I'm interested in what you're saying but not sure I understand it all, Lil.

Does the oversexualised sexually corrupt society need a solution (in the programme)?  What sort of judgment is the programme making on that?  I don't know if we see an awful lot of sex, although we do see people using it (or trying to use it) to manipulate in various ways.  Kitty (acting the sexually available fan), Sherlock (using sex appeal to manipulate Janine, and, inadvertently, Irene), Magnusson (using sex as an illustration of his power and control), the Mayfly Man (using it to carry out a crime - not so far off Sherlock, I suppose), Irene (obviously), etc.

Mary starts off as the "good girl", Madonna, mother, married woman, etc., but we find out she's the "bad girl" - I'm not sure that's to do with sex, though, but it's possible that she used sex (in the broad sense - I'm always talking in the broad sense here) to manipulate John too. 

John seems fairly honest about sex - no artifice.  But Sherlock doesn't provide much of a contrast to Mary and over-sexed society - he does suppress his own sexuality, then uses his sex appeal to manipulate.   (I suppose he could have manipulated Janine further with sex, and he does hold back on that, so that's definitely in his favour - but I'm not sure I see him as a solution to the problem). 

Liberty wrote:

Martin seems to be open to people seeing what they want to see, but doesn't claim to be playing them as lovers:
“If you want to think that they’re secretly in love with each other, then you can,” Freeman says. “But we’ve never played anything like that.....”

 
Obviously I left out a lot of the quote that Liberty provided but Martin could be absolutely correct, "We've never played anything like that".  Well, the actors might not be playing "anything like that" (or at least they think they aren't)  but when those "not playing it like that" scenes get to the editing room, and the camera angles are chosen, and the lines are spliced, and the music is added, and the lighting is filtered just so, then ambiguous Johnlock innuendo can be manipulated into the scene as a conscious choice by the director and the editor.

I remember Martin saying something about playing his character in ASiB as a concerned friend worried that his friend was getting into an unhealthy relationship with an unsuitable woman.  That might have been his motivation; but boy, when all was said and done, many of his reactions in that show came out looking a lot like jealousy.  Who made it look like that?  Martin or the powers behind the cameras? If not a conscious choice of the actors then it appears to be a deliberate choice of TPTB.  Despite what the actors or the creators or the writers or anyone else says, someone is fanning the flames and keeping the guessing game alive. Ergo, I don't put much stock into their quotes as definitive proof that Johnlock doesn't exist.

Last edited by KeepersPrice (October 2, 2014 3:04 am)

KP, this reminds me of Amanda who said she hadn't been told while shooting TEH and TSoT that she would turn to be a former assassin in HLV. The fact that she didn't play Mary like that in the first two episodes didn't mean Mary was like Amanda thought her to be. She just didn't know the writers' real intention at that point..
In the same way and on the long run Johnlock could be in the minds of the writers who just may not have told yet Martin and Benedict.
 

Last edited by tobeornot221b (October 2, 2014 4:32 am)

KeepersPrice wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Martin seems to be open to people seeing what they want to see, but doesn't claim to be playing them as lovers:
“If you want to think that they’re secretly in love with each other, then you can,” Freeman says. “But we’ve never played anything like that.....”

 
Obviously I left out a lot of the quote that Liberty provided but Martin could be absolutely correct, "We've never played anything like that". Well, the actors might not be playing "anything like that" (or at least they think they aren't) but when those "not playing it like that" scenes get to the editing room, and the camera angles are chosen, and the lines are spliced, and the music is added, and the lighting is filtered just so, then ambiguous Johnlock innuendo can be manipulated into the scene as a conscious choice by the director and the editor.

I remember Martin saying something about playing his character in ASiB as a concerned friend worried that his friend was getting into an unhealthy relationship with an unsuitable woman. That might have been his motivation; but boy, when all was said and done, many of his reactions in that show came out looking a lot like jealousy. Who made it look like that? Martin or the powers behind the cameras? If not a conscious choice of the actors then it appears to be a deliberate choice of TPTB. Despite what the actors or the creators or the writers or anyone else says, someone is fanning the flames and keeping the guessing game alive. Ergo, I don't put much stock into their quotes as definitive proof that Johnlock doesn't exist.

No, it's not proof either way, but I think it helps to give an idea of where the actors are coming from and what they're trying to show (which doesn't always have to exactly fit with what the writers are trying to show, I agree).    In the scary world outside this forum there's an awful lot of sarcasm aimed at people like me who don't see Johnlock, and one thing that recurs is the idea that these talented actors are clearly acting Johnlock.  People genuinely seem to think that there's no other way to look at the relationship than Johnlock.  I think the quotes from the actors show that it is possible to not see it, because the actors didn't deliberately put it there.  We are maybe just picking up on different things.

I did see John as concerned in ASIB.  But I do think he's a bit put out that Sherlock (who supposedly isn't interested in sex) gets the attention of, and forms a connection with, such a sexual woman, pushing John out.   Jealousy is very possible in friendships - it's not limited to sexual relationships.

Last edited by Liberty (October 2, 2014 7:01 am)

It simply boils down to whether or not you believe what the actors and writers have said.
I do.
And there are only so many ways of saying that.
But it remains to be the case, whether the box exists or not.
I can't pretend Ian didn't say what he did in my signature and I give more credit to him than to others.

Last edited by besleybean (October 2, 2014 3:50 pm)

I disagree, as perceptions can sometimes mislead us...
And we can't all be right.
But the writers and actors know their own intentions,
I certainly don't always agree with what they say about the show, but I do accept it.

Exactly. And, moreover, there would be no interpretation in works of art. All studies about the stylistic means and messages of films, books, music, and paintings would be superfluous because we could just look at what the author/painter/composer said. But this is not what art is about. It is about having your own thoughts and ideas, about finding your own reading based on what you see and hear. 

But what is accurate? Is there only one truth? You cannot ignore that so many people have a different view than you. 

Thats the thing with perception tho....at the end of the day..perception is everything.
The majority of people around the world that watch Sherlock probably have no clue who the writers are..let alone what they once said.

If it's still going in ten years...and it's still ambiguous...none of that will be relevant....at the moment a lot of people...perceive it as something more...consider it's perception in Japan..and Sweeden...etc already.

The writers keep feeding the elephant...because its great publicity...and its a fun party cruise for everyone if you ignore the very few battleshippers ...which means it will grow...and whatever they say now or then or in the future will have no relevance to the majority of viewers.

Unless they completely quash it on the show...and why would they do that?

But talking of the writers....
Consider the words of Marc Gatiss in History Of Horror when talking of Luton buses... ( fake/teasing scares..oh no whats that,!  Scream scream scream....oh its a cat fighting.  )

He said....you can do it and you can do it..but in the end if you don't deliver....it's cheating.

So imho either they sink or swim.

I largely believe what the actors and writers have said, but I don't think they necessarily have all possible episodes of Sherlock planned.  They could change direction.   We'll probably never know the complete "truth" because I think the writing deliberately allows different interpretations.  I think that's very appealing to audiences, and I don't know if the writers will want to put a stop to that by excluding alternative explanations (even if they have an idea in their heads of one truth - which might not even be the same truth for all writers!).  (The problem that I have with some of the Johnlock posts out there is that they don't seem able to see any ambiguity - they can only see one view, and believe that only that one view could have been intended). 

Anyway, here's something I've touched on before that bothers me about the Johnlock view.   John's deception of Mary (and all the other girlfriends, if you believe he's not genuinely attracted to them, but Mary is the big one).  I know Mary's deception is worse, but that's not really the point - John doesn't know about her deception until HLV, and it's what it says about his character that bothers me.  These things happen, so I'm not saying it's unbelievable.  But it does make John a rather less moral and likeable person. It would be understandable when Sherlock had disappeared, but after Sherlock's return, if John felt "that" way about him, then he should not have continued to marry Mary.   There was no compulsion for him to do so. 

Instead of backing off and taking some time to think, he involves Mary and Sherlock together.  It's a terrible thing to do to somebody - a big betrayal.  Imagine how that would feel - to find out that your husband-to-be is actually in love with his best friend in that way (and possibly would leave you if the friend gave the right sign) and has deceived you?  Well, you surely wouldn't go ahead with the wedding.  Yet the Johnlock interpretation has John knowingly treating somebody like that, betraying and deceiving them (I can't accept that it's not deception - being in love with somebody else, somebody close, is a big deal).   I'm interested to know how you reconcile with your view of John?  Or does it fit with your view of John?