And I've lost count of the number of times I've read people practically apologizing for being into Johnlock by saying "...but of course I'm totally fine for Johnlock to only happen in fanfic, I don't need to see it in the show".
I'd love to see it in the show. And I'm not talking about bed scenes here.
 

Last edited by SolarSystem (April 16, 2014 7:30 am)

I see your point. I guess we all have a POV about this, and TPTB cannot (IMO, they shouldn't even try to) please us all.

The biggest reason I don't want to actually see Johnlock, even PG rated Johnlock, is because I don't trust the all-male Sherlock writing staff to handle it well, to write it right.  I don't bow down at the feet of Gatiss and the other writers like most Sherlock fans do, I guess. And if he and all the other  male writers can't write it right (ie, the way *I* think it should be written, lol), then I'd rather not see them go there. I get whoa!more than enough Johnlock in the fan fic I read, and that satisfies me.

Somehow it worked with Captain Jack in Torchwood, but Torchwood was a very different show than Sherlock, Barrowman is gay in RL, and he never had the chemistry with Iago or whatever his name was, on the show, IMO, not like Sherlock and John do. In Sherlock, for TPTB to "go there" and let S and J finally fall into each other's arms, even PG-rated, would change a major component of the show--  if they ship the two of them, there would be no more friendship-bromance, and IMO again, the friendship is at least half the solid foundation of the show.

Just my two cents.

 

I think your point about the writing is really interesting.  I was really disappointed by how the relationship between John and Sherlock panned out in the third series.  It was like the writers thought they had created a 'Johnlock' monster in Seasons 1 and 2 and had to back down from it.  In particular, they showed John to be inexcusably cold and detatched from Sherlock (eg allowing him to stage a showdown with Mary when he should have been back in hospital, acting far too calm and cool  when they said good bye at the airstrip)- It just didn't make any sense at all- and was maybe a self-conscious effort on the writers part to totally tone down the fantastic chemistry we saw in Seasons 1 and 2. 
 

No, theories about the Fall are aall over TEH.
The Sherlock/Moriarty fantasy, ok a nod...
O.T: Incidentally, is there much Sherlock/Moriarty ff?!

Oh heck sorry- I forgot that one.
You can see where MY interests lie!

I believe in the fact that in canon, Sherlock and John do love each other. Are they in love, though? That is up to individual interpretations, which is always so fun to read.  

Though, I am really get sick of a certain sect of Johnlock shippers who shove the pairing down people's throats. I have been seeing that alot lately in tumblr.   That's not cool. Also, the fact that some of them post things under other people's favorite pairings like I saw this one with Benedict and Loo's faces pasted on the cover of the Titanic and posted the lyrics of the Celine Dion song, but then some Johnlock fan posted the John's face posted on the iceberg crashing the ship. It's so passive-aggressive. They kept posting that Johnlock is canon and tell other people ship other pairings to take the joke, but then kept saying things like "Sorry, Johnlock is canon. =) "

No, that is not funny. It is not funny to make fun or invalidate other people's favorite pairings, telling those people that they aren't shipping the "true pairing"

Also, getting sick of people who ship the pairing and call other people delusional when they don't ship it. Really? 

Or how about the fact that despite what the writers' said, these same people believe that Series 3 confirmed that Johnlock was going to happen. *lost for words here* 


I'm sorry. I'm just be seeing alot of this lately and am get pretty sick of this. To the point where my interest in such a pairing wanes because of these certain people who do this. Just to be clear, I'm not saying all Johnlockers do this. I saved the blogs of all the respectable Johnlock shippers, so I'm not generalizing here. I'm just talking about the ones who ship Johnlock and do this. 





 

SusiGo wrote:

.......Ancientsgate: I do not quite understand your argument about the "I turned gay for him" role. We do not know anything about Sherlock's sexuality expect that girlfriends are not really his area and that he may be a virgin according to Mycroft resp. Moriarty. So he might be gay without acting it out. Not once does he deny that he and John are a couple, have a date, whatever ....

Oh, well, I'm just taking what they've shown us at face value: Sherlock hasn't shown any interest in either gender, for reasons that haven't really been explained. He's capable of kissing women and hugging men, but he seems serene, above it all somehow, emotionally unaffected and sometimes even surprised that he's found attractive to anyone else, male or female. He doesn't seem confused by his sexuality, just....  above the fray, detached.

So yeah, if he made a conscious decision to enter into a true romantic liason with John, one in which Sherlock would consciously enter the fray, rather than sail above it, a way to descrbe that might be that he "turned gay" for John.  After all, Sherlock's  never shown a hint of being gay, by attitude or experience, before.  But if Sherlock did turn his heart in John's direction, one way to put it would be that he "turned gay" for him.  It's just an expression, maybe not a very pc one, but there ya go.

 

besleybean wrote:

I would have loved for BBC Sherlock to have been written as a full on gay romp.
But it it wasn't and it it isn't going to be. I now mainly get upset over that fact that people totally disregard the heartfelt piece Ian Hallard wrote, which for me was totally unnecessary. He honetly couldn't believe that people weren't getting that the Johnlock thing was just a bit of fun, but that it will never actually happen in the show.

A full on gay romp wouldn't have been Sherlock. The writers are ACD fanboys, and they started out wanting to be true to the original stories, just adapted to the 21st century.

And being men, they probably don't get the way we women think seeing Sherlock and John together "that way" would be so fascinating. They'd be more apt to put Janine and Molly into a relationship, if they wanted a gay romp in the show. Just sayin'.

Who is Ian Hallard?  Do you have a link to the piece you're talking about?
 

Ian is Mark's husband.
His piece has been posted on here before.
I cannot copy and paste it, for some reason.
Who helped me last time?!

@CHIMPSINSOCKS Yes, I find I learn more and more about the subculture as time goes on! To be fair, I didn't say anyone’s fantasies were wrong. People are very welcome to fantasise about whatever they like. No one is judging that - well not me anyway. I was querying the extent to which that fantasy, for some at least, seems to have developed into a belief, or in certain cases insistent demands, that it should become reality and appear in the show itself.
“Sherlock” itself plays with the idea that society is so unused to any kind of male friendship or intimacy that those around Sherlock and John often assume their relationship can only be motivated by sexual attraction. As Amanda says, why can’t their love for each other be friendship? Why impose a gay dynamic on two characters who, as clearly as we can tell, identify respectively as heterosexual and asexual?
Personally speaking, I’d love to see more well-rounded gay characters and well-written gay relationships depicted in drama, but that’s another story – and not this one, I’m afraid.
As you say, it's an interesting phenomenon.


Yay, done it!

Last edited by besleybean (April 16, 2014 2:35 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Ian is Mark's husband. His piece has been posted on here before. I cannot copy and paste it, for some reason. Who helped me last time?!
@CHIMPSINSOCKS Yes, I find I learn more and more about the subculture as time goes on! To be fair, I didn't say anyone’s fantasies were wrong. People are very welcome to fantasise about whatever they like. No one is judging that - well not me anyway. I was querying the extent to which that fantasy, for some at least, seems to have developed into a belief, or in certain cases insistent demands, that it should become reality and appear in the show itself.
“Sherlock” itself plays with the idea that society is so unused to any kind of male friendship or intimacy that those around Sherlock and John often assume their relationship can only be motivated by sexual attraction. As Amanda says, why can’t their love for each other be friendship? Why impose a gay dynamic on two characters who, as clearly as we can tell, identify respectively as heterosexual and asexual?
Personally speaking, I’d love to see more well-rounded gay characters and well-written gay relationships depicted in drama, but that’s another story – and not this one, I’m afraid.
As you say, it's an interesting phenomenon.


Yay, done it!

Thanks, bb. I hadn't seen this before. I agree with him and Amanda, that there's nothing wrong with keeping S/J's relationship as just friendship-- in fact, I think it's better, cleaner, easier, safer in the long run. And TPTB absolutely should not impose any damned thing on S/J just because of some very vocal fans who think someone died and left them in charge.

Haha whether Sherlock is queerbaiting and homophobic bepends on Moffat's reasons for not putting John and Sherlock in a sexual relationship.
     O If he does it because he doesn't like the idea of two males having a sexual relationship, that's homophobic.
     O If he does it because he wants to exploit the comedy of two men being misinterpreted as gay, then that's queerbaiting.
     O If he does it because it because it wouldn't be cannon if he did, he's just being faithful to the original- whether the original is homophobic is another debate
     O If he does it because he wants to portray and focus on friendship of the deepest kind, then he's being artistic.
It all depends on his motives. Take a look at his philosophy on the nature of John and Sherlock's relationship if you haven't read it yet, and decide for yourself what the most likely motive is.

Interviewer: I loved that line where Irene says to Watson, ‘you are a couple.’ They’re not sexually involved, but they are partners. Given that there’s always been this speculation over Watson and Holmes, I thought that was an interesting way to resolve the tension.
Moffat: It’s always definitely a love story. I don’t see why that means that sex has to be involved. What a weirdly sexualized world we live in where you insist they must be having sex as well. Why would they? John isn’t wired that way, whatever Sherlock is. But I think that whole scene, when Irene Adler has to say she’s mostly gay, she has had relationships with men as well, it’s not what it’s about. Sherlock Holmes is indifferent to sex. So is Irene. She uses sex to get what she wants, and John Watson happily has a string of girlfriends. Sex is not really the issue among any of these people. Love is. Infatuation is. I think John Watson is infatuated with and fascinated by Sherlock Holmes. I think Sherlock Holmes absolutley relies completely and utterly on John Watson and is devoted to him. ...Who says any of them are having sex with each other?

So, is Moffat homophobic, or is he just trying to say something exclusively about love and elects not to focus on sex because his message is about something entirely different?

Last edited by Lue4028 (April 16, 2014 3:07 pm)