besleybean wrote:

I assure you it's all in your heads. Not in the scripts or the perfomances.

We know that. Anyone over the age of 12 would know that, don'tcha think? We who are into Johnlock are into it because it's FUN. For us, anyway. Just like a ride on a roller coaster-- some call that fun, others would call it a waste of time and money. Each to his own, right?

ancientsgate wrote:

besleybean wrote:

Not getting into this again and not on a picture thread.
But we know what the writers and actors have said.
Sigh.

bb, you can't come onto a Sherlock/John thread and expect to have what you said go unchallenged. We're not stupid-- we know what we see, and we know what we fantasize about, and we know that the two things are very different. I personally don't give a fig what the writers and actors said-- they did what they did and then put their product out there, and if I choose to paint it pink and ride it around like a pony, then that's my right as a consumer of the art they produced, I am not wrong to do so. OK, back to the pictures.....

Where's a 'Like' button when you need one?

besleybean wrote:

No it's not. Not according to actors and writers.

Who are all men and who are also full of baloney. I think Mark G. especially knew exactly what he was writing when he wrote it, and I think the actors knew exactly how far to take the dialogue and staging, and in what direction. IMO all of Sherlock and John's friendship was written and acted to DELIBERATELY lead us to Johnlock, if we so chose to go there, as individuals-- it's interesting, it's good business because it generates chat, and it's no less morally acceptable than if they were Sherlock and Joan, like in the US's Elementary. The BBC would obviously rather not "go there" and actually show physical affection between S and J, but aside from that, IMO again, I think viewers would have to be actually blind, lol, not to at least see the potential for Johnlock, whether or not they like it.  OK, back to the pictures.... didn't I already say that?  Sorry.

ancientsgate wrote:

besleybean wrote:

No it's not. Not according to actors and writers.

Who are all men and who are also full of baloney. I think Mark G. especially knew exactly what he was writing when he wrote it, and I think the actors knew exactly how far to take the dialogue and staging, and in what direction. IMO all of Sherlock and John's friendship was written and acted to DELIBERATELY lead us to Johnlock, if we so chose to go there, as individuals-- it's interesting, it's good business because it generates chat, and it's no less morally acceptable than if they were Sherlock and Joan, like in the US's Elementary. The BBC would obviously rather not "go there" and actually show physical affection between S and J, but aside from that, IMO again, I think viewers would have to be actually blind, lol, not to at least see the potential for Johnlock, whether or not they like it.  OK, back to the pictures.... didn't I already say that?  Sorry.

Give me a 'Like' button dangit!!!

A big thumbs up from me to Neptune and AG  ^_^

I know that some people ship Sherlock/Molly, for example. I don't see it myself but I don't go around slamming those who do...

Somebody ask for a Like button?

kittykat wrote:

A big thumbs up from me to Neptune and AG  ^_^

I know that some people ship Sherlock/Molly, for example. I don't see it myself but I don't go around slamming those who do...

Thank you Kat!

It's bad enough that the Non-Johnlockians started attacking the Johnlocians back when we found out that Mary was coming to the show. So many posts read "HAHAHA! YOUR SHIP IS SINKING!" We don't need someone coming into a Sherlock/John thread and tellings us that we are wrong, or crazy, or making things up. It hurt my feelings when a follow Sherlockian made just a hurtful comment, and that's why I said something. I still love you though, BB!

Harriet wrote:

May I do it, too, ag?

What, paint the show pink and ride it around like a pony? Sure. *hands Harriet a brush, a bucket of pink paint and some tack*  Go for it.  But you know what?  I suspect many if not most of us on this thread have already done this, even though they didn't put it in so many words. *smile*

Harriet wrote:

No, use that fine quote of yours?

Sure. Can't think why not.

SolarSystem wrote:

ancientsgate wrote:

But you know what?  I suspect many if not most of us on this thread have already done this, even though they didn't put it in so many words. *smile*

The thing is: However many words you use in this 'debate', in the end it all lies in the eye of the beholder - as it always is the case when it comes to art.
All art 'is just in our heads', it's in the head of every single one of us, Johnlock or bromance, and we all make something different out of it - as Harriet already mentioned earlier.
And that's how it should be with art, in my opinion. And it really can't be any other way, can it? Even two Johnlockians will have different ideas about their personal Johnlock, Johnlock does not mean the exact same thing to all Johnlockians.

And I've never been a fan of this "the author said this, the director said that"-argument. Because to me it means nothing. It might be interesting to hear why they did what they did and what their intentions might have been. But like some of you already mentioned: the reader of a book or the viewer of a film will read or see something else. That's just the nature of things.