here is that you use a definition of romance that for sure applies to some, but less likely to those who create such romantic tropes in movies etc.
It's imho quite clear what these tropes in movies etc are intended for.
There are other tropes for Deepest Friendship, and others for Best Bros etc. So if you want to express mutual care and commitment, there are different ways of telling about that.
For example, Third Star. The Intouchables. Grumpy Old Men.

Last edited by Harriet (September 9, 2015 10:14 am)

Harriet · September 9, 2015 10:36 am

Zatoichi wrote:
With around 90% of the audience shipping it from the beginning

Which is not true if you remember what the shippers here wrote about themselves and their perception.

Last edited by Harriet (September 9, 2015 10:37 am)

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 10:46 am

Well, the percentage might have been exaggerated, but there's no denying that it's out there and hardly qualifies as an surprising plot-twist. Even at this forum I recall only two members who have stated they haven't picked up any vibes or didn't at least wonder for some time. Johnlock is massively used for marketing, whole countries issue shippy trailers, BBC3 feeds their followers with shippy tweets and even BBC1 recently joins in with ambiguous questions. It has been so excessively covered in mainstream-media that involved people felt the urge to issue official statements (not denying that Moffat keeps teasing though). If that's their way to hide clues for a future plot-twist then it's about as subtle as a club on the head .

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 9, 2015 10:47 am)

Harriet · September 9, 2015 10:51 am

Zatoichi wrote:
Well, the percentage might have been exaggerated, but there's no denying that it's out there and hardly qualifies as an surprising plot-twist. Even at this forum I recall only two members who have stated they haven't picked up any vibes or didn't at least wonder for some time.

Count me in, that makes three
And why should it be a surprising plot-twist when it's already happening?

SusiGo · September 9, 2015 10:56 am

Zatoichi wrote:
Well, the percentage might have been exaggerated, but there's no denying that it's out there and hardly qualifies as an surprising plot-twist. Even at this forum I recall only two members who have stated they haven't picked up any vibes or didn't at least wonder for some time. Johnlock is massively used for marketing, whole countries issue shippy trailers, BBC3 feeds their followers with shippy tweets and even BBC1 recently joins in with ambiguous questions. It has been so excessively covered in mainstream-media that involved people felt the urge to issue official statements (not denying that Moffat keeps teasing though). If that's their way to hide clues for a future plot-twist then it's about as subtle as a club on the head .

Which still does not answer the question "Why all this?" It cannot be queerbaiting for marketing reasons because it would be completely against everything the BBC stands for (v. the LGBT report).

Last edited by SusiGo (September 9, 2015 11:05 am)

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 11:23 am

Harriet wrote:
Zatoichi wrote:
Well, the percentage might have been exaggerated, but there's no denying that it's out there and hardly qualifies as an surprising plot-twist. Even at this forum I recall only two members who have stated they haven't picked up any vibes or didn't at least wonder for some time.
Count me in, that makes three
And why should it be a surprising plot-twist when it's already happening?

Oh, I didn't know that.. What made you change your mind?

I was referring to the suggestions that they don't just state it openly or even keep denying it in order not to spoil the audience's surprise about the plot.

Harriet · September 9, 2015 11:27 am

Seeing and discussing all the evidence.

I think the main thing is not the surprise effect, it's the story line and character development.
But Johnlock is immanent already from the beginning.

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 12:42 pm

But if you saw the evidence I´m afraid I can´t count you in as someone who didn´t pick up any Johnlock-vibes.. .. makes two again (I´m thinking of besleybean and one other).

I agree that the surprise-effect can´t be the main thing - but then again if it´s not then what´s the point in blatantly lying and making all those formerly discussed efforts to protect the storyline? I have no answer as to why they are doing what they do - maybe in their eyes it doesn´t yet qualify as queer-baiting in the sense of the report..? I really have no idea. But if the core of the story really was about a queer romance then I´d really wish they would have treated it with more care.. a lot of things that happened would -to me- feel very off and almost insulting for an actual developing lovers-relationship.

Vhanja · September 9, 2015 1:58 pm

As someone mentioned earlier, I think the surprise-effect would be quite big. Not for the fandom, but for the casual viewer. And the casual viewer is the biggest group.

I don't think the surprise would be so much shock that the two of them would become romantically involved, but that Moftiss would dare to do it. I know I would be shocked for that reason.

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 2:37 pm

Oh yes, I remember arguing myself that their love-affair would be too much of a deviation from canon for them to actually go there.. that was a long time ago! Since the whole of S3 sank in I don´t think Moffat daring to do anything could still shock me. But I´d probably be shocked -or at least disappointed- about Mark and Ian not having meant what they said in a really earnest and serious way..

SusiGo · September 9, 2015 2:50 pm

Just found this:

“If certain details are spoiled because of people who think about nothing but Sherlock, you can’t do anything about that.
They’ll find out somehow, but you can’t think, ‘Oh, that’s ruined now’, because ten thousand people know that secret.
It only matters if the big audience knows.”
– Mark Gatiss, on keeping show secrets.
(DenOfGeek, January 2014 [x])

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 3:26 pm

I still don´t think that we are talking just about a few tenthousands of fans if we talk about Johnlock.. if you google "Johnlock in the media" google shows 684.000 hits, BBC3s twitter has over 550k followers , youtube has over 29.000 Johnlock-videos and some of them have over 100.000 clicks.. Urban Dictionary defines Johnlock as "the father of all gay ships", and that´s only the results I got from 5 seconds googling.. doesn´t sound like something only a few dedicated fans think about to me..

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 9, 2015 3:26 pm)

tonnaree · September 9, 2015 3:43 pm

Zatoichi wrote:
I still don´t think that we are talking just about a few tenthousands of fans if we talk about Johnlock.. if you google "Johnlock in the media" google shows 684.000 hits, BBC3s twitter has over 550k followers , youtube has over 29.000 Johnlock-videos and some of them have over 100.000 clicks.. Urban Dictionary defines Johnlock as "the father of all gay ships", and that´s only the results I got from 5 seconds googling.. doesn´t sound like something only a few dedicated fans think about to me..

Just a few thoughts.

Remember that 100,000 clicks does not mean 100,000 individual people. There are videos on youtube that I have watched over a dozen times.

Remember that we, the hard core fans, produce A LOT OF CONTENT. There is a lot of johnlock content on the internet because we are busy little bees.

I know many people who like the show, even love the show, but who are not OBSESSED WITH IT. We, and I don't mean this in a bad way, are obsessed. There are millions of people out there who just watch the show. They may read the occasional articles or watch an interview, but they don't write fiction, make videos or spend hours on the net discusing the ins and outs of plot and character. Hard core fans do spend a great deal of time with other fans so it's easy to not realize how many fans are not on the net with us.

Because of all this I think that a confirmation of a johnlock romance on the show would still be a HUGE thing for the general public.

SusiGo · September 9, 2015 3:43 pm

Sorry, tonnarre, our answers crossed.

And there is this:

"Benedict Cumberbatch’s version of detective Sherlock Holmes has proved to be a global smash for the BBC, licensed to 224 territories in the year."

"Sherlock Holmes gets 69 MILLION viewers in China - despite it being BANNED for being 'too risque' by Chinese authorities"

Adding this up you will get hundreds of millions viewers worldwide. And I am still sure that the overwhelming majority of them are no ardent fangirls and fanboys but casual viewers who do not analyse the show like we do.

Last edited by SusiGo (September 9, 2015 3:44 pm)

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 5:17 pm

It would indeed be interesting to see how it was received in other countries - unfortuntaley my chinese isn't good enough to check, and in Japanese if I search "Johnlock" there are only articles about John Locke.. (There are a lot of hits for other search words like "Sherlock and John couple" or "Sherlock John in love, though). But BBC itself writes on its newsblog "Gay love theory as fans relish Sherlock in China".. : http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-25550426
Which is probably also the reason why it was deemed "too risque" by the authorities. Somehow I don't find the theory of the oblivious general audience convincing..

SusiGo · September 9, 2015 5:32 pm

I really do not think it is just a theory. The only German Johnlock supporters I know are on this board and in my experience it is not really discussed or even mentioned in German mainstream media.

Harriet · September 9, 2015 5:35 pm

Zatoichi wrote:
But if you saw the evidence I´m afraid I can´t count you in as someone who didn´t pick up any Johnlock-vibes.. .. makes two again (I´m thinking of besleybean and one other).

Then we were talking about different things.
I thought you were asking for people who didn't come here expecting Johnlock but discovered it.
And there are quite some of us.

Zatoichi · September 9, 2015 5:41 pm

Ah okay, @Harriet..

@Susi: First google hit, big German newspaper, last sentence: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/tv-kritik/tv-kritik-sherlock-sherlock-holmes-im-neuen-format-12978456.html

(It basically says that nothing in S3 is as captivating as searching for hints in Sherlock's face if he loves John Watson just as much as he loves him..)

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 9, 2015 5:47 pm)

Harriet · September 9, 2015 6:16 pm

It doesn't seem representative - I found only two more after several attempts, and articles way more often assume there is love for Irene. Or they mention John's love for Mary.
Exceptions are a proof for a rule, I'd say.

Last edited by Harriet (September 9, 2015 6:50 pm)

Liberty · September 9, 2015 6:56 pm

nakahara wrote:
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.

SusiGo wrote:
Liberty: Why would the team have to announce it from the beginning? What if Johnlock is one essential part of the narrative arc in "a show about a detective"? They did not tell us that Mycroft was not Moriarty or that Mary was a killer either. It was developed within the narrative - in Mary's cases we got hints, as Steven has stated - and yet the audience was surprised. I am sure the same thing will happen with people looking back to all the signs of love between Sherlock and John and say "I saw but I did not observe".

Short answer: because the way it has been set up would make sexual orientation "the issue".

They've presented John as straight - ALL his partners have been women.   They could have made one or more partners men, or made them all men, or not shown any partners at all, and any of those approaches would mean that sexual orientation was not the issue if John fell for Sherlock.   In fact, they've picked the one approach where it would be an issue, which suggests to me that they're not going to go there. The article suggests a backstory about John suppressing his sexuality while in the Forces and beyond, but we get no hint of that in the series - and again, it would make sexual orientation the issue. It would be possible to write them as lovers - but they've given it a very difficult setup, if they are going to make the reveal be about romance rather than sexuality.

Going by what the writers have said and done, it's not the way I'd expect them to go about it.   In Steven Moffat's example above, sexual orientation is pointedly not the issue at all, and Mark Gatiss seems to yearn for a time when it routinely isn't an an issue on screen.