BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



March 30, 2016 2:11 pm  #5621


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Again I don't see it like that.
Yes Sherlock misses John.
But I think he genuinely likes Mary.
He has the angst when he first discovers her secret, but I think they have all moved on from that.
I still think he obsesses about Moriarty/his legacy.
He was definitely at breaking point on the plane, thinking there was no return.
But thank goodness he is now back on the case.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

March 30, 2016 2:56 pm  #5622


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

I am still fascinating by the idea that Redbeard is not actually about the loss of a pet and is a symbol of some other sort of trauma.  Don't know if they'll go in that direction but it would be a fantastic twist.

I also think that Sherlock's distress in S3 goes deeper than just missing John.  Before the wedding John tells him that things don't have to change and is obviously upset that Sherlock avoids him for a month.  When a close friend marries things do change, but as long as both parties make an effort, the friendship can survive.    I think the trouble between John and Sherlock in the months after the wedding speak to a deeper sort of heartache.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud President and Founder of the OSAJ.  
Honorary German  
"Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not".
 -Vaclav Havel 
"Life is full of wonder, Love is never wrong."   Melissa Ethridge

I ship it harder than Mrs. Hudson.
    
 
 

March 30, 2016 4:24 pm  #5623


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

John and Sherlock do seem to be back on track in TAB - at least I hope so. 

SusiGo wrote:

But the thing is that he usually sees the downside of feelings - crimes committed out of jealousy, people hurting each other, exploiting others feelings. We cannot know what would happen if he were in a happy relationship, something we have never seen on the show. His friendship with John in series 1 and 2 came quite close and he was usually highly functional. What happens with him and Irene - whatever we want to call it - is not a relationship and it is not happy. As Vhanja said, he tries to like Mary for John, probably against his will. So his judgement is impeded. Sherlock is deeply unhappy and emotionally compromised during the whole of series 3 and this is the reason why his brain does not function as it should. 

I agree about him seeing the worst side of love through his work, definitely.  However, he does have the example of his parents who do seem to get on OK (as far as we see) - that set up against what he's been taught by Mycroft, of course. 

He doesn't seem to worry about his feelings for John - he's happy to get involved with John right from the outset, and is happy to publicly proclaim that he loves him.  He doesn't see that as a weakness, and yes, it doesn't usually affect his functioning.  I think he sees it as positive and that's a part of his heart that he hasn't shut away.  It can't really be compared to what he feels for Irene (which appears to be more infatuation - but definitely, in my opinion, of a romantic nature - which is why she's included in the greenhouse discussion.  And the greenhouse discussion convinces me even more that it was never "consummated"!). 

 

March 30, 2016 4:29 pm  #5624


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

I think we can agree that John is someone special in his life. "Just the two of us, against the rest of the world" pretty much sums it up, this is what Sherlock hoped for when he came back and this is what he did not get. (And will not get as long as John and Mary are together.) And the end of TAB shows that it is still his ideal. 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

March 30, 2016 5:12 pm  #5625


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

The end of TAB showed me Sherlock dashing off on a mission, with the other 3 scurrying behind him- trying to keep up.
Same as it ever was...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

March 30, 2016 6:13 pm  #5626


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

At the end of the mind palace sequence in TAB he sees them (John and Sherlock) as being together (despite Moriarty, Mary, etc.), which feels positive.

 

March 30, 2016 6:41 pm  #5627


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Liberty wrote:

At the end of the mind palace sequence in TAB he sees them (John and Sherlock) as being together (despite Moriarty, Mary, etc.), which feels positive.

John and Sherlock belong together in 221b, something we can all agree on regardless of what or how you ship. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud President and Founder of the OSAJ.  
Honorary German  
"Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not".
 -Vaclav Havel 
"Life is full of wonder, Love is never wrong."   Melissa Ethridge

I ship it harder than Mrs. Hudson.
    
 
 

March 30, 2016 8:07 pm  #5628


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

tonnaree wrote:

John and Sherlock belong together in 221b, something we can all agree on regardless of what or how you ship. 

Hear, hear! I toast to that! 


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

March 30, 2016 8:39 pm  #5629


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Definitely!   And I think the Moffat quote I posted earlier is probably something we mostly agree on too - what I liked about it was how well it fitted with the "I made me" line.  Steven obviously had something like it in his head way back in 2012.  In the interview it's in the context of Irene (and denying Johnlock), but the main meaning behind it could fit in with either interpretation. 

 

April 4, 2016 3:55 pm  #5630


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Ok, so I am now watching all the videos in the "TJLC Explained" series on YouTube. I've heard about a lot of the theories (food/drinks symbolism etc), but never really knew much about them, so I figured I should update myself a bit.

First I would to say that I am impressed with Rebekah (who is the name of the woman making these videoes). She includes a lot of sources and references for what she says, never takes credit for something that isn't hers, explains everything in detail and there are clearly a lot of thought and effort behind her videoes. 
There are about 2,5 videoes I haven’t seen yet (saw Ep. 11 first, and am now ten minutes into Ep. 8), but I figured this post was already enormously large already.

So, point by point:

1. If phone/pocket watch is the metaphor for the heart, how come Irene Adler being inside Holmes' watch is not a very clear symbol of her being in Holmes' heart? When the explanation for this detail is suddenly different than the explanation for any other time there is a phone/watch included, that gives me the feeling that the theory is changed to suit the conclusion they want to have, instead of what is actually there. 

2. There is talk about how often tea (= gay) is mentioned in the series, but Sherlock Holmes is nothing if not very English. And you can't make anything that is very English without there being lots of tea. So to me, this has more to do with England than anything about being gay.

3. There are also a lot of assumptions made. (We don't know if what John and Mycroft drinks at the cafe at the end ASiB is coffee or tea, and the scene with Sherlock deducing the encrypted e-mail while John is "slamming" his tea cup to the table is more to show in how short a time Sherlock deduces the e-mail - in no more time than it takes for someone to put their cup down on the table. Just to mention two instances).

4. Also - an example of how anything can be analysed to fit whatever conclusion one wants to have: At the end of HoB, Sherlock brings a cup each for him and John. If there is tea in the cups, it could symbolize Sherlock wanting them both to acknowledge them being gay. If there were coffee in the cups, it could symbolize fear of admitting to being gay/fear or rejection from John/wanting to portray what he thinks John wants to see etc. This shows how easy it is to analyze every detail in the show to fit anything you want it to be.

Another example: In HoB when Sherlock poisons John's coffee, that is interpreted to mean that heterosexuality is actually "poisonous", however that is not the interpretation when Sherlock poisons Mary's tea. Wouldn't it be more fitting that Mary - John's heterosexual partner - had coffee?

5. There is no explanation for why milk should mean the expiration of relationships/sex. And the scenes that include milk in the show are so very different from each other they could (as seen above) be analyzed to mean absolutely everything.

6. I do agree that hard liqueur is often seen when someone is in an emotional hard place (Sherlock in HoB, Mycroft in ASiB and John in MHR). However, in most of those scenarios, they are seen actively drinking/draining the glass. In ASiB, when John is having hard liqueur, I more get the impression he is enjoying a glass for the holiday. It's not uncommon to have a glass of scotch/cognac on New Year's Eve. (Not to mention that in that last scene, John's glass is full. If he was drinking to work up the courage to talk to Sherlock about his feelings for Irene, we would either see him down the glass first or the glass would be empty/half-empty. But the glass was full and he sits down to enjoy it while listening to Sherlock play the violin.

I also agree with beer being the typical companionship drink. Wine doesn’t have to include romance, though. It would be perfectly normal for Sherlock and John to share a bottle of wine over a dinner as friends, even though wine is also used on dates. It’s not either/or.
So the wedding wine doesn’t have to say a lot about Mary’s relationship with John. As is explained in the show, she changed her taste due to being pregnant – which is a common occurence. Similarily, Sherlock doesn’t drop his champagne glass because of him realising his mixed opportunity with John, but because he had a sudden revelation concerning the murderer.

7. Tropes, mirrors and foils. As I understand it, when you analyze a movie/series talking about tropes, mirrors and foils, you do that after a movie/series is completed. Because only then can you know for sure what tropes/mirrors/foils were used. Of course, some you can state early on because they are done and concluded then and there. But when you are talking about something that is a narrative arch of the entire series, we don’t yet know what that arch will be. Thus, I think it’s too early to talk too much about romantic tropes, symbolism etc before the show ends. Because if Sherlock and John don’t end up having romantic feelings for each other, then there were no romantic tropes and all the drink/food symbolisms were wrongly interpreted. We simply don’t know yet.

For instance – stating that Suy Lien (is that her name? From TBB?) is a mirror of Sherlock. Why? How? What is that based on? How do they know she is his mirror?
 
8. A good example of how – as we have talked (typed) about before – we all see and interpret the show through our own filter. So for some, it’s «obvious» that in the beginning of TBB, Sherlock is winding John up so that he would ask him out, (Not sure how that would work). Yet what is «obvious» to me, is that these scenes show the domestic dynamic between them. ASiP is introducing the characters and how they became flatmate and working partners. TBB shows a bit more of how their day to day life is (and how they are as flatmates – Sherlock not doing daily chores and not respecting John’s privacy, John doing all the daily work while being grumpy about it, and struggling with finances).

Of course, that doesn’t mean that my interpretation has to be the right one. It only means that when something is «obvious», that doesn’t at all have to mean it’s right – only that it’s obvious within whatever filter we are viewing the show through.
 
9. Like most conspiracies, their biggest flaws are that they are too complicated. Now, I don’t doubt that Moftiss could actually have sat down and planned out a romantic relationship developing slowly over the entire show. I don’t doubt that at all. And I know they pay close attention to details, especially those that are related to canon or other Sherlock adaptations.

However, I really don’t find it plausible at all that they would sit down to plan out the level of detail that is done in TJLC. I seriously don’t think they would plan what each person would drink in each scene to make sure it meant something. Or that just about every turn of the head, lick of the lips, tone, colour, background or dialogue would have to have a Johnlock meaning.

«Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar».

I personally believe that if Moftiss wanted Johnlock, it would be more obvious. And, no, I don’t find Sherlock sniffing bad milk in Suy Lien’s apartment to mean that he is afraid time is running out for a relationship between him and John to be obvious and easy to understand at all. Whenever I’ve seen a movie or series that includes «will they or won’t they», I have never been in doubt about the mutual attraction. It can be subtle, but it’s shown much, much more obvious than in this show.

I view TJLC as shown in these videos as a symptom of a very popular show, rich in detail and nuances, being subject to a lot of (over)analysis because of it’s popularity and the long hiatus between the seasons. Same thing happened to Harry Potter – there were TONS of metas. And, of course, when you have tons of metas, some are bound to be right. It’s a matter of statistics.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t ambiguity in the show. And no one can say for sure that Johnlock won’t happen (just as no one can say for sure that it will). But if it does happen, I still don’t think bad milk or whomever had coffee/tea with whom is particularly relevant for the outcome.
​ 
 


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

April 4, 2016 4:55 pm  #5631


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

I've been watching those videos: they're a lot of fun, and I agree, look like they have taken a lot of thought and effort to produce.  I'd like to discuss a couple of your points, but so I don't get bogged down in massive posts with nested quotes, I'll make a brief comment here, then respond to a couple of points individually. 

Two big impressions watching the videos:

(1) I think TJLC is overstated .. I really don't think that the point of just about every scene or image is to show Johnlock.  It felt that everything that could possibly have a Johnlock interpretation was being included, regardless of alternative interpretations and meanings.  It felt as if everything that happened was just to show Johnlock ... which if true, makes the show a bit one dimensional if you know what I mean (if that's the meaning of every scene).  However, personally, I don't think it is true .... I think the writers would show it if they wanted to, rather than create a "conspiracy".  (And I'm aware that not everybody who believes in Johnlock believes in TJLC). 

(2) I think it missed a lot of the humour.   There were so many points where we were being shown Johnlock (supposedly) that I felt "but that was supposed to be funny!".  I discussed this with other people and we felt the same thing.  Moftiss are good at writing comedy, and I think there's a lot of humour in Sherlock.   That doesn't mean that the humourous scenes can't also have other meanings ... but I do feel the humourous points kept getting missed.  (And I am guilty of this myself - there's a particular scene that I know is meant to be funny, but that I find very difficult to see that way.   So I'm not accusing Rebekah or anybody else of having no sense of humour - clearly that's not true).   In fact from my point of view (which could be wrong), this is the biggest mistake that TJLC is making. 

 

April 4, 2016 5:27 pm  #5632


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Vhanja wrote:

1. If phone/pocket watch is the metaphor for the heart, how come Irene Adler being inside Holmes' watch is not a very clear symbol of her being in Holmes' heart? When the explanation for this detail is suddenly different than the explanation for any other time there is a phone/watch included, that gives me the feeling that the theory is changed to suit the conclusion they want to have, instead of what is actually there. ​ 
 

Thanks for bringing these up, Vhanja.  I think they will be fun to discuss!

Yes, I agree.   To be honest, I think the phone/heart metaphor is limited to ASIB and to Irene's phone ... that's the episode where Sherlock is dealing with love/attraction/hearts ruling heads after all.   I think one thing that gets missed is that Irene's phone is not actually her "phone".   It's a storage device.  She uses another phone for phonecalls, texts, etc., and the phone she uses for phoning is not her "heart" in this episode.  It's just a phone like everybody else's phone.  The phone/heart metaphor seems to be about that particular device, and about Irene's heart in particular. 

Yes, there is also a phone/watch analogy, but it's a separate thing, I think (the phone being the modern day equivalent of a watch - a valuable item which somebody would carry around with them and from which Sherlock could make deductions).  .  And there's another analogy - the phone/portrait.  (Modern day Sherlock keeps the phone, rather than a picture). 

It does feel to me as if there is some cherry-picking or fitting things to a theory throughout ... this maybe being one of them?
 

 

April 4, 2016 5:48 pm  #5633


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Vhanja wrote:

2. There is talk about how often tea (= gay) is mentioned in the series, but Sherlock Holmes is nothing if not very English. And you can't make anything that is very English without there being lots of tea. So to me, this has more to do with England than anything about being gay.

Yes!  I think there was a misunderstanding of the role of tea and coffee in England. And even that tea is also a meal in Britain!  (When John says he won't be back for tea, he means he won't be back for the evening meal - not that he won't be back for drink of tea).  Speaking broadly, tea is often served at home.  It's very tradtional to offer cups of tea when people visit, as Mrs Hudson would do.  If people are buying a takeaway drink (like Lestrade and Anderson), it's more likely to be coffee.  People go out for coffee, to coffee shops, etc., so Molly asking Sherlock if wants coffee is her tentatively asking him - not exactly on a date, but to go for something together (which wouldn't be the case if she'd asked if he wanted tea funnily enough - in that case, it would sound as if she was offering to make him one!).

 

April 4, 2016 9:08 pm  #5634


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Oh I think she's definitely asking him on a date!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

April 4, 2016 9:34 pm  #5635


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

And he flat cut her off.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud President and Founder of the OSAJ.  
Honorary German  
"Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not".
 -Vaclav Havel 
"Life is full of wonder, Love is never wrong."   Melissa Ethridge

I ship it harder than Mrs. Hudson.
    
 
 

April 5, 2016 7:07 am  #5636


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Oh yeah, I know.
I don't think he's interested in her that way at all.
But he considers her a good friend.
Close, if you consider he'll give her a peck on the cheek.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

April 5, 2016 9:01 am  #5637


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

@ Besleybean Well, if it was me, I wouldn't count it as a date unless it turned into one!   You might invite a friend or colleague to go for "coffee", so she has that get-out clause.   But yes, she's definitely making an advance ... which wouldn't be the case if she offered him tea.  

@Tonnaree, yes, and we know (later) that he doesn't date, but it's not initially clear at this point if he genuinely misunderstood or "deliberately" misunderstood.     But it's not the coffee that he turns down - it's the invitation.  He actually says yes to the drink!  (And it's a yet another point where there's humour - in the social rules, and the misunderstandings and so on.  It wouldn't have been so funny if he'd turned down the drink altogether.).

I don't think the tea/gay coffee/straight thing works at all. I think it's just another example of people being good at seeing patterns (even if the patterns aren't there!). 

 

April 5, 2016 11:46 am  #5638


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

True Liberty.  When I first started watching I thought that he really did misunderstand her advances but later I revised my opinion.  I think he was trying to put her off but in the only gentle way he knew how.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud President and Founder of the OSAJ.  
Honorary German  
"Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not".
 -Vaclav Havel 
"Life is full of wonder, Love is never wrong."   Melissa Ethridge

I ship it harder than Mrs. Hudson.
    
 
 

April 5, 2016 3:20 pm  #5639


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Yes, I suppose it is actually quite gentle - gets the message across but allows her to save face. 

 

April 6, 2016 7:46 am  #5640


Re: Johnlock: The Official Debate

Think that's generally the idea, when you tentatively ask someone if they would like coffee...
Though this so not my area, you(all) are the expert(s) on women!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum