SusiGo wrote:

And this is what some people call queerbaiting (in case there will be no definite Johnlock in the show). 

In fan fic, it's called pre-slash. I don't know what queer-baiting is exactly, but what an ugly term! But whatever, in telling fiction, it's perfectly acceptable to have two same-gender people who like and respect each other very much to gradually begin to realize that they're falling in love. And that gradual realization would start to affect the relationship, of course, on one or both people's parts; this can make for some really interesting story-telling. Some will find it offensive, others will love it and eat it up for breakfast, and then there's everyone else in between. Pre-slash never has to lead to actual slash, not at all.
 

Just a reminder that speculation about Sherlock and John being lovers has beena round as long as the original stories so it's not like Mark and Steven would be coming up with something unheard of or never imagined if they were to "go there."

My theory about that question is that the creative team consists out of so many people, and some of them clearly find the idea of a romantic arc appealing and/or assume a big part of the audience will.. probably mainly queer men and straight women with romantic hearts. So they bring in this angle. Some of them don´t find the idea appealing and/or think a big part of the audience won´t.. probably mainly straight men and people invested in the friendship as they perceived it when they read the stories as kids. So they tell the same story from this perspective.

Personally I think this is a very nice inclusive and democratic way of storytelling, although I can see how it can look otherwise when you hope for queer representation by the characters for one reason or the other.. like teasing a queer audience and finally denying them what they hoped for. But I´m sure no one of the team had any intent like that or is just too cowardly to follow through. I think by telling a story like that, by a diverse team with diverse ideas and preferences, they also allow a very diverse audience to indentify with the characters and project their own ideas and desires onto them.. one of the reasons why they are loved by so many people. So it´s not about "not alienating the heteronormative audience", but about not specifically giving Sherlock to just one segment of the audience, and about not putting one creative vision of their relationship above the other. I guess it´s a balancing act, and they have to be careful that by trying to include everyone they won´t make every one dissatisfied in the end.. but so far they did pretty well, and I think as long as no side insists to have Sherlock exclusively for themselves once and for all it can continue to work nicely for everyone, no matter their sexuality and romantic ideals.

Last edited by Zatoichi (February 4, 2015 4:44 am)

That makes sense, Zatoichi.  I think there's also - how DO you show a romantic friendship without using romantic tropes?  They're trying to show something that's different to and more than a normal "buddy movie" relationship, but without the characters being too verbally expressive.   I think a lot of it is conveyed in the story (what they do for each other, etc.), but some of it might be shown in other ways.   And some of that is going to be open to interpretation - how do you distinguish whether a loving look is sexual love or platonic love, for instance? 

Well, they said they want to keep on making Sherlock for a veeery long time.. so if it´s true and them being united in love is the ultimate climax for the story arc, they either have to drag out the angst and pining over at least two more seasons to come - which imo would be pretty unbearable for any audience - or they just let them get together and go on crime solving as a couple at one point. And I don´t see how that would be different from them just getting together as friends again.. at some point the eternal misunderstandings between them have to be resolved, and in some way or another they have to come to a working relationship. We would have to see how their dynamic stays interesting, but I can see how it could work as lovers as well as "just" the best of friends.. It will probably never be like S2 again, when they still didn´t know each other very well and didn´t go through the fire yet.

I think Sue is very often present on set, then there´s the cutters who choose from different versions of the same scene and the camera people who choose from which angle they film, the set designers who decide whether or not to put a heart-shaped wreath on the fireplace between them and which colours they use in different scenes.. director, lighting people.. surely Mark and Steven have an overview over what´s happening and a say in all of that, but as far as I can tell from my experiences with creative group-processes there can´t be one leader who micromanages everything that happens.. there´s just no time, the leader gives a general direction and then everyone does whatever they please and think appropriate. And naturally that´s going to be coloured by people´s own understanding of the story and of the relationship.

I guess I rather believe in creative chaos than in secret masterplans.. or as Mark put it:
http://maris-mindpalace.tumblr.com/post/100490049467/i-find-conspiracy-theories-fascinating-cause-i

Last edited by Zatoichi (February 4, 2015 8:33 am)

That´s not to say there´s absolutely no structure or coherence, just that the final product of the show is not only a result of Mark´s and Steven´s writing but also of many many other creative decisions (and I think both Mark and Steven are absolutely okay with the show looking like it does and are not at all invested in making anything clear or easily to grasp for the audience.. they probably revel in all the mischief they cause ^^ (even if they might have underestimated the intensity of reaction)).

Last edited by Zatoichi (February 4, 2015 8:45 am)

SolarSystem wrote:

To be honest, I don't think it's really all that many people. The writers for sure and maybe, maybe the producers. Although I seem to remember Sue Vertue once saying in an interview that she usually doesn't know anything about what Steven and Mark will come up with next. And the way I see Moffat, I'm pretty sure he (together with Mark) always has the last word on things. 

Sue V. might not know what they're going to come up with next, but I'd lay my last dollar on the line to bet that once they've come up with their somethings, she knows everything. As a producer, she's one of the people who have to "make it so" after all.

OTOH, I think the last word pretty much always comes from the bean-counters and ratings-watchers. BBC wants to make money on this show, on all their shows, and profits comes from ratings, so...  first and foremost, whatever the writers and actors et al come up with and actually produce, people better be watching, or there's going to be someone held accountable for that and Some Changes Made.

Writers can plan and present their ideas and rough outlines of where they'd like to go, but the producers have to find the money to fund it, and somewhere upstairs, someone has to OK it. If Mofftiss are producers (as well as writers) then yes, they have a powerful lot of control, but still and all, if they butt heads with BBC, then BBC will win, because simply put, they own the whole shebang. For example, if BBC had some kind of policy in place that said they're not interested in presenting a gay version of Sherlock Holmes at the present time, then by god, there wouldn't be any gay version of Sherlock Holmes, no matter what the creative people wanted.

Again, without the people involved actually saying anything about their thoughts and plans in public, it's all speculation. We just have to wait and see. And wait, and wait, and wait some more.
 

Zatoichi wrote:

That´s not to say there´s absolutely no structure or coherence, just that the final product of the show is not only a result of Mark´s and Steven´s writing but also of many many other creative decisions (and I think both Mark and Steven are absolutely okay with the show looking like it does and are not at all invested in making anything clear or easily to grasp for the audience.. they probably revel in all the mischief they cause ^^ (even if they might have underestimated the intensity of reaction)).

My understanding is that the director has a lot of creative control, so picking a good director is very important. He is the one who takes the script and works with the actors, wardrobe, set designers and audio and lighting people to get it on tape. He is the one who goes into the editing room and makes final OKs about how the film is spliced together, gives final OK for music, etc.

Definitely a team effort, and everyone's important. I do believe there are individuals, though, who actually do have final say about what goes on in their various departments, but the director and producers have final-final say about the finished product, keeping well in mind what BBC's goals are for their creative vehicles.
 

Last edited by ancientsgate (February 4, 2015 10:11 am)

Liberty wrote:

Like so many people, I read The Hobbit at a young age, and I really wasn't happy with the romance story that was added to it for the films - it just wasn't that kind of story for me.   I'd have been even less happy if say, Bilbo and Gandalf (or anyone) had been lovers, because they're main characters and it would change their relationship, and change the story into something else.  

I can imagine if I'd felt the way Moftiss did about the ACD stories at a young age, I might feel the same about not wanting to tag on a romance that would alter the main characters.  It would be different if they'd come to the books later in life, I think.
 

I don´t really think this is the reason why Moftiss won´t introduce Johnlock into the story. Because they already made the huge changes that altered the main characters in a radical manner - for example, they painted Sherlock as a person much more reckless and almost criminally careless than he was in the original, even called him ridiculous in TSOT, they made Mary Morstan into a ninja-killer and John Watson into a emotionally repressed man with a dangerously short-fuse... if they did not shy away from those changes, one more change should not bother them, really.