I think it must be particularly frustrating for the actors (rather than the writers, etc.), if they are trying to show a deep friendship, and have it constantly misinterpreted.   It's almost a criticism of their ability as actors (even though I know it's not at all intended that way by the people who do it).   And the feeling that you're considered to be homophobic if you deny it.  So yes, I think he does look a little bit fed up with it.  Thanks for posting!

Sorry for being OT, but... "Do you ever find those cheekbones distracting?"

?!?!?! 

How on earth can people who are smart enough to walk and breath at the same time ask something as cringeworthy as that? 

I think this is actually a bit relevant for this thread. See, I think this right there is a good (horrible) example of one of the reasons I think Johnlock will never happen. Because even if Moftiss had planned to do it in the future, I have a feeling Ben and Martin would say no. 

Not because they are homophobs and not because they aren't professional. Ben has already played a homosexual at least twice, and Martin seems to be quite open-minded about the topic in general. But it's because of crap like this I think they would be very relunctant to do it. Maybe Martin in particular since he seems to get the brunt of it. I fear stuff like that would increase tenfold if Ben and Martin were to ever portray a romantic relationship between Sherlock and John.

nakahara wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Sorry for being OT, but... "Do you ever find those cheekbones distracting?"

?!?!?! 

How on earth can people who are smart enough to walk and breath at the same time ask something as cringeworthy as that? 

That´s why Martin hates such inteviews. I´m not surprised when I see what he must put up with.
 

thank you! When I heard that I wanted to cry. Literally wanted to cry, it was so cringeworthy. To the level that if I were there with that person I would have been like 'WTF is wrong with you mate?!?!?!'
Apart from the utter stupidity of the question, I find it disrespectful that he's asking a guy with a very long term partner and 2 children if he gets distracted (attracted) by a colleague's physical attributes. I only have one thing in my mind about this, and it's a swear word so I'm not going to write it. GAH.

Going back to the interview - I honestly was expecting worse...I mean, as a Johnlocker, of course I see John and Sherlock as in love (although I don't think their love is primarily driven by sexual attraction, by which I mean - I don't think John spends his time oogling Sherlock's bum ) and I don't just see them like that because it's in my head, but because I see it very clearly in the actors' interpretation.
But I can also see the point of view of people (like Martin) who think they have a very intense love based on friendship - albeit one of those that are 'unique' to one person, by which I mean - the kind of friendship you don't have with many people at the same time (if you know what I mean?)

Plus, I also think that, like Martin says, him 'being in it' makes a difference. He is in it, therefore watching it from the outside will be different for him than for us - if we were playing a character I don't think we'd spend time shipping our own character with someone else? I don't know - *and* he doesn't spend his time thinking about it, in general.
 

Dorothy83 wrote:

Plus, I also think that, like Martin says, him 'being in it' makes a difference. He is in it, therefore watching it from the outside will be different for him than for us - if we were playing a character I don't think we'd spend time shipping our own character with someone else? I don't know - *and* he doesn't spend his time thinking about it, in general. 

I view it the other way around. Since he is the one "in it", actually playing the character, he is very well aware of whether he is playing his part as a romance or "just" friendship.

Liberty wrote:

I think it must be particularly frustrating for the actors (rather than the writers, etc.), if they are trying to show a deep friendship, and have it constantly misinterpreted.   It's almost a criticism of their ability as actors (even though I know it's not at all intended that way by the people who do it).   And the feeling that you're considered to be homophobic if you deny it.  So yes, I think he does look a little bit fed up with it.  Thanks for posting!

 
This what I feel too.

Since this thread is about the deep friendship of Sherlock and John, I think it is totally appropriate to note this aspect - there maybe a bit of frustration on the part of the actors who portray these characters that their efforts to show this level of real friendship is given such short shrift often and relegated to the sidelines in favour of all the attention given to the fan fiction theories of Johnlock by that faction of the fandom.  Let's face it, how does the activity on this thread compare to the Johnlock threads (not counting the almost daily references to everything Johnlock in a lot of the other threads)? 

I have tried to look for purely friendship forums for Sherlock and it is darn difficult.  Compared to Johnlock discussions... it is almost impossible to find forums dedicated just to the friendship aspect of the show. 

And yes, there is also the aspect that if you don't agree withthe theories of the romance between these two characters, then you are suspected of being somewhat homophobic.  Maybe not on this board, but that feeling is out there in the fandom to varying degrees.

Vhanja wrote:

Dorothy83 wrote:

Plus, I also think that, like Martin says, him 'being in it' makes a difference. He is in it, therefore watching it from the outside will be different for him than for us - if we were playing a character I don't think we'd spend time shipping our own character with someone else? I don't know - *and* he doesn't spend his time thinking about it, in general. 

I view it the other way around. Since he is the one "in it", actually playing the character, he is very well aware of whether he is playing his part as a romance or "just" friendship.

 
ITA Vhanja.

For me, the most important aspect of the show is what was the essence of the original stories - the adventures of two very close friends, who on the surface looked totally mismatched at first, but underneath that veneer of differences, over time, became deeply loyal to each other and great companions.  I don't see any Johnlock attraction/romance at all - never have.  I see a great, deep friendship, intense loyalty and a steadfast respect between them. And that's enough for me.

-Val

Liberty wrote:

Yes, I agree.  I think it's possible that information could be kept from the actors, that their scenes could be cut and edited to make something different than intended and so on, even that they could lie about their intentions.  But the actors still know what they're intending to portray, don't they?   Both of them seem to be clear that they're acting it as a friendship: an exceptional, deep and loving friendship, but still friendship rather than a sexual relationship. 

Well, we have the very clear example of someone who doesn't properly understand his character, for some weird reason, in Benedict: Sherlock is clearly portrayed as uninterested in sexual relations with women at best, and actively escaping them at worst, yet Benedict is still insisting that he is this great latin lover. Remember actors are actor, yes they have to go deep in the characters, but ultimately what they portray is their interpretation, just like ours, and the only person who actually knows the characters is the writer...

Anyway, regarding Martin - what I meant was that the impression he gets, playing it, will be different from the impression that we get, watching it. Meaning that he might play it as an intense friendship, but we read it as romantic love, because our involvement and interpretation with the show is affected by other factors other than the interpretation: our values, our preferences, the willingness to read subtext and to what level, and let's not forget - the sheer amount of time we have at our disposal to analyse and overanalyse everything

So what I meant, in essence, is: we overanalyse, he doesn't (by which I don't want to mean we are wrong! I just mean we think about it more and perhaps, go a bit deeper with our readings)

side note: I don't believe in the 'they are lying' claim. To me, they're not lying, that's what they think - and it's fair enough.
 

Last edited by Dorothy83 (September 25, 2015 12:53 pm)

And one last thing from me: wtf is with that questions??? Why do these 'journalists' always have to ask?? And what does that even mean??

'Why do they love each other so much', Martin's reaction made me chuckle. 'Who!?"

I mean.. dude, get to the point. If you believe they're friends, why would you ask why they love each other? They're friends, of course they do. If you think it goes beyond that and they have or will have a sexual/physical attraction, then, don't be a coward, and ask about that. Martin is not stupid. I get the impression these people think the actors are not aware of the stuff the fans think, and they can just tiptoe around the subject thinking the actors will not notice what you're actually asking.

I'd prefer them to stop bloody asking these questions, but if you really can't help yourself, at least ask what you actually want to ask. JFC.

Last edited by Dorothy83 (September 25, 2015 1:04 pm)

I hope for a lot of domestic scenes in which they are basically just being comfortable together.. I love that in the books (and in S1/2). As the regular series is quite far from domestic bliss right now, it would be a great chance to bring that back in the one-off.

Ah-chie wrote:

I see a great, deep friendship, intense loyalty and a steadfast respect between them. And that's enough for me.

That´s the great thing about enjoying their wonderful special relationship without hoping it would develop into "more" - you can fully appreciate what´s already there without seeing any difficult psychological issues that they would need to overcome in order to finally end up together.. they already are everything they want from each other.
 

Last edited by Zatoichi (September 25, 2015 5:02 pm)

Dorothy83 wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Yes, I agree.  I think it's possible that information could be kept from the actors, that their scenes could be cut and edited to make something different than intended and so on, even that they could lie about their intentions.  But the actors still know what they're intending to portray, don't they?   Both of them seem to be clear that they're acting it as a friendship: an exceptional, deep and loving friendship, but still friendship rather than a sexual relationship. 

Well, we have the very clear example of someone who doesn't properly understand his character, for some weird reason, in Benedict: Sherlock is clearly portrayed as uninterested in sexual relations with women at best, and actively escaping them at worst, yet Benedict is still insisting that he is this great latin lover. Remember actors are actor, yes they have to go deep in the characters, but ultimately what they portray is their interpretation, just like ours, and the only person who actually knows the characters is the writer...

Anyway, regarding Martin - what I meant was that the impression he gets, playing it, will be different from the impression that we get, watching it. Meaning that he might play it as an intense friendship, but we read it as romantic love, because our involvement and interpretation with the show is affected by other factors other than the interpretation: our values, our preferences, the willingness to read subtext and to what level, and let's not forget - the sheer amount of time we have at our disposal to analyse and overanalyse everything

So what I meant, in essence, is: we overanalyse, he doesn't (by which I don't want to mean we are wrong! I just mean we think about it more and perhaps, go a bit deeper with our readings)

side note: I don't believe in the 'they are lying' claim. To me, they're not lying, that's what they think - and it's fair enough.
 

Benedict Cumberbatch not understanding his character?  Even if it's true, his interviews give us a clue as to how he's portraying him.  If that's his interpretation, then that's what we're seeing on screen, in his acting (if he's any good at his job!).  Yes, we're free to interpret, and bring our own prejudices (and as I said, other things such as cutting and editing are added to the mix), but I cans still see why actors would be get frustrated when people insist they are playing something different from what they're intending to play. 

He has an endearing tendency to waffle on and sometimes gets the wrong word, but I think his meaning is fairly clear and consistent with the character.  There's no indication that Sherlock has a complete lack of sex drive.  To me, it looks as if it's shown as being suppressed (deliberately, for the sake of his work, which he values more highly), and that's consistent with what he says.   In the "great Latin lover" interview (I'm assuming you mean the Elle one?) was in response to a question about what Sherlock would be like in bed, if he did choose to let go of that deliberate control, after he'd explained that Sherlock was "asexual for a purpose" and suppressing his sex drive rather than lacking it - it's hypothetical.   I think the only other time he's talked about Sherlock having sex in his head canon is with Irene .. and the deleted scene seemed to confirm that he did fall for her.   (Personally, I don't think Sherlock would have had sex with Irene - far too dangerous!   But I respect Benedict's interpretation, and it kind of fits nicely with her being the exception, THE woman).