Not really.

Now I just hope that Sherlock will not leave with the elbs at the end of ep. 3. 

I've been thinking about the topic of heteronormativity. And I know some people feel that because of it, it's harder to interpret two men (or two women) as having a romantic interest than it is if it's a man or a woman.

However, when I think about it, I view it a bit opposite. As I see it, I don't find the viewing of people (a man and a woman) as a couple for every little thing a positive thing. I think our society has become way too sexualized, and as of now a man and a woman can't even look at each other without people going "Oh, they're ending up in bed together!"

So to me, I don't see it as a goal that same-sex couples should be viewed the same. I actually think the way we view relationships with people of the same sex is a bit more healthy - that we don't think they will jump in bed together just because they shared a smile.

So instead of people adding the heteronormative view to gay people, I wish it would be the other way around: That we would extend our view on same sex relationships to hetereosexual relationships. 

Thanks, Lola! I've been thinking about this for a while. And, to be honest, it's something that crossed my mind way before I got into Sherlock and the possibility of Johnlock. Why can't a man and a woman be friends and leave it at that?

The problem, as I see it, is that Hollywod has made a code/trope/whatever you want to call it, where - if you just put the right angle/music/lighting to it, just ONE scene between a man and a woman looking at each other will tell you that they will end up together. And, in the world of movies, they will. 

Adding that kind of sign/angle/trope to homosexual relationships of any kind is not a positive sign to me. It should be the other way around. 

I don't blame people, of whatever sexuality or world view. I blame Hollywood. They gave us the recipe. And I say yay, to any pairing of any sexuality that refuse to follow it.
 

I fail to see what is so bad about two people falling in love. O.o

Vhanja wrote:

Me neither?

Sorry, I got your post wrong then. What do you mind, then? Romantic tropes?

Schmiezi wrote:

Sorry, I got your post wrong then. What do you mind, then? Romantic tropes?

I mind how romance is overused and oversimplified. As Liberty mentions, most Hollywood movie - no matter what genre and story - needs to have a "romantic interest". No matter if it's not related to the story or how forced it seems, there has to be a romantic interest between a man and a woman in most movies.

And so often, they don't spend much time actually developing the relationship properly. They boil it down to well-used romantic tropes where just one shot with a specific angle or music is enough for the audience to know that there is a romantic interest.

I think it's overused and oversimplified. And I don't think it should be a goal for samesex relationships to share those tropes and that kind of way to handle romance. The reason we so easily interpret a romantic interest between a man and a woman whereas we don't see the same in samesex relationships, is because we've seen it done a thousand times by Hollywood. Just half a second of eye contact and we know they will end up in bed together before the movie is finished.

And to me, that is not a good thing and not something to aim for.

Instead, I wished that Hollywood would go the other way around. They could tone done their need for a "romantic interest" and focus on better stories and better character developments instead of throwing in a woman so that the main hero has someone to kiss before the credit rolls. I would hate to see samesex relationships dumbed down and be portrayed the same way.

So to me, not seeing romance in every little detail of samesex relationships is a good sign. It means that Hollywood has not managed to ruin how we view those kind of relationships with their overusing and oversimplifying of romance.

I agree that samesex relationships are very under-represented (is that a word?) in Hollywood, something I think is quite sad. Hollywood is still run by middle-aged, priviliged white men, and that still shows.

However, my posts were meant as an argument against the statements of heteronormative view when it comes to not seeing, for instance, Johnlock. 

• Why did Sherlock tell John to go and save himself when the bomb switched on?
I think he’s setting up the scenario for asking for forgiveness (making it realistic, and making it clear that he would try to save John).

• Why did they have an intense discussion about feelings when John thought that they were about to die?
It looks as if Sherlock set it up.  It felt as if John had not really forgiven Sherlock.  But faced with death, he wanted Sherlock to know how he really felt.  And Sherlock really needed to be forgiven. 

• Why did John say that Sherlock is the 'best and wisest man’ that he has even known?
Because it’s true - why would he lie at this point? 

• Why did Sherlock pretend to not care/ forget about the wedding?
He’s in denial, I think.   

• Why did he try and get Mrs Hudson to leave when she talked about her maid of honour and the end of eras?
Because he knows something similar is happening to him and John, and that Mrs Hudson may be right that friendships change forever after weddings.  He doesn't really want to hear it/know it/accept it.

• Why did Sherlock sadly stare at John’s chair?
Because he misses him and knows things are changing.

• Why did he say 'into battle’ before putting his wedding suit on?
He wasn’t looking forward to the wedding, which signified the end of an era (and an inevitable change in their relationship).   I imagine he’d thought that he and John would be at 221B again together after the fall, and this is the final confirmation that it’s not going to happen (for now!).   

• Why do we not see any of the actual wedding?
It’s not part of the story, and would just be filler.   And the main theme of the overarching story is John and Sherlock’s relationship (which is something we see a lot of in this episode).

• Why did Sherlock not move when the photographer said 'just the bride and groom, please’?
Because he likes to think of himself as part of it, and has seen himself as one of three throughout the planning too.  

Last edited by Liberty (November 5, 2016 2:04 pm)

I think that kind of applies to BBC Sherlock too.  Although I wouldn't describe them as "in love", their relationship with each other will always eclipse romantic ones.  At least, I hope so.