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

ewige · July 27, 2016 6:08 pm

I love it, GimmeCat!

GimmeCat · July 28, 2016 12:33 am

I'm glad that wasn't as unpopular an opinion as I was thinking it would be! I do still have nagging contradictory thoughts ("If they're that much in love, wouldn't they want all of each other, no exceptions?") but for the most part, that's how I've come to feel about it.

Also, lol @ that tumblr post.

Schmiezi · July 28, 2016 5:15 am

Just a question about the english language: would you talk about an "openly gay couple" if one of the partners were bi?

Liberty · July 28, 2016 6:25 am

Often gay includes bi, so if it was a same sex "openly gay couple" could be a bi couple, I suppose.. It's like when talking about gay marriage, for instance - it includes bisexual people who marrry a same sex partner. "Gay" is shorter than "gay or bi" and easy to understand, but of course it can feel like it leaves out bi people! I often use "same sex couple" instead (although that still isn't precise for people who don't exactly fit one sex!).

SusiGo · July 28, 2016 7:18 am

For me the word "openly" is the most interesting thing about this expression. What does it mean for a TV show? That two people are defined as gay/bi from the beginning, that they are are in relationship from the beginning? What about two people who start a relationship only after a long time and after overcoming lots of personal dramas and catastrophes? Would their relationship still be "open"? Tbh, the way I understand it to say "we would have made them an openly gay couple if we had wanted to" is very vague.

For me an "openly gay couple" would be like Mitchell and Cameron from "Modern Family". Both gay and in a relationship from the beginning. There is no journey involved, no twist, no surprise, no real development. But this is not the story BBC Sherlock is telling.

Last edited by SusiGo (July 28, 2016 7:19 am)

besleybean · July 28, 2016 4:31 pm

Indeed not.
It is the ultimate bromance.
Two male friends who love each other and have adventures together.

Schmiezi · July 28, 2016 5:34 pm

Good questions, Susi. Using the word "openly" is an interesting choice.

Liberty · July 28, 2016 5:35 pm

I think if they ever showed them as a gay couple it would then be open, regardless of when they get together. They're obviously not an openly gay couple now, but once it happened, they would be. But I agree, it's a little bit interesting - there is the alternative of showing them as a closeted gay couple (I don't think they would, but you could interpret the word that way), or even, if you wanted to be hopeful, the idea that they were only implied to be a gay couple, rather than openly shown as one.

I don't have a transcript of what Moftiss said at SDCC (does anyone?), but if those tweets are correct, I don't think they used "openly gay" - that was what Mark used at Mumbai, I think, and he kind of explains the context.

GimmeCat · July 28, 2016 5:35 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
Just a question about the english language: would you talk about an "openly gay couple" if one of the partners were bi?

Typically yes, we'd refer to any same-sex couple of whatever a/sexuality as being a "gay couple" simply because it's an efficient and all-encompassing label. It's not 100% accurate, but then, common chatting/bantering isn't about accuracy, but brevity and ease-of-speech. English doesn't have a word for "one person is gay and the other is bi."

Liberty · July 28, 2016 5:52 pm

GimmeCat wrote:

Thoughts? (Presuming we don't need a briefing of the content of these articles; I'm assuming everyone knows, but if not I'll hunt down the links and post them.)

I hope it's OK but I thought I'd post this here to discuss, but I think it's impossible to talk about without getting into "Johnlock debate" territory!

ewige · July 28, 2016 5:53 pm

Showing a closeted gay couple is no way revolutionary and I wouldn't feel that would be the historical change in the representation of LGBT people.

On the other hand, people who are in love so deeply it transcends reality and changes them forever might eventually come to a physical relationship to have "all of each other", as GimmeCat said. I wouldn't mind of course but it's not what I'd need from the show in the first place. Almost all my wishes came true when Sherlock shot CAM to protect the woman John loves (I know, I know, there are many interpretations here as to WHY, but I like my version best ;) ). This is the selfless love that's shown too rarely.
Now John only needs to get his head out of his butt and do something special for Sherlock - yep, he's shot a man for him right away, but he's a soldier, that doesn't count

ewige · July 28, 2016 5:56 pm

Liberty wrote:
I hope it's OK but I thought I'd post this here to discuss, but I think it's impossible to talk about without getting into "Johnlock debate" territory!

I have to admit I don't know which articles it's about, do you happen to have the links?

Vhanja · July 28, 2016 5:57 pm

So I guess that last interview was the final nail in the coffin for Johnlock in the show?

(And, as was expected, several people over at Tumblr are angry at Mofftiss now).

Last edited by Vhanja (July 28, 2016 6:03 pm)

Schmiezi · July 28, 2016 6:03 pm

Vhanja wrote:
So I guess that last interview was the final nail in the coffin for Johnlock in the show?

No.

Vhanja · July 28, 2016 6:07 pm

“It’s worth saying – because we never get the opportunity to actually say it. The whole notion, the idea of them possibly being a couple is inspired by the joke in the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes=12px, our favorite version. And we thought that was a good idea to run with that. In the 21st century it wouldn’t be an issue. People would just assume. Maybe we’ve done it too many times I don’t know. That’s all it is. He explicitly says he is not interested. Doesn’t mean he couldn’t be. Doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it. I’m a gay man. This is not an issue. But we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it. And if people want to write whatever they like and have a great time extrapolating that’s absolutely fine. But there is no hidden or exposed agenda. We’re not trying to feck with people’s heads. Not trying to insult anybody or make any kind of issue out of it, there’s nothing there. It’s just our show and that’s what these characters are like. If people want to do that on websites absolutely fine. But there’s nothing there.”

To me, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

What upsets me, is when I read stuff like this on Tumblr:

"Yes, maybe they’re actually being serious and Johnlock won’t happen, and in that case a revenge is coming upon them[this is bit about revenge had a line running through the text], but this is life, and life is an unfair bitch."

That is when the idea of Johnlock has gone too far, in my opinion. That is when it's not fun anymore.

Last edited by Vhanja (July 28, 2016 6:09 pm)

Liberty · July 28, 2016 6:20 pm

I'll see if I can post the tweets in a clever way like Gimmiecat did, but I believe the interview he's talking about is this one:
http://constancecare.tumblr.com/post/147867120136/xxxxxxxxxxx-credits-to

(Edit: Vhanja has posted a link and a quote to the actual interview - these are only the initial tweets).

And the Guardian interview is this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/nov/07/mark-gatiss-sherlock-holmes

The magic of this film, I think, comes down to the writing of the dialogue by Wilder and his writing partner, Izzy Diamond. There are a number of conversations between Robert Stephens (Sherlock) and Colin Blakely (Watson) that are just like tiny symphonies. Every gag, every little annunciation or pause is poised perfectly and, watching it recently (it was a template of sorts for Stephen Moffat and me as we made our adaptation for the BBC) made me realise that Wilder and Diamond were among the best screenwriters in the world. They gently take the mickey out of Sherlock Holmes in the way that you can only do with something that you really adore. It's a fantastically melancholy film. The relationship between Sherlock and Watson is treated beautifully; Sherlock effectively falls in love with him in the film, but it's so desperately unspoken. There's an amazing scene where, to get out of a situation where a Russian ballerina wants Sherlock to father her child, he claims Watson and he are gay. Watson is outraged and, when he calms down, speaks of the women all over the world who could attest to his sexuality. He says to Sherlock, "You do too, don't you?" Holmes is silent, and Watson says, "Am I being presumptuous? There have been women, haven't there?" Holmes says, "The answer is yes – you are being presumptuous." Sensational.

Last edited by Liberty (July 28, 2016 6:26 pm)

Vhanja · July 28, 2016 6:22 pm

My quote was from this interview:

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/27/sherlock-a-case-of-sexual-identity/

Liberty · July 28, 2016 6:25 pm

Yes, we crossposted (only because it took me forever to work out how to post the tweets!), and I hadn't realised the interview was up! I'll delete all those tweets as yours is a better link, presumably verbatim, and is what Mark is referring to.

ewige · July 28, 2016 7:27 pm

Thank you guys for the links! Yeah, that sounds definite. However, they'd been singing a different song when the first season aired... So I tend to believe them now only to a certain extent. Like, 90%

I mean, srsly, what else can they say? If they keep quiet, we know something's up. Doesn't mean that they want to put the two into a bed by the end of the show. Only means that they wouldn't tell us if they wanted to.

Liberty · July 28, 2016 7:57 pm

I don't get the impression they're trying to hide a plot point. There was no need to say what they said at the interview, and no need to tweet to confirm it was true - it has to be something they feel strongly about. I know we can't hear them, but the words do seem genuine and the person writing it seemed to think they were. And the words are consistent with everything they've said in the past: they've always claimed it was a friendship they were showing.

I think it's probably good that they've stated this explictly, before S4 airs.

I do have some more thoughts on this, but will maybe come back to it later.