Yes, I'd seen that abbreviation (TJLC) used, but should have elaborated! It was the conspiracy part I was taking issue with.  If it was an opposite-sex couple, it wouldn't be hidden and coded, so why should it be just because they are the same sex?

Last edited by Liberty (June 1, 2016 7:15 am)

To me, the most damning thing against Johnlock is the Mark Gatiss' interview when he was in India or someplace, and he said it absolutely will not happen, that it "isn't the point" of their adaptation, and that it's "a joke", a homage to TPLoSH they're running with for comedic effect. He said the same thing in an interview for a gay magazine (whose name I forget, sorry). He tends to be a lot more honest with his intentions and less prone to outright lies than Moffat is, which makes his definitive statements here difficult to misinterpret.

Everyone always says "but they always lie!" and yet I haven't actually seen any proof of this statement. There was a list here, somewhere... a compiled list of these "lies" and none of them were actually lies, just half-truths. I have seen, however, that they tell half-truths a lot.

On the other hand, Mark has also said many supportive things, short of outright confirming the possibility. And, even in the interviews that I find damning, one thought still buzzes around my mind: "Only lies have detail". And they sure do both waffle on about it and give very long and detailed answers whenever the subject is raised. Can't spoil the surprise party by saying they're doing a surprise party, after all.

Ultimately, there is so much stacked on both sides, we can't possibly know until the very moment they either do it or don't it. I find myself hopping this fence on an almost daily basis, depending on what I've been reading or what interviews I've been (re)watching. It really is a very ambiguous question, but I do hope for Johnlock to happen for many reasons, not least of which: it would be a much more interesting development than Mary having a baby!

It is not  a bad thing at all.
But for me, Mark's Mumbai interview rules it out completely.
Where has he ever said it would even be a possibility?

besleybean wrote:

Where has he ever said it would even be a possibility?

Isn't the underlined part of Susi's signature a quote of Mark's words about the show? A show about "romance"?

Anyway, coming from Literature studies, I feel bad about only taking into account what is said about the show. Imagine for example analysing Kafka only by what he said about his work. O.o

But in that quote, he's talking very broadly about the making of the show, rather than the plot.  Obviously "Sherlock" the show itself, isn't about hair dye and Welsh winters and so on, but the making of it is.   I have to rush, but I'll see if I can put the whole quote in later so that you see what I mean.  Not that it rules out the "romance" being Johnlock, but that isn't quite the context. 

Some people also tend to read words like "romance" and "love" too literally, only hearing the most basic and surface interpretations of the words (how ironic!) rather than their more poetic or Shakesperean meanings.

Something can be described as "romantic" without it having to do with two people coupling in the 'holding hands' kind of way. And love, even platonic love, can and does run very deep. It's not silly at all to love a friend so much you would die (or kill) for them.

So while I think such semantic arguments are hollow, and can't really be used as evidence on their own, I like to judge the show as a whole. Ignoring the little details, what is the overall feel we get from BBC Sherlock? What are the overall themes? And most importantly, how do they choose to present these things to us, the viewer?

That, more than any single detail, is the "smoking gun" to me. They've laid it on very thick indeed. And while I'd accept they really are just going for a story of deep, undying friendship, it doesn't quite make sense that way. I think that if they were trying to make the point that "two people can love eachother in this way and not be in love", a much more effective way to portray that to a general audience would be genderswapping either Sherlock or John, and challenging the heteronormative narrative by saying "look, just because it's a guy & girl doesn't mean they want to bang eachother."

If that's the message they wanted this adaptation to bring, it would've been far more effective at putting that point across. But they didn't. For all the other liberties they took with canon, they conciously chose to stick with this, and then fill the entire show with as many long looks, sulks, jealousy, ambiguity and teasing as they possibly could. Because there's a bloody elephant in the room, and everyone has known it, seen it, for over a hundred years. There'd be no such elephant without them both being guys, because the elephant has as much to do with the subject of sexuality as it does to the longstanding perceptions/reputations of these characters throughout history.

That's my argument for Johnlock. It's not about the little details; those are just for fun. It's all about the original reason for making this adaptation. They told us: they think everyone's been doing it wrong by focusing on the cases and the adventure, when in reality, it's one of the greatest love stories of all time, and that's the ONE place nobody has ever taken it before. Only TPLoSH came close, and it was the spark that inspired all this.

They'll end up together, I think. I mean, they have to. Any other ending would be silly. And while I say here "end up together" and don't necessarily mean "as a couple", it would make a lot of sense if they did fall in love. I mean, imagine it: these two living together platonically for the rest of their lives. Neither of them is ever going to want a romantic partner? Neither of them is going to feel the need for physical relations? So... what, a lifetime of visits from prostitutes? I just don't see it.

Last edited by GimmeCat (June 3, 2016 8:20 am)

Wonderfully put, GimmeCat.

Besley! You're secretly Mark trolling us? 

But at least Mary getting a baby actually happens...we think.

I wasn't really concerned with something being boring or brave, just it really happening.