How much can people tell me about Sherlock and Mycroft's childhood that we have been told and shown?
I don't think Mary has come between the boys... that is SO subjective.
We don't yet know Moriarty isn't dead. I think he is. Again, this is opnion.
WHAT contradictory things have they said about Irene?  They've both said the same, as far as I remember: there was an attraction, but it would have been disaterous- they couldn't have settled and bought a Volvo together.

Last edited by besleybean (May 29, 2016 5:46 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

Maybe this helps: 

http://anotherwellkeptsecret.tumblr.com/post/105828286109/things-tied-to-sherlock-that-we-have-been-lied-to

All the examples in this link that is attributed one a particular person, is attributed to Steven. I'm not claiming Mark has never lied about the show, he probably has. But I've been wondering about this before when we've had the same discussion, because I can't remember any quote coming from Mark and Mark alone where he lied about Sherlock?

 

I do sort of agree, besley, but I do know about one particular lie that I fell for myself - that TAB was to be a one-off special not tied to the overall series at all. And they admitted afterwards that they had lied about it. Which is of course understandable and something I support them in doing - it wouldn't be fun if they ruined the episode with spoilers.

Well, it wasn't too much of a lie - they said it would be a stand alone episode and not part of the three-episode run. That still turned out to be kind of true ... although it tags on to the end of S3, the vast bulk of the episode is Victorian mind palace, and very little actually happens in the present day.  

Interesting to me that in the MG Mumbai interview Marks talk about people thinking the show should hold up a torch or fly a flag . Because both of those things have already happened on the show regarding John @ Sherlock @ torches and the displaying of flags - torches x many tjlc scenes and also Umqra/ the millenium wheel lit up for gay pride drive by/ a gazillion rainbows/ and the bisexual flag  lit bar scene .
He then rambles a bit about how Sherlock was in S01 , but has changed and is learning to be part of a unit in S02 before being righteous on glbt rights.
Surely Sherlock will continue to change along these lines as he did and we saw in S03 and as hinted in TAB become a unit with John.

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (May 30, 2016 10:58 pm)

So far, he seems to have been strongly established as somebody who suppresses his sexual/romantic feelings, and at the moment, it's part of his uniqueness.  (Hence John's amazement at seeing him with Janine).   He could definitely change and go in another direction, but Mark seems to be discounting that.  And I suppose we're going to have our own opinions on whether he's genuine or not.

I would not say logical, but this adaptation surely lends itself for that possibility. I should probably not even post here, because I am myself not quite sure if that is a direction the show will ever go, but I would not be shocked if it did (nor would I be shocked if they stay at soul mates= great friendship).

Edit:
As for Mark: He did not really seem to be in a joking mood at that point. If that was because he is that admant that this is not how he percives John and Sherlock's dynamic (I personnaly somethimes feel that the strong focus on romantic love has somehow devalued the love that great friends have for each other, which I feel is often more important in life than romantic love) or because he was asked that question in a country where if his heros were real people in an open relationship with each other, they most likely would not be accepted and even prosecuted.

Last edited by Lola Red (May 31, 2016 9:37 am)

I do see the characters developing and the relationship (between John and Sherlock) being a different take on what's gone before (I grew up mainly with Rathbone/Bruce).   But if people want more development/more difference, it's not as if the only solution is for them to become lovers.

Yes, I think it would have been perfectly sensible to make them lovers in the first place.   For that reason, as I know I've said before (sorry, it's difficult not to repeat), it's kind of striking that they didn't.  It has to have been a conscious decision (I think).  The writers are happy to write about same sex relationships, the BBC and the public were ready for it, and yet they didn't for it, way back in 2010 or ever since. 

In fact, they've tended to talk about how people fall in love with the friendship, and how that is central to their show.  It comes across as genuine (and I know people will say they are lying!).

The trouble with TJLC (as opposed to plain old Johnlock - I do realise they are different things), is I just can't buy the idea that just about every moment in every scene is there as secret code for Johnlock, that characters only exist to show Johnlock, etc.   In a way, that would just be bad storytelling.  But also, I think that the writers would just show it, rather than code it.  Especially (as I know I've said before), they cite TPLOSH as a major influence, and Billy Wilder regretted not being able to show more at the time. 

And of course, if you leave aside TJLC and so on, they could just be friends who happen to fall for each other later down the line.  I could buy that much more easily than I could buy the idea that they've been shown secretly pining through coded messages for all this time.   But Mark Gatiss seems to be saying that won't happen.   And they do seem to have established a situation in which it's less likely to happen.

Doesn't negate Mark's view.
Incidentally, I take issue with the 'jlc canon'.
It's not 'canon', at all.
That is opinion.

Yes, especially after so many years of TV and film where things had to be coded and hidden.

Besleybean, if you mean my post, but TJLC I meant "conspiracy" rather than "canon".