As for Leonardo's Vitruvian Man - the interesting thing is that this picture is not the ideal of a morally good man but a purely aesthetic image. It depicts the "homo bene figuratus" or "well-formed man". If Sherlock had wanted to hint at John's good character he might have chosen another picture. Just saying.  

I think we have to agree to disagree here. This image has a certain meaning and was created in a certain artistic context by Leonardo. It is not so much about physical beauty but about an aethetic principle, the ideal proportions of man. And Sherlock must be aware of aesthetic principles - just have a look at the care with which he dresses himself. He is not careless of his own outward appearance, quite the contrary. So why should he disregard it in others?
 

S03 seemed to be the crossroads...they could easily of gone bromance...the your friends are now your extended family of choice modernist route.
They had the best man ask..the wedding hug / speech/ bench convo....the family Christmas etc.
Not once did they use the phrase..like a brother to me... or we are family.. etc . They avoided it. Mary said..bleh..this is what a family is supposed to look like. ...Mary..John..Sherlock...definitely were not looking like a family.

So was it Romance....it looked a lot like it..Sherlock called John a romantic..he seems to see John that way, he acted like a secondary bride..the violin serenade..dancing...they filmed a scene in a gay bar (to leak later) and the Casablanca goodbye....

I don't often see the scope for johnlockery..I love the Russian version where there is none...I dislike the Watsons in the Brett / Granada adaptation so meh there for me...in the Wilder Private Life..it is brilliant...also Katy Forsyths canon era works are beautifully done and I ship it easily with the Chris Plumber Holmes...so it's all about...scope and how it's done in each adaptation.

BBC built scope from first show..and it doesn't seem to be a joke thats getting old..so idk..it would easily fit this show and it's on the pro active BBC agenda and it could be powerful.

If BBC don't do it now..or soon..considering the market in Europe @ Japan for it at least....some one else surely will .
Which reminds me of the rumours that have floated about a johnlock adaptation / film since the 80's..(.omg 25 years ago!)..and one of Mofftiss' s earliest interviews....we talked about doing it for a long time...and then we thought we better get on and do it before someone else does... so idk maybe this is what they meant.

Last edited by lil (May 22, 2014 10:58 pm)

Yeah, he did, but John was only mentioned to affirm the fact that he knew exactly what love was to him despite what John and the other two people, Irene and Mycroft, thought or believed. Mycroft didn't say anything about fearing love. He was making a jab at Sherlock's stance on sex, which Sherlock tries to deny but Mycroft makes a good point as Sherlock does act pretty alarmed when "sex" is mentioned. Sherlock wasn't concerned about John's reaction. Why would he? The expression on his face was to show us that subject was a sensitive matter to him. It had nothing to do with John, but Sherlock. That scene showed us what Irene asserts when they meet each other. She gets naked to shock him, knowing that he will be taken aback because he won't know how to respond unlike John who does. 

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 23, 2014 12:13 am)

Of course.
He loves John.
These are things we all know.
But they are not in love.

besleybean wrote:

Of course.
He loves John.
These are things we all know.
But they are not in love.

Sherlock loves John. John loves Sherlock. They are in love.
 

But sex destroys beautiful bromance, don't you remember?

SusiGo wrote:

Well, I am still not sure I understand the distinction. 

To be in love = purely sexual attraction?
To love somebody = purely emotional attraction?
Mutually exclusive? 

I hope not. 

To me, when I say, Sherlock and John love each other, I'm saying a brotherly type of love or a close friendship. When I say they are not in love, I'm saying I don't see them as lovers. I don't think anyone is saying the people who are in love must be having a physical relationship or they are not in love or vice versa because I believe that is mistake. Romance does not always have to equal sex. And sex between two people doesn't always mean that they are "in love." It depends on the people's sexual orientation and/or views on such a subject matter.

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (May 23, 2014 11:40 am)

tonnaree wrote:

None of my friends or siblings as ever looked at me the way that Sherlock looks at John.   Just saying..................

Well, I'm going to bring something up that I did yesterday.

The looks that Sherlock gives to John and John gives Sherlock. I always viewed them as admiration. I do believe there is something there, but it is admiration. They both carry such deep reverance for each other. John's expressions with Sherlock's deductions scenes. He seems to hold high regard for Sherlock. Sherlock seems to, also. Like, this whole show has been to tell how Sherlock, a great man, can be a good man if he tries. John, despite his flaws, has some admirable traits like loyalty and sticking with his duties as a big brother and partner for Sherlock. I can see Sherlock secretly admiring that about John. I don't think he didn't realize how deep John's loyalty was until TGG where he was going to sacifice himself to save Sherlock. 

Heck, in the way, both of these two men are romantics and see each other in some type of idealized form. Of course, I think Sherlock would be too stubborn to admit it. XD 


 

That's the beauty of agape and unconditional love.