BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

Tinks · May 19, 2014 8:52 am

Even though I'm not into Johnlock, for reasons I've already stated, and I personally can't ever see it officially happening, I'd have to say that I think they're fibbing a bit if they say that they've never thrown in any teasers for Johnlockers!
I think the show was full of them from the off - I'm not talking about the obvious nods to the fact that people can't accept sometimes that two males sharing a flat could be "just" friends, but about other little moments that would definitely be picked up on by anyone that was looking for it.
I think they may have distanced themselves from johnlock a bit since AA came into the fold.
If I'm honest, I think they even may have poked fun at it a little bit in TEH (which I didn't really like them doing), but prior to that, I think they knew it was something that would develop amongst some fans (Moftiss have been around fandoms long enough to know these things happen), and let's just say, they did nothing to discourage it!!

Last edited by Tinks (May 19, 2014 8:54 am)

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 9:06 am

As for Sherlock, I think series 3 has the most Johnlock moments, far more than both 1 and 2 together. (Just one example: seeing his best friend's wife in her bridal gown shooting him in the chest. How much subtext do people need?)

SolarSystem · May 19, 2014 9:21 am

You're just misinterpreting things here, Susi.
I agree, TSoT is probably the mother of all Johnlock now. That's an episode that's almost bursting with subtext - and sometimes it's not even subtext anymore.

gently69 · May 19, 2014 9:23 am

SolarSystem wrote:
That's an episode that's almost bursting with subtext - and sometimes it's not even subtext anymore.

Yes, even I see that. It's obvious.

Zatoichi · May 19, 2014 9:49 am

Yep, it is.. totally agree. That´s why it´s by far my least favourite episode, it´s threatening my worldview . And that´s why I´m not too sure about Johnlock staying subtext in S4, all it takes is a tiny step from there and it´ll be maintext imo.. just like the end of HLV. Oh, I´m so curious about S4, and they.."are moving closer to getting a filming date", argh!

gently69 · May 19, 2014 9:51 am

Zatoichi wrote:
Oh, I´m so curious about S4, and they.."are moving closer to getting a filming date", argh!

That's horrible, isn't it?

silverblaze · May 19, 2014 10:08 am

SolarSystem wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
About that 'ignoring the creator' type of analysis. I've seen at a few times, and frankly, I think it's a lot of bollocks (almost as bad as extreme constructivism). It has never made sense to me; a creator of an artwork has an intent, whether he or she pulls it off is irrelevant, the intent is still there. Of course that matters and of course that affects the way people experience it, sometimes it's even the most important factor, for example the way people make sense of abstract art.
I take the freedom to disagree. We've been over this in various other threads, and of course if you think that this approach is bollocks, that's your right.
I believe that the idea of art is that everyone can look at it, read it, listen to it and come up with his/her own ideas about it. Anything else would be very, very boring, IMO. Of course every artist has an intent, but I'm pretty sure that most artists love the idea that the people who look at their art, read their art, listen to their art get lots of different ideas about it.

I wouldn't stick around here if everyone agreed with me. I was really hoping people wouldn't. I don't think I was present on that thread, though, I can't remember discussing this specifically.

I take that you favour the constructivist method. There's nothing inherently wrong with that as a research paradigm but it has its limitations. It's easily subverted into an 'anything goes' approach, that you often see in postmodernism. That's the part I find bullshit, obviously people cannot make up facts out of thin air. But my background is science, so hey, scientists and postmodernists always fight. I find discussions about the merits of these kinds of paradigms interesting, though it's probably a bit too indepth for this particuar thread.

I think there's a real difference between creatively engaging with a piece of art and genuily trying to work out what it means. For example, I love the fanfiction culture that comes with this fandom, I love the weird and creative tangents that people find and I try to write my own stories too. But when it comes to interpreting the show, I cannot see it separate from what the creators say about it, lies or no lies. The fact that the writers are engaging with the audience is part of the experience for me and one of the most important things that attracted me to the show.

silverblaze · May 19, 2014 10:15 am

SusiGo wrote:
As for Sherlock, I think series 3 has the most Johnlock moments, far more than both 1 and 2 together. (Just one example: seeing his best friend's wife in her bridal gown shooting him in the chest. How much subtext do people need?)

Shooting one in the liver means what? I thought it just meant that she shot him and he's puzzled about that. The only subtext I saw was John touching Sherlock's leg in the drunk scene.

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 10:20 am

He saw her as a bride. It would have been understandable if she had worn the combat outfit in which she actually shot him. But this is a very broad hint. We look into his mind and he sees Mary as a bride, not as an assassin, shooting him. If this is not obvious, I don't know what is.

nakahara · May 19, 2014 10:22 am

silverblaze wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
As for Sherlock, I think series 3 has the most Johnlock moments, far more than both 1 and 2 together. (Just one example: seeing his best friend's wife in her bridal gown shooting him in the chest. How much subtext do people need?)

Shooting one in the liver means what? I thought it just meant that she shot him and he's puzzled about that. The only subtext I saw was John touching Sherlock's leg in the drunk scene.

But she wasn´t wearing her bridal gown when she shot Sherlock, so why does he sees her wearing one in his vision?
Probably because he connect her marriage to John with the thing that hurt him?
Just my thought.

nakahara · May 19, 2014 10:23 am

Ha, I see we had a same thought, Suzi!

SolarSystem · May 19, 2014 10:28 am

silverblaze wrote:
That's the part I find bullshit, obviously people cannot make up facts out of thin air.

As far as I remember I wasn't talking about making up facts out of thin air. I was talking about finding proof in the show, in particular scenes, giving examples in order to prove the point you're trying to make.
That is what my media studies at university taught me.
Of course it's always possible that people don't analyse art like that... as can be seen in this forum sometimes. For example, saying that Mark's husband at one point said this and that doesn't prove anything (to me). It might be some sort of proof if you connected it to specific scenes, but so far that didn't happen here.

Zatoichi · May 19, 2014 10:38 am

SusiGo wrote:
He saw her as a bride. It would have been understandable if she had worn the combat outfit in which she actually shot him. But this is a very broad hint. We look into his mind and he sees Mary as a bride, not as an assassin, shooting him. If this is not obvious, I don't know what is.

You could say that Sherlock sees Mary as lovely and sweet and his best friend´s wife, and she is represented in her bridal gown in his mind palace because of that. And now this lovely lady in innocent white shoots him..he´s confused and needs to process that. Yeah, but I admit that feels more of a stretch than to assume she already wounded him badly by marrying his John..

nakahara · May 19, 2014 10:39 am

SolarSystem wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
That's the part I find bullshit, obviously people cannot make up facts out of thin air.
As far as I remember I wasn't talking about making up facts out of thin air. I was talking about finding proof in the show, in particular scenes, giving examples in order to prove the point you're trying to make.
That is what my media studies at university taught me.
Of course it's always possible that people don't analyse art like that... as can be seen in this forum sometimes. For example, saying that Mark's husband at one point said this and that doesn't prove anything (to me). It might be some sort of proof if you connected it to specific scenes, but so far that didn't happen here.

But people aren´t conjuring Johnlock out of thin air, nor from the mere fact that two flatmates are living together. If that was the case, then we would see also some fanfictions about Poirot and Cpt. Hastings, for example. They are two men living together, aren´t they? But its not enough to make them HasRot.
People conjure Johnlock from body language, looks, certain scenes and general atmosphere of the show.
And considering that even the very old adaptations of Sherlock Holmes stories already had Johnlock, it isn´t just a coincidence that BBC adaptation included it either.

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 10:40 am

Bravo, nakahara, HasRot made my day.

silverblaze · May 19, 2014 10:59 am

SolarSystem wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
That's the part I find bullshit, obviously people cannot make up facts out of thin air.
As far as I remember I wasn't talking about making up facts out of thin air. I was talking about finding proof in the show, in particular scenes, giving examples in order to prove the point you're trying to make.
That is what my media studies at university taught me.
Of course it's always possible that people don't analyse art like that... as can be seen in this forum sometimes. For example, saying that Mark's husband at one point said this and that doesn't prove anything (to me). It might be some sort of proof if you connected it to specific scenes, but so far that didn't happen here.

No, I was more talking about the paradigm in general and how it's often subverted, also within academic circles but that discussion is probably way to indepth for this particular thread.

Regarding to analysing art and its meaning: well, that'd totally depend on your question. If I ask the question 'Do Moftiss intend this relationship as a romantic one', then I go on reading and watching interviews by them where they explain what they think. If I ask the question 'Is the relationship portrayed a romantic one' then I might analyse scenes. Problem is that the second question and method don't give a conclusive answer, hence the resort to the first quesion.

Regarding the bridal gown. I thought it meant that that's how he sees her, as John's wife. Someone whose wedding he planned and who he loved in happier days. And the gown creates a great visual and a cool contrast to the gun, representing both life and death. I did not see this representing her coming between them, I saw it representing being hurt and betrayed by someone he loved and trusted.

silverblaze · May 19, 2014 11:06 am

Zatoichi wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
He saw her as a bride. It would have been understandable if she had worn the combat outfit in which she actually shot him. But this is a very broad hint. We look into his mind and he sees Mary as a bride, not as an assassin, shooting him. If this is not obvious, I don't know what is.
You could say that Sherlock sees Mary as lovely and sweet and his best friend´s wife, and she is represented in her bridal gown in his mind palace because of that. And now this lovely lady in innocent white shoots him..he´s confused and needs to process that. Yeah, but I admit that feels more of a stretch than to assume she already wounded him badly by marrying his John..

Nope, I disagree. I see it the other way round. Timing is key here. The bridal gown shot is part of a sequence in which Sherlock tries to work out why Mary shot him. It is a response to her shooting him, not a response to her marrying him.

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 11:45 am

No, it is not. In the scene where he is trying to find out what Mary is she is wearing the dress from the restaurant. The scene in the bridal gown is from his mind palace while he is dying. It precedes the Redbeard scene.

Last edited by SusiGo (May 19, 2014 11:47 am)

tonnaree · May 19, 2014 12:09 pm

SusiGo wrote:
No, it is not. In the scene where he is trying to find out what Mary is she is wearing the dress from the restaurant. The scene in the bridal gown is from his mind palace while he is dying. It precedes the Redbeard scene.

As a matter of fact it occurs right after Mycroft tells Sherlock to find something in his mind palace to comfort him and calm him down. My interpretation is that he is looking for John and finds Mary standing in his way. Then he goes and finds Redbeard.

Also, backing up a little. BB mentioned Mark Gatiss being bullied about Johnlock. Was this from something specific? Just curious because I had not heard about anything of that nature.

SusiGo · May 19, 2014 12:22 pm

As far as I know it was a reaction to people sending hate messages on Twitter, especially after it had been disclosed that Amanda was going to play John's wife. IMO it was the reaction of a husband to his husband treated badly, not a statement about the artistic direction of the show. Of course it is idiotic to send such messages because you do not like something about what is after all a TV show but there you are.