tonnaree wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

For the sake of completeness - this is part 2 of the interview which is quite different in tone from part 1:

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/28/sdcc-2016-sherlock-a-study-in-secrecy/

 

Quite frankly, I feel like we are being f**ked with.  But that's just me.
 

 
Yup.

I don't think anyone has said that it's a good idea to take one's frustration out on Mofftiss-- in fact, I actually urged people to NOT to send hate, in fact, I think if you're angry, NOT engaging with them is more powerful.

However, I don't think anyone can tell fans how to feel.

You can't tell people that they are just wrong for feeling hurt.

(Caps were used for clarification, not yelling) :-)

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (July 29, 2016 10:01 pm)

tonnaree wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

For the sake of completeness - this is part 2 of the interview which is quite different in tone from part 1:

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/28/sdcc-2016-sherlock-a-study-in-secrecy/

 

Quite frankly, I feel like we are being f**ked with.  But that's just me.
 

No, definitely not just you, dear. I wonder if everybody has read it already.

I read and thought it was interesting, but didn't think it was so relevant for this thread.  I don't see that's it's messing with people in any way?  Unless you think they're trying to hide the fact that Johnlock is a plot twist ... but I honestly don't think that's where they'd go with it, even if they did want to show it.   The first part of the interview is absolutely consistent with everything they've said and shown in the show.  I don't think they could be clearer.   They've said it all along, but people have repeatedly said they're lying.   Even if they did do it as a plot twist, I don't think they'd speak about it in this way.   They might joke or obfuscate or talk about it the way they did about Moriarty's death.  It wouldn't be earnestly and sincerely like this.

I do understand that people feel hurt, though.  I had read M theory and some other stuff, but watching Rebekah's videos made me realise that there's a bit of a cultural divide and some of the things, particularly the humour, just wasn't coming across so well outside the UK, and there were also some misunderstandings.  So I can see how people think "But they were showing us this!"   (And I do still wonder if people involved in the production might have added in little extras themselves, for fun and maybe because they ship them too).

One thing I am pleased about is that hopefully people can see that not seeing Johnlock is not necessarily heteronormative or homophobic. 

From the second part of that interview:

MOFFAT: “[...] Oddly I was at the Baker Street Babes thing last night, and they said ‘you like trolling the audience’. And I said ‘I don’t’. I don’t like saying anything. But what you have to do is put out huge amounts of disinformation to try to bury all the secrets that are actually leaking out of there. Because you have a loyalty to the audience who would enjoy a surprise. You have to somehow find a way for them to have that delicious moment when something unexpected happens. And it’s not even just surprises you spoil. It’s not just the moment of the surprise. It’s not knowing what a story is going to do to you when the story begins. [. . .] If you’re waiting for an hour for the big reveal, because you know it’s coming, it changes the nature of the show. It gets in the way of storytelling.”

GATISS: “We do get criticized for lying, but we have to. "

No, we are back at the part where everything can be interpreted several ways again.

Your interpretation is that every word they said in part 1 was the truth (I think). My interpretation is that at least some of what they said was a neccessary lie.

With people who publicly stress that they have to lie a lot to keep surprises secret, you just can never know for sure.

We are back at "But I believe..."

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Schmiezi wrote:

tonnaree wrote:

Quite frankly, I feel like we are being f**ked with.  But that's just me.
 

No, definitely not just you, dear. I wonder if everybody has read it already.

I read it, and well, yeah.
 

What exactly is it that upsets you about this second part? Unless you believe in TJLC (in which case all discussion is fruitless. One cannot argue with a conspiracy theorist. Even if they are right, they are immune to reason ;) ), the second part of the interview has little to do with the first. And we have known for a long time now that Moftiss will do what they can to avoid spoiling the audience. We know they put disinformation out there in order to compensate for leaked stuff (see the fake scenes shot for TEH), we know they will avoid clear answers and lie if necessary if they feel they have to in order to keep the surprise secret (see TAB). They do what every tv-producer does if he chooses to interact with the audience (the alternative would be no interviews and no cons). The only difference I can see is that they tell you that this is exactly what they are doing. 

Edit: We are getting close to being lost in the liar paradox. Who knew shipping could lead to philosophics this quickliy?

Last edited by Lola Red (July 30, 2016 9:40 am)

Vhanja wrote:

I personally think the lie argument is getting a bit thin, particularly becuase it seems to be used only when Moftiss says something to disregard Johnlock. Whenever they say something that can be interpreted as supporting Johnlock, the argument about "they always lie" is completely forrgotten.

They seem very sincere when they talk about this, to the point of getting frustrated (which I have no problem understanding). They even mention that, yes, they lie, but not about this.

I would react more badly to them insisting so strongly and so earnestly that it won't happen, and then do it anyway, instead of what they are doing now.

And if some Johnlockers think they are lying, why all the rage towards Moftiss? Then they just continue to do what you want them to.

Aren´t you confusing between various kinds of people here?

Yes, some Johnlockers believe Mofftiss lie to hide plot-points. With their record of lying it´s easy to see why they do (see yesterday´s Daily Dot article I posted). 

Then there are others, like me, who think Mofftiss are old queerbaiters, which they freely admitted themselves in the interview. And no surprise here, really. And no, I don´t believe proffessionals like them didn´t know what they were doing when they introduced "gay jokes" into the storyline.

For the others, who are themselves gay, the issue lies in the question of representation which is sorely lacking in Sherlock, despite heavy dose of queerbaiting being offered there. And people don´t speak solely of Johnlock there either - the authors could easily introduce some gay side character into a story the way they inserted Molly Hooper there and the issue would look quite different immediately. The way things look now, the only person we know was gay from the start - Harry Watson - didn´t even made an appearance in the storyline. No such ban aplies for the heterosexual representatives here: we have heavy doses of Sherlock´s parents, Mary Morstan, Molly and her various lovers... not speaking about Irene, miraculously cured of her gayness.

And I don´t understand what you meant when you asked: And if some Johnlockers think they are lying, why all the rage towards Moftiss? Then they just continue to do what you want them to.

We asked them to lie? We demanded it of them? When and where it happened? WHO demanded it of them?
 

Last edited by nakahara (July 30, 2016 9:54 am)

Vhanja wrote:

I don't see queerbaiting. I see gay jokes, which is not the same.

There are also several gay characters in the show - Harry Watson, Irene Adler, Moriarty (possibly) and the pubkeepers in HoB comes to mind. But even so, no fans, including the gay community, are entitled to anything. Moftiss don't owe anyone any kind of representation. Where does that idea come from? 

(Also, Irene isn't "cured" from the gayness, where on earth did THAT idea come from? She was infuated by Sherlock even though she usually fell for women, something that has been used a thousand times over in fanfic for John and his relationships with women and Sherlock). So it's ok when fanfic writers use it? And there's a lot of talk in the fandom about accepting any kind of sexual orientation, yet when Moftiss uses something that fans do and talk about, they are attacked for it. It makes no sense.

Well, if some Johnlockers think we are back to status quo - they lie as they always do and Johnlock will still happen - then the article shouldn't provoke any kind of anger. But you are right, it is absolutely possible that those who belived they lied in that article aren't the ones that are angry now.

No arguing with you there, but things look a bit different to me.

Evil Moriarty and a dubious Irene Adler, always absent Harry Watson... these are not a role models most gays would want to idetify with, IMHO. And gay inkeepers were the tiny side-characters who appeared on screen for five-minutes... so, no big deal there either.

No, Mofftiss doesn´t own the audience anything. Still, it was them, not some anonymous fanfiction writers, who spoke big about how they want to give gays representation and how they want to introduce them as something normal and common-place, so it is no surprise if they are held at different standard than fanfiction-writers here, I hope you realise that.

As far as the story goes, to me it would suffice if Sherlock and John solved cases together the way they did in in S1 and S2. But inexplicably, Mofftiss shifted the focus on family and relationships in S3. Which is fine, if that´s the story they want to talk about - but things start to grate when you realise they are solely heterosexual relationships offered to us, some of them very forced and most conventionaly boring affairs imaginable (Warstan marriage) and not a tiniest place was offered for gays, they were only presented as shady or absent.... that´s noticeable and I am not surprised people pointed that out. Once again, I think Mofftiss brought that on themselves, for it was not neccessary to force-fed relationships into the story which was a detective story first and foremost...

And yes, I think various people were angry or hurt for various reasons here, you cannot ascribe some common denominator to them here. Personally, I believe, the conduct and certain insincerity of the authors were the issue more than an actual content of the show. But that is only my impression generaly and I may be wrong, of course.

Last edited by nakahara (July 30, 2016 10:33 am)

Ref gay jokes.

The very first comments on John Watson's blog have John writing Sherlock might be gay. That was John's initial impression of Sherlock Holmes. Later John asks about girlfriends and Sherlock seems to confirm no interest in women but no boyfriend. None of those are jokes?
Later Ansgelo and Mrs Hudson and Sherlocks own brother imply to John Sherlock is gay and John is his boyfriend it's funny because they just met not because there's no way they could be gay.
The writers and cast members then go on to all give interviews claiming to have written a love story and MF even comments how it's the gayest story ever in series one promos.
From the very beginning we had a heavily implied gay Sherlock falling in love with a not gay John.
That is how they presented and promoted their show from the start.