Reading my post again with a little more peace and quiet around I notice I did not express myself very well before.. should not submit when in a hurry! All I was trying to say is that John might have become a little sentimental if Sherlock would have approached him in a way we would consider empathetic.. like catching him alone, apologizing for the hard times he put him trough and so on. I think even a man like him might have become a little misty-eyed then. Which would be very awkward and out of character for both of them, so pulling off this little show in the restaurant was indeed a very neat solution. No more disappointment about the 'comedy' on my side..

I was not intending John might have fainted under different circumstances, quite the contrary.. that it just would not work for his character being so matter-of-fact about everything, nerves of steel and so on. I hope I got it right this time..  

And the small incredible details are another reason for loving the show. 

Really?
I do not see this at all.
I just think he's genuiely angry.

besleybean wrote:

Really?
I do not see this at all.
I just think he's genuiely angry.

There's a difference between what the actors do with lines and stage directions, and what writers and directors do when they create the lines and the directions for the actors.

I'm sure the writers and the director intend the character to be genuinely angry but their reasons for that, and their reasons for deciding that his anger would manifest itself in violence are a bit more complicated. You can be angry without being thrown out of an upmarket restaurant for punching someone; when John keeps doing it in a downwards spiral of food places we are bound to wonder if John's anger derives in part from the fact that he's an adrenaline junkie who's been deprived of his fixes for two years and is really pissed off about it.

I'm pretty sure that it is intentional on the part of the writers; John isn't the plaster saint that, at least some, people view him as. It isn't just about grief and loss, it's about him not getting his kicks, as we see in the later episodes. It's also about staving off JohnLock as well, though; they're ACD fanboys and they need to preserve both the central place of Sherlock and Dr Watson and the relationship between the two of them. It was interesting to note that Benedict Cumberbatch has said he's really happy to keep going, provided it is true to the original spirit of the canon.

I regard that as an unsubtle hint...
 

ancientsgate wrote:

besleybean wrote:

Really?
I do not see this at all.
I just think he's genuiely angry.

And shocked as hell. Imagine looking up one day and seeing your dead friend standing there-- not only not dead, but not even looking any the worse for wear. John eventually got very very very angry (outraged would be a good word, and on top of that, highly insulted and offended that he hasn't been told), but in that first moment, the earth would have seemed to have shifted under his feet. What was supposed to be true, wasn't. And there it stood, the truth, in the flesh.

I think it's nonsense that him knocking down Sherlock, splitting his lip and bloodying his nose, had anything at all to do with "I'm not gay". I think soldier!John was allowed to rule for a while, and he was happy and pissed off and insulted, all in equal measure, in turns.

 

Soldiers control their violence or they don't stay soldiers for very long. John would not have survived the training, much less entered into a successful career, without being in control of his own potential for violence. I realise, of course, that John's principal training was as a surgeon, before he joined the army; surgeons also need to be able to control any impulses to violence, because otherwise they would not survive their training either. You do not turn someone like that loose with a scalpel; the GMC really wouldn't like it.

They don't like doctors punching people in restaurants either; it brings the profession into disrepute. At the very least John would be up for some mandatory counselling because the last thing anyone needs is a doctor incapable of self control. Throwing one punch might be survivable; carrying on physically attacking someone in a series of places puts John in serious trouble, professionally. And whilst we can see that John has been hurt, and sympathise, the writers are also demonstrating that the decision to exclude him from the Moriarty network takedown was exactly right; John's inability to control his impulses would have got a lot of people killed.






 

I agree on this one.
Least I think I do.
I tend to think more Sherlock just wanted to protect John...tho no doubt he got on faster without him.

Sorry, I was replyig  to your previous post.

Last edited by besleybean (January 31, 2014 9:14 pm)

Willow wrote:

besleybean wrote:

I agree on this one.
Least I think I do.
I tend to think more Sherlock just wanted to protect John...tho no doubt he got on faster without him.

Sorry, I was replyig  to your previous post.

I'm sure that there was an element of protection of him as well; I have absolutely no doubt that Sherlock was completely genuine in his Best Man's speech about his relationship with John. But one of the strengths of the show is the way that they make it clear that even the heroes have flaws; these are not cardboard cut outs but (almost) real people
 

John might have insisted on going into hiding with Sherlock. But I do think there's a bit of a contradiction between John's being "the bravest, kindest, wisest," etc, and his having a tendency to lash out into violence. 

In some adaptations, Watson is turned into kind of a saint...we don't need that necessarily, but there should be a contrast between him and Holmes...he should have good qualities Holmes doesn't have. John with his tendency explode almost seems more...I don't want to say psychopathic, but in some ways more anti-social, bad at getting along with people. And it would be scary to be the roommate of someone like that. The original Watson never hit Holmes; he was at his most violent when protecting Holmes.

The original Sherlock wasn't very social, certainly, and his original verse, he stood out. Now it seems like other characters are too much like him.

These discussions about violence and soldiers, and doctors in restaurants, and BAMFy John vs. "the kindest, wisest", etc. are all very interesting , but let's not lose sight of the fact that this show is first and foremost clever entertainment with heightened reality - not actual reality and not actual canon.  I thought the theatrical staging of the reunion was wonderful.  It was like one of those great jokes that has a set of three situations in it, each one building in intensity until the punchline is reached in the third.  First, the throttling, then the split lip, then the head butt.  I winced and laughed at the same time when they finally got to that part. For two years we predicted that John would probably punch Sherlock first then hug him. How sweet and simplistic. I don't think any of us expected that brilliant prolonged scene and the set of three escalations. What I love about this show - besides the cleverness of the writing -  is that every character in it is dysfunctional in one way or another. They're all unpredictable and yet somehow immensely likable in how they interact with each other. The dysfunction and the unpredictability make it so interesting and  I wouldn't want it any other way.

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

....John might have insisted on going into hiding with Sherlock. But I do think there's a bit of a contradiction between John's being "the bravest, kindest, wisest," etc, and his having a tendency to lash out into violence

Sherlock has that "tendency" as well. He can actually be quite violent, for someone who's supposedly living most of his life inside his head. We've seen him engage in hand to hand combat on numerous occasions. Dump a bad guy out his back window at 221B, down on top of Mrs. H's trash bins, several times. Hold guns on people [even police officers! in the US, that alone would land your ass in prison for quite a while].  As a plot device, I don't see the violence as "lashing out"--  to me, in the story, it's always made to seem jusfified. And then there are no consequences, legal, medical, or otherwise. Total fantasy, all of it.

ancientsgate wrote:

Willow wrote:

Soldiers control their violence or they don't stay soldiers for very long. John would not have survived the training, much less entered into a successful career, without being in control of his own potential for violence....

Which takes me back to A Study in Pink, when he shot that cabbie dude through the window, to save Sherlock from foolishing taking that poison capsule. Bang, gone, John did the deed. So... yeah, he can control whatever he feels like controlling, but when the occasion arises, he can throw his fists around or use a gun whenever he wants. John's head is screwed on straight, and I can't remember it ever being otherwise.

They don't like doctors punching people in restaurants either; it brings the profession into disrepute. At the very least John would be up for some mandatory counselling because the last thing anyone needs is a doctor incapable of self control. Throwing one punch might be survivable; carrying on physically attacking someone in a series of places puts John in serious trouble, professionally. And whilst we can see that John has been hurt, and sympathise, the writers are also demonstrating that the decision to exclude him from the Moriarty network takedown was exactly right; John's inability to control his impulses would have got a lot of people killed.

I'm an American, so can only speak for American TV dramas, but boy oh boy, stuff happens ALL THE TIME in those shows that would get people arrested and in Big Trouble (caps intended) in real life. Sheesh, you can't go around knocking people down and punching their teeth in (and worse) and just get away scot free. And even aside from the legal ramifications, my god, you can kill someone smashing their nose in with your head like that. In an example from real life, just a few months ago, two local area men got into a bar fight, they both went home (drunk as skunks, of course), and a few hours later one of them was dead from his injuries. And now the survivor is probably going to spend 15+ years in prison.  My point being, we see stuff on episodic TV all the time that's a) not based in reality and b) has no legal or medical consequences and c) results in no outward injury that lasts longer than to get us to the next scene-- no black eyes, bruises, broken bones, etc.

I think John absolutely could have kept his mouth shut, if he'd been brought into the plan of Sherlock's leap and disappearance. I haven't seen any evidence in the show that he goes off half-cocked and does irrational things, or that he likes to go have a couple of pints and start blabbing things around. ??? In fact, John's the one who keeps Sherlock based in reality most of the time, trying to get Sherlock to live in the real world a bit better.

I can absolutely understand how John was highly insulted at the implication that he was untrustworthy about keeping a secret. Good lord! Since when was he so unreliable? He was plenty reliable for the posh Mr. Holmes for years before TRF.

All of that stuff is a plot device, some of it played for pathos, some for humor, but not one iota based in reality, not a bit of it. 40-something physicians and decorated war veterans wouldn't have acted so childish. But....  it's a TV show, so there ya go.

I do feel that Mofftiss are trying for something rather better than a bog standard US crime drama; they really don't want their show to remind you of bog standard US crime drama, and to the extent that you believe it does then they have failed. I do appreciate that the role of violence in the US culture is at a much higher level,  but in England, and Sherlock is intended to be quintessentially English, there is far less violence. When it comes to violence we are, in fact, rather proud of the fact that we are not Americans, and Mofftiss are very well aware of it. And the 'it's only tv' argument is a cop out; if we go down that route why discuss it at all?

2. May I suggest that you watch TRF again? John goes haring off across London, summoned to the bedside of the supposedly dying Mrs Hudson, pausing only to call Sherlock every name under the sun for his callous refusal to accompany him. Yet John knew perfectly well that Sherlock was deeply attached to Mrs Hudson, and had done some pretty unpleasant things to the guy who had tortured her in SiB. Had he bothered to engage his brain for a nanosecond he must have known that he was behaving like an idiot, but he didn't. That was about as half-cocked and as irrational as you can get, and it was right in the middle of a crisis; I appreciate that you want to believe that John can control himself if he wishes, but John clearly didn't do so when he really needed to. As I keep saying, John has many fine qualities but it is incredibly easy to push his buttons; John is not good at keeping secrets, and a lot more lives than his alone were at stake.

Also, on a purely personal level, I dislike people who flounce, and John does epic flounces; I'm living in hope that he'll grow out of it.