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

besleybean · May 29, 2017 8:12 pm

On the latter point, what she said chimed very much with Ian's annoyance at people bullying Mark.

Vhanja · May 29, 2017 8:16 pm

I will never understand how anyone can think that is ok. Some people needs to get their heads out of their arses and get some perspective.

Last edited by Vhanja (May 29, 2017 8:17 pm)

Vhanja · May 29, 2017 8:21 pm

But let's take a step back, because this thread also needs this:

besleybean · May 29, 2017 8:22 pm

Aw, the boys + Rosie= adorable.

Vhanja · May 29, 2017 8:25 pm

I will never get over John's face in that scene. I have never, in the entire series, seen him as happy as this.

besleybean · May 29, 2017 8:27 pm

It's the way he kisses that child...so sweet.

Liberty · May 29, 2017 8:35 pm

Fatherhood does agree with him in the end! (And I think that's realistic. Not everybody absolutely loves the small baby stuff).

Sue sounds lovely! And yes, I think we'd mentioned the Mrs Hudson scene just a little bit up this thread: it kind of dismisses the idea early on and makes it clear that Mrs Hudson is pleasantly deluded!

Schmiezi · May 30, 2017 3:33 am

Vhanja wrote:
I will never get over John's face in that scene. I have never, in the entire series, seen him as happy as this.

It's wonderful.

Vhanja · June 9, 2017 8:49 pm

Not sure if you guys have seen this particular interview. It's with both Mark and Steven. The second part is about Mary and brings nothing new, but it is kind of interesting to hear their thoughts about the "bromance" of Sherlock and John:

Last edited by Vhanja (June 9, 2017 8:49 pm)

Liberty · June 9, 2017 8:59 pm

I must watch all those SDCC interviews again now that we know what actually happens!

besleybean · June 9, 2017 9:03 pm

Good for the Mary thread!

Schmiezi · June 9, 2017 9:48 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Not sure if you guys have seen this particular interview. It's with both Mark and Steven. The second part is about Mary and brings nothing new, but it is kind of interesting to hear their thoughts about the "bromance" of Sherlock and John:

I can't watch it from my mobile and won't have access to a PC anytime soon but now I am curious. What did they say?

besleybean · June 9, 2017 9:49 pm

That Mrs Hudson is the only nice character!

Vhanja · June 9, 2017 10:29 pm

Hahaha!

Ok, trying a quick transcipt:

Interview: Ok, one of the coolest ting about this show, is that you guys have been able to keep the the modern bromance of an age old relationship between Sherlock and Watson. What's it like for you guys, as your growing their relationship, to make sure that it feels real, that it feels authentic, you know, heading into this season?

Moffat: It's a weird thing, because like a lot of male friendships - we were discussing this the other night - it's of course never stated at all. That's the thing about male friendship: it's literally never talked about. They solve crimes, they have adventures together, they grouch (?) each other a bit, the friendship is just there. It is not in the words, it's in the fact that they are a unit, they complete each other, they are a duo...

Gatiss. There is a wonderful quote from one of the orignal stories where Watson persuades Sherlock Holmes to (come out?) for some air, much against his will, and he says, they are walking in the park, and he says: "We walked in silence for the most part, as befits two men who know each other intimately". I never forgot that, I remember reading that as a child thinking "that seems like a wonderful expression of the truth of it". But to be honest, to answer your question, we, over the years, we're trying to evolve it and to make sure that the characters actually have somewhere to go. Sherlock can not be the same person as he was in episode 1, equally, Dr. Watson is a self-confessed adrenaline junkie, and they have to find new places to go. This season particularly really tests them.

Interviewer: Benedict mentions, this season gets a bit darker.

Moffat. We turned the lights off.

Interviewer: Ripping off (?) the relationship they sort of have, how far can you push them before it eventually snaps?

Gatiss. Who knows?

Moffat. We will certainly try to find out.

Gatiss. We've pushed them quite far in this.

Moffat. I think this one is, yeah, I'm just running it through in my head, I mean, you're gonna get all the pushing you want.

The rest of the interview is about Mary, so I won't transcribe that here.

Last edited by Vhanja (June 9, 2017 10:35 pm)

Schmiezi · June 10, 2017 4:41 am

Thank you Vhanja! :-)

SusiGo · July 19, 2017 9:24 pm

Something nice from Canon:

https://sherloki1854.tumblr.com/post/127792386915/holmess-and-watsons-pet-names

Liberty · July 20, 2017 6:24 am

It's a shame "dear" is going out of fashion (apart from in more formal letters)!

My guess is that the difference between the two is that Watson is acting as narrator for most of the stories, whereas Holmes is addressing Watson directly. As for "my", I've never particularly argued against Johnlock being intended in the original stories, but I do think that it may have been common for people to call each other "my" something ("my dear sir", "my dear madam", if being more formal). Which I suppose became just "my dear", or "dear" in letters.

Last edited by Liberty (July 20, 2017 6:36 am)

SusiGo · July 20, 2017 8:07 am

I am not a native speaker but I have quite a lot of stories about gay relationships. To me it seemed that the term "my dear boy", spoken between adult men, has a very intimate, if not outright homoerotic, connotation. Maybe I am wrong but this was my impression.

Liberty · July 20, 2017 5:10 pm

You could well be right! I'm a native speaker, but not familiar with Victorian speech (apart from reading books from the time, etc.). "My dear boy" always makes me think of that famous line from Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman (apparently wrongly reported) which is sometimes "quoted" as "My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?". I didn't get the impression that it was ever meant to be homoerotic or imply any sort of relationship like that between them - it's just a funny story about the differences in acting styles. (Although, of course, there's something a bit theatrical and camp about "dear boy", in modern times).

Vhanja · July 20, 2017 7:25 pm

I think there is a lot of mannerism and way of speaking that gets lost from Victorian era to our. We should never try to read Victorian through moderns eyes.

Having that said, I have no idea how Victorian homoerotism would sound like either, so I have nothing to compare it against.

I just think that, consider the time, Doyle would not be able to write anything that could be regarded as "common" when it came to homosexuality. And my very personal opinion is that to think him otherwise, is wishful thinking.