BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Things that only make sense if Johnlock is subtext

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 2:52 pm

There are a few scenes that (to me) only make sense if the writers are hinting at Johnlock. For example:

1 What was it that Sherlock wanted to say on the tarmac?

2 Why did the writers leave out the wedding ceremony?

3 Why can you barely ever seen Mary during the best man speech?

4 What did Janine mean when she said, "I wish you weren’t ... whatever it is you are."

If I can make a wish for this thread, please don't just tell me, "I don't see / I see Johnlock there." I am looking for convincing reasons about what function those scenes serve if not to show that Johnlock will happen one day.

Take No 1 for example. Sherlock wants to tell John something, something he has always wanted to say but never did. What can it possibly be? That John is his best friend? Well, he already told him. How much John means to him? He has talked about that with epic length at the wedding. But what else can it be if not "I am in love with you?" I seriously don't have an idea. Do you? Or do you have more scenes that can only be expained if Johnlock is endgame?

I did not mention scenes that I think are definitely Johnlock-y, but could also be explained with friendship. Like "Why does Sherlock ruin John's dates?" Of corse you can say, "Because he is jealous", but you could also say, "Because he wants John to have time for him and his cases whenever Sherlock wants him to."

But for the four things I mentioned above, that does not work. Plus, the scenes could have easily been written or directed in a different way. But lets keep in mind that with a good TV show, there are no coincidences when it comes to writing and directing.

Last edited by Schmiezi (February 6, 2015 3:45 pm)

Vhanja · February 6, 2015 3:40 pm

I think No 4 can be explained with Sherlock being - for all practical purposes - asexual, by choice. Simply not interested in any kind of romantic/sexual relationship with anyone, no matter gender.

If I can add a few of my own of these, where I am really looking for a non-Johnlock explanation. Or, rather, a reason for Moftiss to put it in the series that doesn't include Johnlock. A reason that these scenes make sense to put in without Johnlock.

1. The knee grab
2. The dialogue between John and Irene ("We are not a couple", "Yes, you are. "I am not gay", "Well, I am, look at us both" *John not arguing*)

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 3:45 pm

Oh right, the dialogue between John and Irene is a wonderful example. Thank you for adding it.

mrshouse · February 6, 2015 3:51 pm

The mentioning of Sherlock tutoring John how to dance.

Lola Red · February 6, 2015 3:59 pm

Very interesting, but I always find it hard to argue for or against “Johnlock” without having a proper definition. To me John and Sherlock are soul mates, and their story to me is a love story. I am just not quite decided yet if sexual attraction plays a part in that love story. I know a lot of Johnlockers disagree with sexual attraction being the cut-off point, but for my own definition it seems the only thing I that I can use to discriminate between friendship and romance. I see without any doubt a deep love between the two characters, but without a sexual component I would characterise this love as a wonderful friendship, while if this love is combined with sexual attraction I would call it a wonderful, though frustratingly slow-burning, romance (=Johnlock).

I think the tarmac scene is the strongest hint on Johnlock the show as offered as of yet. Because, after TSOT, what has been left unsaid? Of cause one can argue that is was merely meant to give the scene more dramatic weight, but I always hope for better writing/more trust in Martin’s and Ben’s acting.
The other points you mention are way more ambiguous, at least to me. The absence of the wedding ceremony and Mary’s low profile during the speech for me make sense in both scenarios. I feel Mary is not as important for the big picture the show seems to be trying to paint. It is not a detective show and not a show about the amorous adventures of Mr. John Watson, but a show about a detective and about one of the greatest friendships/romances in fiction. And I feel the whole of TSOT works for either way.
Janine’s comment for me just shows the ongoing ambiguity concerning Sherlock’s sexuality. Is he homo-, hetero-, bi- or asexual? Does he know or has he never explored this aspect of his life? So this, too, for me could work either way, depending on which interpretation I want to see.

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 4:00 pm

Update:

1 What was it that Sherlock wanted to say on the tarmac?

2 Why did the writers leave out the wedding ceremony?

3 Why can you barely ever seen Mary during the best man speech?

4 What did Janine mean when she said, "I wish you weren’t ... whatever it is you are."

5 The knee grab

6 The dialogue between John and Irene ("We are not a couple", "Yes, you are. "I am not gay", "Well, I am, look at us both" *John not arguing*)

7 The mentioning of Sherlock tutoring John how to dance

No 7 is a good example for what I mean. There was no need to mention it at all. The information that Sherlock taught John how to dance serves no purpose at all. The fact that Sherlock can and loves to dance could be taken from his scene with Janine alone. So why include it?

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 4:04 pm

Lola Red wrote:
The absence of the wedding ceremony and Mary’s low profile during the speech for me make sense in both scenarios. I feel Mary is not as important for the big picture the show seems to be trying to paint. It is not a detective show and not a show about the amorous adventures of Mr. John Watson, but a show about a detective and about one of the greatest friendships/romances in fiction.

Your answer to the wedding questions can be summed up as, "Because Mary is not as important as John and Sherlock". I would full-heartedly agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that to shoot the best man speech without Mary, there had to be a lot of moving cameras and lights around and shooting it from difficult angels and / or purposely placing Benedict so that he conceals Amanda. It was done with purpose. Only to show what we knew all the time, that John and Sherlock are the main characters? That does not convince me.

mrshouse · February 6, 2015 4:04 pm

CAM calling John "damsel in distress". There must be other possibilities to emphasize John's importance than to call him that?

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 4:05 pm

May I add another two?

8. Why should John comment on Sherlock's cheekbones (HoB), usually considered as one of Benedict's most attractive features?

9. Why did he not have sex with Janine (and her "I know what kind of man you are")?

Last edited by SusiGo (February 6, 2015 4:07 pm)

Vhanja · February 6, 2015 4:11 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
There was no need to mention it at all. The information that Sherlock taught John how to dance serves no purpose at all. The fact that Sherlock can and loves to dance could be taken from his scene with Janine alone. So why include it?

This, this and this. Why do they with one hand underscore again and again that Johnlock won't happen when they at the same time, with the other hand, keeps adding scenes that serve no other purpose than to add ambiguity? That is the one question I would love Moftiss to answer for us.

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 4:11 pm

I think Susi's No 9 could be answered with "Sherlock is assexual". (Not in my head canon, but one could bring it up.)

But for No 8 (mentioning of the cheekbones), I think again there is something they could have just left out. It (seems to) serves no purpose, as mentioning the collar alone would have been possible without changing the dynamics of that scene.
Unless, of course, they wanted the subtext hint at Johnlock. Then the sentence makes perfectly sense.

Last edited by Schmiezi (February 6, 2015 4:11 pm)

Vhanja · February 6, 2015 4:13 pm

A great quote I read somewhere on YouTube:

I will stop shipping this when it stops shipping itself.

mrshouse · February 6, 2015 4:27 pm

That's the spirit

tonnaree · February 6, 2015 4:28 pm

I agree that the tarmac scene is one of the strongest johnlock hints. The first time I watched that ep my heart skipped a beat thinking "He's going to say I love You, he's really going to say it"! And I know I was not the only one.

Lola Red · February 6, 2015 4:38 pm

I would be interested in hearing the interpretation of someone who absolutely does not see Johnlock at all concerning the tarmac and Irene scene, the rest I can easily argue away myself as playfulness, being-at-total-ease-with-each-other, Moftiss's love for the John-Sherlock relationship/poking a little fun at the fan base, Sherlock as asexual. But those two are part of the reason why I can see Johnlock (though I am not as certain as some aggressive Johnlockes that it is the one and only truth).

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 4:45 pm

I am also hoping for such a forum member to answer, Lola.

As for your "Moftiss's love for the John-Sherlock relationship/poking a little fun at the fan base", I wonder if that really is a good explanation for the cheekbone comment, for example. But I see your point.

Lola Red · February 6, 2015 4:49 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
I am also hoping for such a forum member to answer, Lola.

As for your "Moftiss's love for the John-Sherlock relationship/poking a little fun at the fan base", I wonder if that really is a good explanation for the cheekbone comment, for example. But I see your point.

The cheekbones I would actually (partly) count under "playfulness"
... and under making fun of Ben('s fans)

Last edited by Lola Red (February 6, 2015 4:51 pm)

tonnaree · February 6, 2015 4:49 pm

Aggresive Johnlockers?
Not around here.
I don't know what you're talking about Lola.

Harriet · February 6, 2015 4:51 pm

Lola Red wrote:
... (though I am not as certain as some aggressive Johnlockes that it is the one and only truth).

You ought to know that OSAJ has its own context and story, so I hope you don't get things wrong here.

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 5:05 pm

Harriet wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
... (though I am not as certain as some aggressive Johnlockes that it is the one and only truth).
You ought to know that OSAJ has its own context and story, so I hope you don't get things wrong here.

Please let us stick to analysing the reason for including certain scenes here.