Yes, I think so too.
Also, this classic scene doesn´t seem like a simple dismantling of a bomb/semtex vest to me. At least it´s not filmed that way:

Last edited by nakahara (February 11, 2015 10:31 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

Ahem, yes. They could have chosen any position but decided upon this one. 

.....and I have no problem with that.

nakahara wrote:

Yes, I think so too.
Also, this classic scene doesn´t seem like a simple dismantling of a bomb/semtex vest to me. At least it´s not filmed that way:

This just happened by accident. 
Oh, but wait: Maybe they didn't see what this looks like when they were looking at the dailys, but I'm sure they must have seen it in the editing room at the latest. Or are they all blind?

SusiGo wrote:

nakahara wrote:

I would really like to know why this was a part of Sherlock´s confidental case file on John if it was not a Johnlock thing:

Can we assume that there is no non-Johnlock explanation for this? Knowing Sherlock I would say that he does not have any knowledge about Leonardo at hand. But it seems he chose a drawing of his depicting a naked ideal man  and glued John's head to it. Using it as a cover of his fat John Watson file. Well. 
Fun fact: I read that there are people who said it was a fake because they could not believe that the creators would do something like that. 
 

Ok, I’ll play one round. But I have to agree with Ah-chie that this thread has a distinct Johnlock-appreciation feeling and not so much a debate feeling, despite the occasional insistences that debating is welcomed here. I am not setting out to spoil anyone’s fun, so if my “alternative explanation” interferes with the general mood, please feel free to ignore me.
 
The Vitruvian Man shows the ideal human proportion. It is an idealisation of the human species that no flesh and blood human can archive. Ever since ASIP we have known that John idealises and hero-worships Sherlock, so much so that he is shocked when Sherlock fails to behave as he would have hoped or predicted (e.g. Sherlock’s drug addiction in ASIP, Sherlock’s lack of empathy for the victims in TGG (or crime victims in general), Sherlock’s lack of reaction to Mrs. Hudson’s apparent shooting in TRF). The Vitruvian Man is one of the hints we get that this idealisation goes both ways. For example, Sherlock keeps being astonished when John cannot make the same mind leaps that Sherlock is capable of, even after they know each other for years. Sherlock is not bound to vocalise these feelings readily, which is part of the reasons why everyone is so touched by his best man speech. Things like the Vitruvian Man show, however, that it s very much on his mind. For Sherlock, John is the ideal man as much as Sherlock is a hero for John (and both will likely fail to live up to the other’s expectation). In my opinion, this two-sided idealisation works perfectly well with and without romantical attachment.
 

SusiGo wrote:

Interesting thoughts, Lola, thank you for sharing them. 
My answer is that Sherlock uses a drawing which is expressly about aesthetics, about the ideal proportions of a (male) body. It is not a depiction of inner values like friendship or loyalty which Sherlock surely appreciates in John. It is the aesthetic concept of a human body, drawn by an artist who has constantly worshipped the male body in his work and his private life. 

 
I think we should all worship John's body.

ooops, sorry.  I'll leave now until I atually have something constructive to add to the discussion. 

So what is your conclusion? 

On one hand, it's hard for me to see why Sherlock would do such a thing (the Vitruvian man), it sounds like something you would find in a fanfic.

However, I am also aware that since we are already seeing everything through a Johnlock filter, our mind is already there (and often also in the gutter). So what for us seem to be obvious Johnlock references might not be more than harmless jokes for the writers.

For instance, the removal of the bomb gif - first time I saw the series, I didn't even know such a thing as Johnlock existed. So that scene didn't stick out for me at all. All I saw was John being relived the ordeal was over and Sherlock quickly removing the bomb vest. 

But NOW, with my mind stuck in Johnlock mode, I see something entirely different. 

So your perspective of what is "obvious" and not can change drastically, depending on what your stand is and what filter you view the scenes through.

SusiGo wrote:

Interesting thoughts, Lola, thank you for sharing them. 
My answer is that Sherlock uses a drawing which is expressly about aesthetics, about the ideal proportions of a (male) body. It is not a depiction of inner values like friendship or loyalty which Sherlock surely appreciates in John. It is the aesthetic concept of a human body, drawn by an artist who has constantly worshipped the male body in his work and his private life. 

I see your point. But those are (and I mean absolutely no offence towards Martin here, he is a very good-looking fellow) definitely not John’s proportions. So if it is about the pictured aesthetics, it is, in my opinion, actually more mocking than loving. Kind of putting a picture of the face of your lover on a poster of your favourite actor/singer/porn star, whatever floats your boat. This might be my own body issues talking, but I would not take that kindly. Plus Sherlock does strike me as someone not overly interested in the looks, but in the mind of his counterpart. For example, he is not so much impressed by Irene Adler’s naked body, but by her intelligence (“Because you cater to the whims of the pathetic and take your clothes off to make an impression. Stop boring me and think. It's the new sexy.“). Might of cause be because he might not be interested in women, but it stuck me as something more general. Hence my more symbolic interpretation of the Vitruvian Man.
 

The gutter is not so bad.  I've put up some posters and tossed a few pillows around.  I've got my shock blanket and my thuddig mattress.  I'm good. 

Vhanja wrote:

On one hand, it's hard for me to see why Sherlock would do such a thing (the Vitruvian man), it sounds like something you would find in a fanfic.

However, I am also aware that since we are already seeing everything through a Johnlock filter, our mind is already there (and often also in the gutter). So what for us seem to be obvious Johnlock references might not be more than harmless jokes for the writers.

For instance, the removal of the bomb gif - first time I saw the series, I didn't even know such a thing as Johnlock existed. So that scene didn't stick out for me at all. All I saw was John being relived the ordeal was over and Sherlock quickly removing the bomb vest. 

But NOW, with my mind stuck in Johnlock mode, I see something entirely different. 

So your perspective of what is "obvious" and not can change drastically, depending on what your stand is and what filter you view the scenes through.

To say it with the words of Sherlock Holmes himself: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement”. Which is why I resolve to having lots of fun discussing the evidence for either side while we are still gathering data, without committing to a theory.

 

Last edited by Lola Red (February 12, 2015 1:51 pm)