Offline
TeeJay wrote:
Then of course there was the "I am not gay" line. (Which, admittedly, I personally cheered at because I don't see Johnlock at all.)
Uhm, what's new? We've had that line before, far too often, if you ask me, so I'm not sure what there is to cheer about now...? There were lots of opportunities to cheer about that in S1 and S2 already.
Offline
I didnt read the whole linked tumblr post, got tired of it at about the half way.
I find it very irritating, that two people living together and having a strong friendship are felt like they have to be a couple?
I seriously have nothing at all against gay-relationships, but there is just no relationship like that between John and Sherlock. What they have is even more precious: Friendship, deep pure friendship.
I don't see where there is anything in the series which indicates sth else.
The jokes are funny though.
Offline
zeratul wrote:
I didnt read the whole linked tumblr post, got tired of it at about the half way.
I find it very irritating, that two people living together and having a strong friendship are felt like they have to be a couple?
I seriously have nothing at all against gay-relationships, but there is just no relationship like that between John and Sherlock. What they have is even more precious: Friendship, deep pure friendship.
I don't see where there is anything in the series which indicates sth else.
The jokes are funny though.
If you ask me the jokes were funny in S1, maybe S2, now they're tired and needs to stop. But that's my opinion.
As for "there isn't anything in the show to support this version", well... The point of that whole, admittedly long, letter was wasn't wether or not there is anything to support this interpretation but that fans are as entitled to create their own versions of Sherlock and John as Moffat and Gatiss are in making their version. The Sherlock show is nothing but one long piece of fan art. Which is good. But the creators and casts can't really come and complain that our fan versions is any less legitimate than theirs. As the writer of the letter point out, Holmes have been a mouse and Watson a robot in some "official" versions of the Holmes stories. Not exactly canon is it?
Because what we are discussing here is fan works, not whether or not Johnlock ever happens in the series. We can take that discussion, but in this context it's rather beside the point. The point being why is some fan versions less legitimate than others? And here I am talking about are fics, pics, vids, etc. that uses the characters of the show, not stuff about real people. That's another discussion entirely.
Offline
Ormond Sacker wrote:
zeratul wrote:
I didnt read the whole linked tumblr post, got tired of it at about the half way.
I find it very irritating, that two people living together and having a strong friendship are felt like they have to be a couple?
I seriously have nothing at all against gay-relationships, but there is just no relationship like that between John and Sherlock. What they have is even more precious: Friendship, deep pure friendship.
I don't see where there is anything in the series which indicates sth else.
The jokes are funny though.If you ask me the jokes were funny in S1, maybe S2, now they're tired and needs to stop. But that's my opinion.
As for "there isn't anything in the show to support this version", well... The point of that whole, admittedly long, letter was wasn't wether or not there is anything to support this interpretation but that fans are as entitled to create their own versions of Sherlock and John as Moffat and Gatiss are in making their version. The Sherlock show is nothing but one long piece of fan art. Which is good. But the creators and casts can't really come and complain that our fan versions is any less legitimate than theirs. As the writer of the letter point out, Holmes have been a mouse and Watson a robot in some "official" versions of the Holmes stories. Not exactly canon is it?
Because what we are discussing here is fan works, not whether or not Johnlock ever happens in the series. We can take that discussion, but in this context it's rather beside the point. The point being why is some fan versions less legitimate than others? And here I am talking about are fics, pics, vids, etc. that uses the characters of the show, not stuff about real people. That's another discussion entirely.
Yeah, when it comes down to it, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are basically Sherlock Holmes fanboys who wrote their own Sherlockian fan fic, but one that actually got made.
Offline
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Yeah, when it comes down to it, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are basically Sherlock Holmes fanboys who wrote their own Sherlockian fan fic, but one that actually got made.
Yes that is really the only difference between them and the rest of the fan artists. But there seems to be this sort of... I don't know what to call it, belief maybe?, that if it doesn't make money it isn't a proper version. Something I personally do not understand.
Offline
Ormond Sacker wrote:
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Yeah, when it comes down to it, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are basically Sherlock Holmes fanboys who wrote their own Sherlockian fan fic, but one that actually got made.
Yes that is really the only difference between them and the rest of the fan artists. But there seems to be this sort of... I don't know what to call it, belief maybe?, that if it doesn't make money it isn't a proper version. Something I personally do not understand.
But isn't there another difference? Because the fan art created by the Sherlock fandom mainly refers to the version of Sherlock/Watson that Moffat and Gatiss have created out of ACD's Sherlock. So there are two different points of reference, aren't there? Moffat/Gatiss--ACD-Sherlock, Sherlock fandom--Moffat/Gatiss-Sherlock. And that might be the reason why the creators of the show feel whatever it is that they're feeling towards fan art.
Don't get me wrong, I love fan art and am deeply, deeply impressed by the level of creativity in our fandom. But I tend to understand why it is that Moffat/Gatiss might feel, I don't know... protective over their Sherlock? Even if I believe that there is no real reason for them to feel protective at all... but I kind of understand why they might feel that way.
Offline
SolarSystem wrote:
Ormond Sacker wrote:
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Yeah, when it comes down to it, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are basically Sherlock Holmes fanboys who wrote their own Sherlockian fan fic, but one that actually got made.
Yes that is really the only difference between them and the rest of the fan artists. But there seems to be this sort of... I don't know what to call it, belief maybe?, that if it doesn't make money it isn't a proper version. Something I personally do not understand.
But isn't there another difference? Because the fan art created by the Sherlock fandom mainly refers to the version of Sherlock/Watson that Moffat and Gatiss have created out of ACD's Sherlock. So there are two different points of reference, aren't there? Moffat/Gatiss--ACD-Sherlock, Sherlock fandom--Moffat/Gatiss-Sherlock. And that might be the reason why the creators of the show feel whatever it is that they're feeling towards fan art.
Don't get me wrong, I love fan art and am deeply, deeply impressed by the level of creativity in our fandom. But I tend to understand why it is that Moffat/Gatiss might feel, I don't know... protective over their Sherlock? Even if I believe that there is no real reason for them to feel protective at all... but I kind of understand why they might feel that way.
Moffat and Gatiss uses the canon stories yes, but they also plunder quite happily from every other adaptation, dramatisation or pastiche made. Plus a herd of old Sherlockian lore, such as Sherlock's full name. So fan artists may have a more sigular focus on this one show, but these two quite happily "borrow" from every predecessor they have, as well as from a few other places. So they really should stop "riping off" others if they feel that their own version should receive special protection.
Offline
I make a point of rarely googling any celebrity I like.
There will always, always be something online about them that you don't like - whether it's a nasty (probably made up) story, some poisonous posts about them somewhere, pictures etc., - even on here, I largely keep to discussion threads about the stories and characters and avoid those about the Actors.
If I was an Actor myself, or married to one, I would most definitely not google myself or my partner - I should think it must be especially upsetting if you find stuff you don't like/ are uncomfortable with about a loved one or yourself...and with the Internet there's very little you can do about it - privacy laws, libel, whatever, don't seem to apply.
So if I were Amanda, I have to say, I'd avoid googling Martin, but she's perfectly entitled to look him up if she chooses, of course, and we can't blame her if she's found images of her husband online upsetting or discomfiting.
I can see both sides on this issue, though.
I don't go in for fan art/fiction or shipping, but I completely understand the escapism it provides for those that do, and would hope the writers and actors would understand that.
I think it's unfair when people like Graham Norton hold things up for all to see on a TV show, it's not fair to mock people who probably have no idea that anyone outside their fan group will be interested in what they've done.
On the other hand , although they're always quite respectful about the stuff, I do think that Martin and particularly Benedict, seem quite uncomfortable when directly confronted with it.
It highlights both the fact that there's a good and a bad side to the easy access we have to everything on the internet, I suppose.
Last edited by Tinks (January 30, 2014 8:21 am)
Offline
Just to add to the above - the Holmes/Watson friendship is a lovely creation, both in the books and in this series, so I'd hope the writers wouldn't be put off from continuing with that.
Offline
"So if I were Amanda, I have to say, I'd avoid googling Martin, but she's perfectly entitled to look him up if she chooses, of course, and we can't blame her if she's found images of her husband online upsetting or discomfiting.
A valid point but poor Amanda has actually had fans sending the stuff right to her!
Which wouldn't be so bad if it were just nice paintings of Martin but fans have sent her explicit art. I'll never understand that. Some people just don't think.
Offline
tonnaree wrote:
"So if I were Amanda, I have to say, I'd avoid googling Martin, but she's perfectly entitled to look him up if she chooses, of course, and we can't blame her if she's found images of her husband online upsetting or discomfiting.
A valid point but poor Amanda has actually had fans sending the stuff right to her!
Which wouldn't be so bad if it were just nice paintings of Martin but fans have sent her explicit art. I'll never understand that. Some people just don't think.
Oh wow! No I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, and while people might expect Martin and Benedict to smile politely and be OK with it, they're not under any obligation to do so - expecting the partner of one of them to be happy about it is being presumptive and naive at best - people should perhaps ask themselves how they would feel in that situation.
Offline
I'd be pretty distrubed if someone started sending me drawings of my husband in sexual situations with one of his coworkers.
Offline
Definetly crossing a line there into as and mf personal space...
Offline
But AO3 tells if a fic is explicite and then asks me to confirm I am willing to see it... I find it easy to escape such content.
Offline
If you search works on AO3 you can decide what ratings you want to see, so you can avoid the explicit ones.
Offline
RPG's make me a bit queasy. Other than that post what you will, just don't inflict it on the actors themselves.
Offline
Well, about RPGs, this seems to be the opinion of everybody here - or has someone spoken in favour of RPGs?