BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » John and Harry

besleybean · February 28, 2016 8:39 am

Although on the world scale of events, it would hardly matter....just funny.
Though having said that...
Am I remembering the SIP deduction incorrectly?
Because I thought part of it was an older relative...
Oh no, does he say the phone's a young person's gadget?
Can't remember now...I rarely watch that one now.

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 8:41 am

Sherlock says the phone can't be John's father's, because it is a younger man's gadget.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 8:43 am

That's right.

mrshouse · February 28, 2016 8:46 am

@ukaunz, are you sure about the correlation in identical and non-identical twins? Because actually the non identical ones don't share more of their genetics than other siblings as well.

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 8:55 am

I don't know, I'm just quoting the article Something to do with sharing the womb maybe?

Liberty · February 28, 2016 8:56 am

Yes, the thing is that dyzygotic twins are no more genetically similar than other siblings. Of course they share a womb at the same time (although not necessarily having exactly the same womb experience) and are the same age so likely to have more similar experiences than other siblings. But I think the whole thing is a stretch - either to think that because John and Harry might be twins, John is likely to be a drinker, or to think that because John is a drinker (according to a suggestion in the commentary), he and Harry are likely to be twins.

I do realise it's just a fun theory, but just saying that these "deduction" parts don't work for me!

Last edited by Liberty (February 28, 2016 9:01 am)

besleybean · February 28, 2016 9:05 am

I missed the commentary hint about John being a drinker...

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 9:06 am

@Liberty, Yes, it's just for fun. Moftiss would have to be very clever to pull it off well.

Last edited by ukaunz (February 28, 2016 10:08 am)

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 11:21 am

besleybean wrote:
I missed the commentary hint about John being a drinker...

I found the Moffat quote online. Now I'm tempted to listen to the ASIB commentary again myself, just to find out the context of the comment.

Actually, I just checked Ariane's commentary. It sounds like a bit of a joke off the cuff, really. It's the scene just after the boys were in Mrs Hudson's kitchen ("England would fall")

(As the boys go back upstairs)
SUE: That’s a huge glass of wine [John’s] having there, isn’t it?
BENEDICT: I think that’s a whisky, isn’t it? You wouldn’t put wine in a glass like that.
STEVEN: If you watch this show carefully, there is a subtext about John drinking. John’s just hammered by every midnight!
BENEDICT: Come on – it’s New Year’s Eve!
MARK: Even he forgets the names of his girlfriends, and that’s why!

besleybean · February 28, 2016 11:32 am

Oh yes I do remember that...I thought at the time they were all just having a laugh and in fact I still think that.

Davina · February 28, 2016 2:15 pm

I took that as just banter. Nothing more. Seriously I cannot see any real evidence at all for John having any sort of drinking problem either now or in the past.

Little Weed · February 28, 2016 5:55 pm

Oh dyzgotic twins are still likely to share traits as much as any other sibling will... with the added bonus of them having been in the same hormone mix for 9months. I don't think John is an alcholic like Harry but I do think that he drinks more heavily than he should...

And yes I completely think they are twins.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 6:12 pm

I think John drinks slightly less than the average English male and possibly less than some doctors...particularly former army ones.
But you're right, that's still too much.
Though I'm slightly biased, as I don't drink alcohol at all.

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 7:59 pm

Same here, besley.

Yeah I think the drinking subtext comment was definitely a joke/red herring. It's interesting how meta can sometimes make a mountain out of a molehill.

I just wonder why we haven't met Harry yet. You would think the wedding would be the ideal moment to introduce the character, but they chose not to. Is it just because they already had so much going on in s3 that it would have been too much, what with Sholto and Mary already changing the dynamic, or is it because they're holding off for a big reveal? Or maybe they just haven't thought much about her yet.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 8:12 pm

I think possibly some of the latter.
There are often unseen characters, certainly in British TV.
Though it would be nice to see her.
Then again, if she isn't going to add anything to the story...

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 8:13 pm

True, and Watson's brother never appeared in canon except for a mention. Maybe we never will see her.

ZuzaRitt · February 29, 2016 1:06 pm

In case of Harry is an identical twin (it is never twins, but there ARE some exceptions, eh?), it will be Martin Freeman, who will play her, am I right?
Unless Martin Freeman has some secret not known yet twin. Which would be breathtakingly prescient of her... Since the moment of conception, I guess ;)

ukaunz · February 29, 2016 1:08 pm

I don't think it's possible for them to be identical, unless... Harry is transgender? Well, that would be progressive of the BBC

ZuzaRitt · February 29, 2016 1:12 pm

BBC is progressive enough... Who else if not the BBC could do that?

Liberty · February 29, 2016 3:01 pm

Now that would be interesting! I'm kind of taken by the idea of Martin playing Harry. And actually the fact that she was trans wouldn't even have to be mentioned, because it would be obvious from the fact that they were identical! (Unless John is trans!).