Offline
Which scene are you talking about?
Offline
After Sherlock has made the baby deduction and called John and Mary out on parenting him like a child, the three of them are smiling, John puts his hand around Sherlock's neck, and Sherlock looks at John, the smile leaving his face. John looks back, then looks down.
Offline
Yeah, it's acknowledgement...they are the sign of three at that moment for me: Sherlock, John and Mary.
John's wedding day and he's with the 2 people he loves the most: his wife and his best friend.
I see no regret, only gratitude.
Offline
It's much more poignant than that for me. This is not a happy scene, nor is Sherlock's departure for the wedding, early, collar up.
Offline
I agree,he's out of his comfort zone.
But it wa also ' job done'...or at least: survived the battle!
Last edited by besleybean (June 12, 2014 7:54 pm)
Offline
They do attract and make effort to attract each other in a courting like way.
Johns complements on Sherlock looking cool...cheekbones...the look thing..and Sherlocks replication of that at every possible opportunity.
Sherlock and the whole Johns moustache thing...Sherlock dislikes it..John removes it.
Exactly the same way Molly acted with the lipstick.
And with the very same words..it wasn't working for me.
That seems a bit beyond familial...or two best friendly men..thats wanting to look pretty for each other.
Sherlock runining/being rude to Johns dates and Johns jealously over Irene and Janine...same thing...non friend like.non familial...courting like behavior.
Doesn't a friend or family member....encourage dating..finding a partner usually?
Before TRF ..given the choice over women or Sherlock...John chose Sherlock everytime..even his girlfriends were jealous and referred to John as Sherlocks boyfriend...thats also kinda not normal...familial...best matey like stuff .
Last edited by lil (June 12, 2014 8:00 pm)
Offline
So . . . What you seem to be saying is there is absolutely nothing there, not even ambiguity. This feels very improbable. The writers are too clever for that. There's no interest in it. This is a mystery, and meant to be. Where there is clarity there is no mystery.
Offline
The cheekbone thing is not a compliment, it's guy friend teasing.
I hate moustaches and I'm not in love with John.
John removes the tash for Mary.
Sherlock and John don't want to look pretty for each other.
Sherlock has issues with women and they interrupt work.
Janette was just peeved cos John was putting his work before her.
John prefers Sherlock as a friend but he does not prefer him to go out with.
And anyhow, Sherlock is back now...so why doesn't John choose him?
The crimes are the mysteries, not the relationships
Last edited by besleybean (June 12, 2014 8:06 pm)
Offline
besleybean wrote:
I agree,he's out of his comfort zone.
But it wa also ' job done'...or at least: survived the battle!
Mrs. Hudson:"Who leaves a wedding early? So sad!"
besleybean wrote:
The crimes are the mysteries, not the relationships
Mark Gatiss: I think it is a show about a detective, not a detective show.
Steven Moffat: The arc is always the same, oddly enough for a detective show - or more accurately, a show about a detective. It’s just about that relationship. How that changes and who those people are, that’s what you’re in love with, is the two men and their friendship and the adventures they go on are interesting because it happens to them.
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Attraction.
Dartng
Courting
Bonding.
Living together/marriage, whatever...
Ah, interesting. I see (and feel!) all of this between John and Sherlock and none of this (except for the wedding, but well, a wedding, right?) between John and Mary. So, either I'm just totally wrong, or this definition of "being in love" is just a theoretical definition that doesn't always work in real life - not even in the real life of fictional characters. Just because life tends to be more complicated and diverse and full of surprises and sometimes beyond any kind of definition. Just because there's more than only black and white in life. Just because sometimes you have to expect the unexpected.
Oh, and I guess we all know that it's always wise to expect the unexpected with the Mofftiss.
Offline
Thank you, Mattlocked.
Offline
I would have no interest in this show if it were about the silly little mysteries that Sherlock and John solve and how clever Sherlock is. Kind of fun, but this show is so much more than that. It is art, which is why we can read it at so many different levels, and why is has spawned so much interest. The writers know what they are doing, and I believe they are delighted to have an audience who cares enough to really try to figure it out.
Offline
Obviously that's part of it .
Possibly the writers appreciate more that their audience 'get it'.
But I am sure they are flattered by the fan art and fan fic.
Nobody has a problem with any of that, this isn't what Amanda and Ian(particulary) were taking issue with.
Also, I completely agree with Steven that the friendship of these 2 men is cemtral.
I've never done anything but argue for that.
The friendship will always develop, as the best friendships do.
But it seems the love of 2 close friends isn't enough for some, it's not right unless there's more.
I personally find that rather depressing.
Last edited by besleybean (June 13, 2014 4:32 pm)
Offline
No, bb, this is not the major issue here, to see them explicite on screen. As Susi said a couple of times we want them to be together first and foremost, to acknowledge their importance in each others lives, no hurt and angst. And we don't mind a kiss or entangled hand if the writers go for it. For me as a viewer it has to be plausible. The Mary-John-love-story-arc never touched my heart a single second. Mary may be redeemed next season, her deeds may never be talked about again on screen and we may learn that Sherlock truly likes her. But since she's not a victorian kind of women and has her own imaginations about marriage and -alas- family this will be an obstacle in the possibilities of future screenwriting for Sherlock. Sex or not.
Offline
Exactly. And I repeat that the question of non-sexual close friendship or a loving sexual relationship is not about the one being not enough and wishing for more or whatever. These are two separate forms of relationship of equal value.
But when so many people see evidence for the latter form of relationship one cannot simply dismiss all this as cheap teasing, joking or hallucinations. Just imagine what this would say about the makers' attitude towards their audience.
Offline
I agree.
I don't recall anyone here ever argueing that there is (or has to be) something romantic going on between John and Sherlock because a deep friendship isn't enough. If I saw a deep friendship between them, then of course that would be enough. But I see more, and that's the whole point.
Mofftiss give es more to see than just 'bromance', and even if not everybody sees it, a lot of people do see it. Coincidence? And is it also just coincidental that we see these things over and over and over again, since the unaired pilot up until now?
If Mofftiss didn't want there to be any ambiguity, they wouldn't give it to us. You can always have a show with two male best buddies, and that show can work brilliantly. But Mofftiss decided to do something else, obviously. Thousands of people don't just see Johnlock because they want to see it or because when they started to watch the show thought 'Oh, wouldn't it be nice to have a version of Sherlock Holmes where Sherlock and John are more than just close friends...? Right, let's have a look and then I'll just see it!'.
We see it because Mofftiss give it to us. Why do they do it, then? Why not leave it completely unambiguous? Why raise expectations - and they have to know that there are expectations since the end of S1...? Explain it to me, because I just don't get it.
Offline
The writers have spoken openly about having a running 'gay' joke through the series, just to address the issue of 2 men living together...but it is a joke.
And no they did not try to do something differently.
How can you make that claim on behalf ot the writers?
I honestly can't believe this issue.
Last edited by besleybean (June 13, 2014 4:37 pm)
Offline
besleybean wrote:
How can you make that claim on behalf ot the writers?
Because I see it.
And please: I'm talking about what I see, I do not make any claim on behalf of the writers. But I know what I'm seeing, right there in tv. If you see something else, so be it.
Last edited by SolarSystem (June 13, 2014 4:45 pm)
Offline
If this is a joke many people will be bitterly disappointed. And not just LGB people. If this subject is just good enough for jokes … then I suppose BBC will not be amused either. I will soon open a new thread regarding BBC and their LGB policy.
Last edited by SusiGo (June 13, 2014 4:44 pm)
Offline
It isn't just good enough for jokes and it isn't the subject.
That's the whole point,.
The show is not about a gay couple or gay people.