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

mrshouse · September 18, 2015 9:13 pm

I like them as Holmes and Watson and I like their chemistry, but they are not as special together. And they somehow never gave me ideas...
That's the difference: they couldn't sell me a proper love story...( sorry, you two...)

SusiGo · September 18, 2015 9:15 pm

Yep, I agree with that. With one exception - Watson's wedding. Holmes walking away alone and with a sad face.

mrshouse · September 18, 2015 9:18 pm

True, that was heartbreaking...

Zatoichi · September 19, 2015 6:02 am

It seems all Sherlocks have to go through this.. *sniffle*

I agree that their chemistry compared to Ben's and Martin's is quite tame.. I blame it on Benedict's striking physical presence and the way they highlighted his sexiness. It is rare for male leads to be presented as physically desirable (and at the same time absolutely ethereal and cerebral) as they do with Sherlock.. It hits a nerve I think. Together with Martin's relatable ways of looking impressed and enamored it's really an explosive mixture ^^.

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 19, 2015 6:23 am)

RavenMorganLeigh · September 19, 2015 6:27 am

I honestly think that part of it is simple--- we're mostly women, and we are gifted with the ability to see romance in a good many things that men might not notice.

Liberty · September 19, 2015 8:25 am

Whisky wrote:
But for that to happen, it needs ambiguity. I'm just not sure if in the Johnlock case, the ambiguity is in the show itself or in the viewers mindset. Evidence (=thousands of Johnlockers) suggests that it is actually in the show. I mean, why would so many people come to the same conclusion? (okay, it's the main characters, it's hot, ... but still)

Oh, I think the ambiguity is there, most definitely (as it was in the shows I picked). I think it even goes a stage further, because the possibility (of Johnlock) is more than alluded to, in quite a knowing way. There's plenty for people to pick up on without them having to be actively looking. As I've found, once the idea is there, it's difficult to shift back to not seeing it, even if you know that it's not actually there!

Zatoichi, I agree about the romanticised portrayal of Sherlock (he's absolutely shown as a romantic hero), and Raven too, I bet you would find that most Johnlockers are women. Possibly we do look for romance more, but also I think that women have a tradition of shipping male characters. Add in the showmakers deliberately putting in references, and it's bound to happen. I'm not at all surprised that Johnlock is a huge thing. I suppose I'm more surprised that people genuinely believe that's the story (that they love each other in that way), but I can see why it happens, with this show more than others.

Ho Yay · September 19, 2015 11:13 am

But this is the very definition of queerbaiting. And that would be offensive and is something that goes right against the LGBT community.
Some are already extremely angry because they think Sherlock is actively queerbaiting and many more will be if it ends without a romance after the romantic coding.
Queerbaiting it's not a matter of little importance and queer representation in shows has effects in real life, because media influence people's minds.
Sherlock is one already one of the first examples of queerbaiting on the wikipedia page.
I really hope this isn't the legacy the show will leave or that the creators are doing that on purpose. Sherlock would still be a good show on other aspects, but incredibly flawed in it's treatment of its queer audience (and also its romance-inclined audience) and also not making a lot of sense its coding.

Why should one not think that the way the show is they are not going to be together? There no reason at all and the only ways the characters said a relationship won't be there is using romantic tropes that create romantic tension (even with the same phrasing as the name of the trope, just so it could be obvious) and avoid a comedic atmosphere so not to be mistaken for a joke.

Regardin the sexual aspect. What do you guys think is a good way in a slow burn romance to show that between the characters there is sexual tension, without them doing any sexual acts together before the end of the show (when they'll enter a relationship)?

Whisky · September 19, 2015 11:28 am

Ho Yay wrote:
Regardin the sexual aspect. What do you guys think is a good way in a slow burn romance to show that between the characters there is sexual tension, without them doing any sexual acts together before the end of the show (when they'll enter a relationship)?

Showing that they think about it. That they are drawn to the other one physically without being able to help it.
E.g. John dreaming about Sherlock in a more physical way. Them sharing physical intimacy in a situation that does not require it. (For example checking physically if someone is alright instead of just asking. Using the excuses one can get. In an obvious, willingly way. Similar to the handholding while being handcuffed. Sherlock entering John's personal space although it's not necessary. Wonder if the hitting could be part of it.)

Also compliments, not about brainy deductions but about physical appearance. And honestly, the looks John gives Sherlock sometimes, I think are already going that way (why do people call it eye sex?). I don't check out my friends physical appearance that way - to a friend, I would openly say "wow, you look really good". With someone I feel attracted to on a physical level, and if I was shy about it like John maybe would be, I wouldn't say a word but secretly check out my object of desire. Also there is really no need to stare into my friends' eyes for such a long time. Wait, there was a fanfic about it. Something about an experiment, where both have to talk about something intimate and then be silent and look at each other for a long time. And effectively afterwards they get physically close. (Is that "34 Minutes"? I am not quite sure.)

And as soon as they are in a relationship, the obvious: affectionate touching, kissing, closing a bedroom door after they both go in. John sitting on Sherlock's lap. etc. I don't think we would need to see any sex scene to know that they are physically intimate. I would mention passion, too. I can of course kiss a close friend, but real passion is something I would reserve for physical interest.

Whisky · September 19, 2015 11:38 am

Ho Yay wrote:
Sherlock is one already one of the first examples of queerbaiting on the wikipedia page.
I really hope this isn't the legacy the show will leave or that the creators are doing that on purpose.

I think the important question is: do they do it on purpose? Or is it an side-effect they simply create while building a romance, or bromance, or whatever it is?
Wikipedia 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 of them not ever getting together for real in the show/book/movie'."

I don't think that's true for Sherlock. There might be homoerotic tension, but I really don't think it's a conscious thing to attract more viewers. It would maybe be possible if the writers were unaware of the context, which I think is simply not possible with Mark Gatiss being in the team. Also, except some interviews which I am not sure can be taken at face value, I don't see them indicating that Johnlock will not happen.

And what about an ending where John and Sherlock simply don't work out? What about them not getting each other, because let's face it, they both don't man up, or because John is stuck in marriage? It happens in real life every other day, and who ever started this annoying codex that every damn romance has to get an Hollywood ending. For me it wouldn't be such a bad thing if Johnlock didn't get the Hollywood ending. Actually, to me it would indicate good TV, not bad TV as you suggest. Of course I watch TV for the fluff, but I am also a big fan of realistic stuff happening. My little romantic heart can stand the disappointment, especially after all the nice romantic scenes we already got, if we are inclined to read them that way.

Last edited by Whisky (September 19, 2015 11:41 am)

SusiGo · September 19, 2015 11:40 am

Well, I think John dreaming about Sherlock at all while his wife is sleeping next to him is already quite distinctive. John patted Sherlock's leg after he had been drugged by Irene and gently slapped his face in Magnussen's office.

A man telling another one that he is being mysterious with his cheekbones is not exactly "just good friends" style. Or thoroughly checking if the other one is wearing something under his sheet. And there are of course all the looks you mention. And Sherlock requesting John to put his hand in his inner jacket pocket to get the phone. Or Sherlock and John sitting on the sofa with Sherlock's arm behind John's back on the armrest in TSoT.

There are signs throughout the episodes. And I would imagine that once they are in a relationship, there will be more.

(This was to your first post, Whisky.)

Last edited by SusiGo (September 19, 2015 11:42 am)

Whisky · September 19, 2015 11:44 am

SusiGo wrote:
And Sherlock requesting John to put his hand in his inner jacket pocket to get the phone.

Ah, yes, that one. Actually, that was the first moment where I actually considered if the Johnlock lot (sorry folks) could be right. Because yes, Sherlock is lazy, but he is also not the most physical person in everyday behaviour, so him asking somebody to touch him and get that close irritated me a lot.
Also John does it willingly. If Sherlock was my friend, I would either get the phone but make a comment or slightly slap him on the back to make sure he understands how I don't consider this my duty, or I would refuse. John just goes there and does it, only frowning slightly. Looks like he doesn't mind, which is strange because he minds a lot as soon as other people watch him. But being alone with Sherlock, nothing seems to be a problem.

Last edited by Whisky (September 19, 2015 11:47 am)

SusiGo · September 19, 2015 11:46 am

Whisky wrote:
And what about an ending where John and Sherlock simply don't work out? What about them not getting each other, because let's face it, they both don't man up, or because John is stuck in marriage? It happens in real life every other day, and who ever started this annoying codex that every damn romance has to get an Hollywood ending. For me it wouldn't be such a bad thing if Johnlock didn't get the Hollywood ending. Actually, to me it would indicate good TV, not bad TV as you suggest. Of course I watch TV for the fluff, but I am also a big fan of realistic stuff happening. My little romantic heart can stand the disappointment, especially after all the nice romantic scenes we already got, if we are inclined to read them that way.

Well, that would be a letdown, wouldn't it? In a show like this you need a worthy final, a point of culmination. And I cannot imagine that after all that heartbreak and drama they would go for the relationship finally happening and then not working out. Where would it leave the audience? And this show is not realistic but a romance (please have a look at my sig). And if this romance finally came to pass after four or five season it would be a great disappointment if they said "nice try, but after all you are not the right one". And IMO it would be bad storytelling - not as such but for this kind of story.

Whisky · September 19, 2015 11:53 am

*sigh* Yes of course you are right in a way, but then again - and it might be a personal thing - I find it kind of boring to see all these romantic films end the same way. It's the same story told a thousand times: yes they love each other, now how long does it take them to get to the happy ending.
I just think Sherlock and John are too interesting characters for this. And also, I think I didn't make that clear, I am not saying they won't get the relationship - I just want to say, it doesn't need to be the final episode. It doesn't need to end with the big white wedding in the church for the two of them. Maybe that's not what everybody is talking about, but when I read about how people want to see the sex, the happiness, the perfection, I just think: no, I don't need that. I don't need the perfection, the fluff. Why would people be disappointed if they don't get that? If they get so many other things, so much perfection hidden in imperfection?
(hope this is not offensive, I don't mean it that way, I truly just don't understand)

Last edited by Whisky (September 19, 2015 11:57 am)

SusiGo · September 19, 2015 12:00 pm

I do not think they would ever have a harmonious relationship, not with their respective characters. There would be quarrel and banter and banged doors and all that because this is how it was when they were happy. Before the fall. One of the saddest things of series 3 is that this lightness is missing. Which is plausible because after all they have been through and still are going through it would not be fitting. I am not hoping for white turtledoves and rainbow confetti but for them to realise that they belong together. For a relationship with all its flaws and imperfections. And I think this would be realistic.

Whisky · September 19, 2015 12:06 pm

Okay, that's more like it. I could do with that. But the interesting thing is: it's true what you say, they were happy, weren't they? But at that point, they weren't in a romantic/sexual relationship, but "just" friends or flatmates or whatever they were. So did they really miss something? I mean, before? (that now something is missing is quite clear. But is it a romantic relationship, or just the old easygoing friendship that's missing?)

Going back to where I came from, so as long as they end up in a relationship, BBC Sherlock stays clear of queerbaiting? (trying to understand...)

edited to add:
Actually, this term confuses me a bit. Of course, if there are romantic tropes, I would assume romance. No matter which gender the lead characters have. I would be just as pissed off as a heterosexual viewer if the obvious romantic tropes used for two male or two female characters of a show would lead nowhere. Imagination doesn't supply me with a quicker acceptance one way or another. I am confident it's not based on what I am used to, it's based on coding, as Ho Yay said.

Last edited by Whisky (September 19, 2015 12:30 pm)

SusiGo · September 19, 2015 12:16 pm

Yes, they were. In a way. And Sherlock had begun to get more emotional and John had stopped dating women after Jeanette. So I suppose they were on a good way before all went down the drain with Moriarty.

Well, I am not an expert on queerbaiting but I think if they were shown as gay or bi and ended in a relationship the queerbaiting accusation would become invalid. However, I think that the first point would be even more important than the relationship argument because it would show that leading characters in a big successful TV show can be LGBT even the show is not built around this aspect.
But it is also important IMO to show that they can be happy (whatever that means). Because for a long time LGBT characters, especially gay males, in films and literature were often depicted as unhappy, as victims, as suicidal, etc., E M Forster's "Maurice" being one important exception.

Last edited by SusiGo (September 19, 2015 12:17 pm)

Liberty · September 19, 2015 5:01 pm

I do understand that some people are seeing queerbaiting and it upsets them, and I think that's sad. It is one interpretation of the writers' intentions, though. Going by the wikipedia definition: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 of them not ever getting together for real in the show/book/movie", I don't think that's what they're meaning to do. For a start, I don't there is homoerotic tension there. I think it's possible to see it, but I don't think everybody does (I don't). And maybe surprisingly, they seemed to make it clear from the beginning that things weren't going that way. John is shown as having girlfriends exclusively. Sherlock is shown as married to his work. That's set up right at the beginning in Episode 1. Now they could easily have left things in the air, but instead they've clarified that point right at the beginning. And they don't really deviate from that. For instance, the Sholto scene seems to confirm, again, the nature of their relationship. There isn't really an "are they or aren't they?" element there.

The "jokes", I think, partly show the elephant in the room situation - two mature men, living together, loving each other, (and two fictional characters who have often been seen as gay in the past). Maybe people didn't assume they were gay in Victorian times, but they would now. What makes it kind of nice, is that it's all fine - and it's only recently that this has been the case, that there wouldn't be an element of homophobia in "accusing" a male couple of being gay. Moftiss have said that they reference TPLOSH, where being gay would have been issue both in the time it was set, and at the time it was made.

Last edited by Liberty (September 19, 2015 5:30 pm)

Schmiezi · September 20, 2015 6:53 am

Liberty wrote:
There isn't really an "are they or aren't they?" element there.

Looking at the huge number of threads and posts dealing with "Johnlock - yes or no?" I do think that there is a "are they or aren't they?" element. A rather huge one. Otherwise, there would be a lot less discussion on that topic.

Zatoichi · September 20, 2015 7:01 am

Queerbaiting is a difficult topic.. I used to admire the show for giving so many different tastes and orientations something to enjoy (and phantasize about ;p), but of course if it is getting hurtful for LGBT-people I don't want that to happen. Then again, if what they were trying to do in their show was to 1) show Sherlock in a very attractive light, both through his physical attractiveness and through John's admiring eyes, 2) show their very exceptional, deep connection, 3) pay their tributes to films that influenced them, some of which had the topic of unrequited love between them, 4) establish an absolutely non-homophobic (is there a better word for it?) environment and 5) not play innocent about the shipping of attractive m/m-couples they know inevitably happens in every show but pick it up and winkingly acknowledge it..
.. then I feel it's not an inappropriate thing to do, even if in combination it does muddle the water and might feel -depending on the angle from which you look at it- like heavily implying homoromantic and homoerotic elements..?

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 20, 2015 7:44 am)

Liberty · September 20, 2015 7:13 am

Schmiezi wrote:
Liberty wrote:
There isn't really an "are they or aren't they?" element there.

Looking at the huge number of threads and posts dealing with "Johnlock - yes or no?" I do think that there is a "are they or aren't they?" element. A rather huge one. Otherwise, there would be a lot less discussion on that topic.

I mean in the actual writing - what they've shown us so far. They've written John as straight (exclusively dating women) right from the beginning - the idea about him being closeted due to the army is backstory added by fans, not the writers. I don't think they're taunting us, but have been clear from the beginning.