Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I would love to see non-Johnlock Johnlock, if you know what I mean...so that, for example, Sherlock and John have to pretend to be a couple for the sake of a case, and it involves a kiss.

Something like this could move things along...
 

I'm not sure, it could also be the easy way out of 'real' Johnlock in the show forever...

I'm not positve I'm entirley comfortable with the concept of a monolithic institution dictating programme policy...
Sue floated the idea to the BBC and they said yes,
The pilot was shown and they said lovely, but we want 3x90mins episodes per season.
That is the extent of the BBC involvement and so this should remain.

Last edited by besleybean (June 15, 2014 7:17 pm)

Sorry yeah I know, I was just a tad concerned at the thought of anybody wishing any of this to be transposed into official policy.
I have mixed feelings about audience power...it's complicated with the BBC being funded by licence payers,.

Last edited by besleybean (June 15, 2014 7:25 pm)

I do think the point of the report was to help set policy...they prob. have other reports geared at other minorities.Why comission them if they ignore them.
IMO there's nothing the BBC likes..or needs more atm than a good row where they can take the moral high ground.
They do have a long history of calling out..and taking on racism..bigotry ..homophobia etc.
Glad to see they still think in the report they still feel a responsability to not just entertain and represent ..but educate and inform.
I don't think the report was especially for or about Sherlock...obviously it's for all BBC programming. However it does kill the BBC wouldn't do that argument..if anyone actually thought that.

I do like the way the BBC allows writers to maintain creative control over their work..and I suppose thats why they feel they need more glbt writers to be proactive. I don't necessarily agree that only glbt write glbt..and straight write straight with authenticity though.
Totally agree on the explicitly ...m/f bedroom scenes kisses hugs etc etc non stop....and where the glbt ones?...meh the soap.Young glbt people definitely need some icons and non stereotypical realistic representation.
A lot of good things in it...even if the social utopian ideal is..race gender orientation blindness..there's a way to go yet .
At the softly softly approach to people who may feel uncomfortable with gayness and wouldnt watch if they expected it....but would grow more comfortable and complacent and educated  with time..that Mark seems to agree with...while I understand where it's coming from and why...it does seem a little like Chamberlains appeasement policy to me.

The idea that the BBC plan to take favorite prime time characters and have him/her sneak up and jump out of the closet at them is hilarious though...Sherlock or not.

Yes, that was how I understood it, too. They do not mention any show or programme by name, it is about the general direction they want to take. 

Well, in the case of "Sherlock" this development would not come totally out of the blue. There are after all quite a lot of people who detected this subtext right from the beginning. And for those who do not or do not want to see it it might be a way of slowly growing comfortable with it. 
 

I think people self-identify by the type of sex they like to have and then push it as a personal agenda a lot more than I would like. It's even found it's way into my favorite TV show and it's discussion forums.

SusiGo wrote:

I am not gay and yet I cannot overlook the many signs of Johnlock.   

Same here. 
 

I hope they don't make Sherlock and John a gay couple just to fulfil a quota.  I think it would have worked if John had been gay from the start.   To set him up as (outwardly) straight and then make him fall for Sherlock needs a whole lot of backstory.  He was gay and suppressed it.  He was actively gay but pretend he was straight.  He was bisexual and pretended he was straight.  He was gay and didn't know it himself.  He was straight, but somehow gay for Sherlock.  Most of those scenarios would need more development about how John comes to terms with his sexuality, and it would be about him dealing with being gay, rather than them just being a gay couple. 

It could be done.  After all, in real life, people do suppress their sexuality, or hide it, or discover it later in life.  But I don't really see those as fitting naturally with John's character or his environment.   It would have to be very cleverly written for me to buy it. 

I honestly don't think Sherlock and John not being a gay couple is because the BBC didn't want to offend audiences.   As mentioned, Torchwood was a major series where the main character was bisexual (he also featured in the kids' TV programme, Doctor Who - personally, I think it was a great move to show growing kids positive LBG role models), and one of the main love stories was between two men.  I think that if John had been gay from the start, then audiences would just have accepted it, along with other modernisations of the story, such as having professional women characters. (Although, I don't know if I'd want to see Sherlock as a love story - it might detract a little.  And I like the friendship ).

Last edited by Liberty (July 6, 2014 3:44 pm)

Liberty wrote:

ITo set him up as (outwardly) straight and then make him fall for Sherlock needs a whole lot of backstory.

Why?

I've seen it happen with my best friend. She was straight, still is, and yet there was this woman she fell in love with. No "backstory", no long developement. They met, fell in love and are happy for 15 years now, married for a few.  She still isn't interested in other women, when she has a crush on a fictional character it's always a man.
But her wife is her one exception. I don't see why Sherlock should not be that exception for John.