mrshouse wrote:

Whisky wrote:

ukaunz wrote:

I agree Mark's comments in Mumbai seem to kill the idea of Johnlock.

I only found that comment now and it really confuses me. It doesn't sound like lying or pretending to me. Mainly I find it too straight forward to be pretence.

Why does it confuse you then?

I put that wrong. Not confused about the comment itself. Rather "it doesn't really help anyone to come to a conclusion, does it, although it's so straight-forward".

What I take from his words is that yes, they put ambiguity in there, because TPLOSH and because fun. And at the same time, he says they're not showing Johnlock, ever.
It's just, if they put it out there, if only for fun, it's obvious to me people will latch onto it.

I always thought ambiguity was fuelling the Johnlock shipping. I come to realise it's something people want to do, no matter what. And that if you don't deny it in the show in pictures and straight-forward dialogue, but just in interviews, it will stay.
"You can’t kill an idea, can you?"

Also I think of this line:
John: "Confirmed bachelor John Watson. [...] Okay, this is too much. We need to be more careful."

I would expect this is what the writers might have thought after they realised Johnlock was going to be big. But, judging by all the quoted meta and the discussion about subtext and cinematographic elements, they apparently didn't want to be more careful. Hoo-Jay, I'd be interested in your opinion... why would they "code" their series with romantic tropes, if this is what Mark truly thinks about it? (I'm assuming here that he is not lying, which I do mainly because I find the setting strange for telling a blatant lie, and also because he seems sincere and honest about the topic of gay couples on television itself.)

What I get from this interview is then: they're teasing Johnlock on purpose, but they won't follow through with it, ever.
But, apparently, Mark doesn't see it as queerbaiting, and I don't think he is suffering from heteronormative thinking - assuming this would just be odd.


ot @ nakahara: Nefesh נֶפֶש has to be one of my favourite hebrew words. And yes, it is poetic.


 

Last edited by Whisky (February 22, 2016 10:15 am)

I might have missed something, but didn't Mark talk about the gay jokes? Have Moftiss ever mentioned that they added ambiguity in addition to the jokes?

Having that said, I think they probably did as I don't think a lot of people will disagree with several scenes being ambigious. But even so, agreeing to having added ambiguity doesn't mean that everything interpreted as Johnlock was meant as Johnlock.

I would like to compare the show with a road. There were many forks where they could have chosen to exclude this reading for once and for all and they never did. 

Reading the preface of Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, I found this passage very apt for the Johnlock debate.

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

Last edited by ukaunz (February 22, 2016 12:26 pm)

Well at least we're onto Oscar now, who is somebody I not only know about, but love dearly.
Of course he and ACD met.
I don't think anybody would disagree with Oscar's words.
But our interpretation may neither match the writer's intention, nor indeed what is shown.
Plus fan art, fan fic, fan vids are just that...they are the art of their creators.
They may be inspired by BBC Sherlock, though not necessarily reflect it.
 

SusiGo wrote:

Since this thread is also about Canon, I would like to point out these two passages from The Sign of Four that are as blatant as anything we get in Sherlock:

http://gosherlocked.tumblr.com/post/139799463636/the-saddest-sentence-in-canon

Not like BBC johnlockers have had some new and unusual idea.  People have suspected more than friendship between Holmes and Watson since the beginning.
 

Sherlock and John clearly love each other.
Sherlock clearly misses John.
None of that has ever been in any doubt and nobody has ever denied it.
But they are in a close, loving friendship.
They are not a couple.
They are not in love.
They are not going to end up as a couple.

Well, sadly ACD isn't here to defend himself.
But the BBC team are.
Irene's history.
Fans can view John and Sherlock as they like: that's why we have fan art, fan fics and fan vids.

Not at all.
In fact the BBC team have said much the same thing.
But ACD didn't marry or do anything with him and neither have the BBC team.
I still hold my position: fans can do what they like with John and Sherlock in their own work or in our own heads, but that does not reflect either Canon or the BBC Series.

Last edited by besleybean (February 22, 2016 8:23 pm)

It's of no concern.
I am just trying to clarify that ACD gave permission for other people to do those things with his character.
He hadn't done them himself.
Again separating Canon/BBC Sherlock from fan works or other versions.