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

Harriet · February 6, 2015 5:08 pm

(Right, sorry, think of it as something in brackets.)

tonnaree · February 6, 2015 5:10 pm

TOPIC!

There are certain scense in Sherlock that seem only explainable if johnlock is endgame.
discuss!

(sorry Schmiezi)

Lola Red · February 6, 2015 5:16 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.

I was talking about anyone who believes without any doubt that Johnlock is endgame, independently of their affiliation to OSAJ. “Aggressive Johnlockers” might have been misleading in that regard. I am always interested in being enlightened about the history of this forum and its subgroups (though this thread might not be the place for it), but if I am “ought to know” about anything it has to be easy for me to find that information and I fail to find any thread specifically dedicated to OSAJ (and I have been looking for it when I first came to this forum).

Back to topic.

Ah-chie · February 6, 2015 5:18 pm

I am one who absolutely didn't see what I think the OP means as "Johnlock" subtext in the tarmac scene but since this thread seems be solely dedicated to listing the things that only make sense if Johnlock is apparent, I think to elaborate further would not be appropriate (to me at least) because I don't want to intrude on their fun and it wouldn't make much sense seeing the premise of the thread.

Maybe in another thread... but I haven't really found any that are specifically for non-Johnlock folks (I would really appreciate it if I could be directed to that sort of thread if it does exists). But I fully admit I am fairly new here so I am not familiar with the vast majority of discussions in this large community. Maybe I am just in a very small cohort so there isn't much interest in a strictly non-Johnlock discussion... I can live with that as well.

-Val

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 5:23 pm

Here is exactly what you are looking for, Ah-chie:

http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=6003

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 5:24 pm

Ah-Chie this thread is exactly to hear peolpe's explanation of these scenes. I thought I made clear that I wanted them discussed. And that does not lead to much if only "Johnlockers" discuss it. So please let mr know how you see the tarmac scene.

(Did I really fail to make the thread topic clear? Shame on me.:-( )

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 5:27 pm

Sorry, Schmiezi, I did not want to confuse anyone with the link.

Yes, I would also like to hear how strict non-Johnlockers understand those scenes.

SolarSystem · February 6, 2015 5:28 pm

I believe in Johnlock being endgame, but about
- the knee grab: Well. They are both drunk and the knee grab could be explained as something that just sort of happens when someone is drunk and loses his balance. I know that there is also dialogue involved, "I don't mind" and all that, but again: they are both drunk. So as much as I love this moment in terms of Johnlock, for me it's one of the few scenes of the ones mentioned in this thread where a non-Johnlock explanation could make sense as well.

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 5:29 pm

But you have to take into account that fact that immediately afterwards we see them together on the sofa, the only time that happens in the show, and Sherlock has his arm behind John on the backrest.

Vhanja · February 6, 2015 5:30 pm

As I see it, I think most of these scenes can be explain within the series without including Johnlock. I think, for me personally, the bigger issue is why Moftiss chose to add so many scenes that serve no other purpose than to add ambiguity. That latter is for me the really big question here.

SolarSystem · February 6, 2015 5:33 pm

Again, Susi: they are both pretty drunk and wasted. It could be argued that we will never go any further than this on the show in terms of Johnlock, because it's quite safe for Mofftiss to show them together on the sofa like this as long as they are drunk.

Last edited by SolarSystem (February 6, 2015 5:33 pm)

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 5:35 pm

- Why do they show us Sherlock looking sadly towards the empty chair? IMO this is more than just someone missing his friend who has not been living with him for nearly three years. This is a mirror of the TRF scene where John mourns Sherlock. So looking at empty chair = mourning = thinking you have lost someone forever.

- Why does Sherlock get up from the park bench leaving John alone the moment he starts talking about Mary? Okay, you may say he does such things but why this very moment? And after that previous-ex commander/best friend stuff?

And another thought - I think one can explain away a lot if things if looking at them separately. For me it is the sheer number of such scenes, allusions, etc. that convinces me. You know what they say about coincidence.

Last edited by SusiGo (February 6, 2015 5:51 pm)

tonnaree · February 6, 2015 6:26 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Again, Susi: they are both pretty drunk and wasted. It could be argued that we will never go any further than this on the show in terms of Johnlock, because it's quite safe for Mofftiss to show them together on the sofa like this as long as they are drunk.

Sorry, I know this is off topic but I am sitting here laughing because I remember a friend who use to say "Everyone's kind of bisexual when they're drunk." lmao

We know return you to the actual discussion.

Ah-chie · February 6, 2015 6:26 pm

Thanks Susi, that's exactly what I was looking for.

@ Schmiezi - I don't want you to think that I was being critical of you for starting this thread. My post was never intended that way. I fully support those who see Johnlock sharing ideas with each other and enjoying the show in their own way.

Thanks for your welcoming invitation. Perhaps I just misinterpreted your premise for the thread. I apologise if that is the case.

Maybe I will comment further in the future, but for now, seeing how I am relatively new to this board and how I still feel rather vulnerable when discussing specifics regarding divisive topics (like coming to a thread like this and rejecting totally any idea of Johnlock) I will leave it alone.

I guess I only made my initial comment because of Lola Red's post and I wanted it known that there are those (or at least one) on this board who don't see any Johnlock in the tarmac scene (or any other for that matter) so discussion of using scenes to support the premise seemed incongruous to someone like me.

I certainly will check out the link Susi gave me. Sounds interesting... and deals with a topic that I have been dying to talk about!

-Val

mrshouse · February 6, 2015 6:27 pm

I might have another one: what non-johnlock explanation could there be for Moriartys " I'll burn the heart out of you". Maybe it's just meant to be creepy and scary, but the possibilities of writing are endless if just to be threatening.

Vhanja · February 6, 2015 6:28 pm

Ah-chie wrote:
I guess I only made my initial comment because of Lola Red's post and I wanted it known that there are those (or at least one) on this board who don't see any Johnlock in the tarmac scene (or any other for that matter) so discussion of using scenes to support the premise seemed incongruous to someone like me.

Then, if I understand this thread correctly, you are the exact person we are looking for.

mrshouse · February 6, 2015 6:30 pm

Yes, Val, stick with us and give us the non-johnlock interpretation of the tarmac scene.

Zatoichi · February 6, 2015 6:32 pm

Vhanja wrote:
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.

Because they just love to add ambiguity and keep the audience guessing, for no other reason than to drive people round in circles and keep them confused? Think of "IOU" and the continued references to Grimm´s Fairy Tales in TRF, that inspired people to the most elaborate theories during the hiatus just to never be mentioned again (yet - who knows if maybe S4 won´t pick anything up, but I doubt it).To create an everlasting stream of mixed messages to keep them on their toes? To allude to the old speculations that date way back to the original stories, and to films they loved and inspired them that also sported this ambiguity?
Just a few ideas, of course I don´t know any of their plans.. but that´s an explanation that works for me.

Schmiezi · February 6, 2015 6:33 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Ah-chie wrote:
I guess I only made my initial comment because of Lola Red's post and I wanted it known that there are those (or at least one) on this board who don't see any Johnlock in the tarmac scene (or any other for that matter) so discussion of using scenes to support the premise seemed incongruous to someone like me.

Then, if I understand this thread correctly, you are the exact person we are looking for.

Absolutely.

SusiGo · February 6, 2015 6:36 pm

mrshouse wrote:
I might have another one: what non-johnlock explanation could there be for Moriartys " I'll burn the heart out of you". Maybe it's just meant to be creepy and scary, but the possibilities of writing are endless if just to be threatening.

I do not think it is just meant to be creepy. Because they are discussing one of the big topics of the show - Sherlock suppressing/coping with/allowing emotions.