BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Johnlock: The Official Debate

Vhanja · July 30, 2016 6:39 pm

Liberty wrote:
I also think they have a bit of a dilemma in that they seemed to be starting out at the beginning and I know they mentioned something about showing how a young man grew into the mature (e.g. Rathbone) Sherlock Holmes we see in most adaptations. But there is so much time between series that Sherlock is no longer young - both actors are now in their 40s, and they've done the big stories already.

We're now in a kind of parallel to Rathbone et al: this is a Sherlock approaching middle age.   And actually, we seem to be going in a different direction - to a less controlled, more emotional Sherlock, as he matures, perhaps.

I've been thinking a lot about Benedict's comments about his progression in S4, along with Moftiss saying that there are now more Rathbone references (I think they meant generally, rather than character development but we'll see).   I probably need to rewatch some Rathbone before hand, because I think of him being the other way (less emotional, less connected to people, etc.) but I may well have misremembered.

Which is starting to get OT a little, sorry, but maybe relevant in the "where are they going"/"what story are they telling" sense.

I've been thinking about the same thing. They started out with Sherlock as this cold "machine" (or at least the persona he wanted to portray). Then he has a very interesting character development. However, if he is going to end up where most Sherlock stories start (In his 40s/50s), they can't make him too "mushy" as that is something not even the mature Sherlock Holmes is, in any adaptation. More mature, yes, but still holding rational thought over all things.

Also, I am not sure how they are thinking about this emotional development seeing as they made him almost fluffy in TSoT, only to draw the rug from under us in HLV, making him almost colder than ever - a deliberate move. Where does that leave us, development-wise?

Schmiezi · July 30, 2016 6:45 pm

tonnaree wrote:
All I'm saying is, not throwing away the glitter yet.

Never!

Schmiezi · July 30, 2016 6:51 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Well, when it comes to these things, I*m a prickly/finicky academic. These terms have what definition and meaning they have, and the "colloquial" ones are simply wrong.

Actually, language is made and changed by people. A certain use of a technical term might feel wrong to experts in the beginning but colloquial language is a lot more productive than technical language. You cannot help it. (And believe me, there are phrases in Germany that made me cry with pain when they came up. Some still do.)

Yet, colloquial language rules. So saying Moftiss don't know the meaning of the words is wrong, sorry. They may not be familiar with the technical definition, but of course they are capable of using colloquial terms in their mother tongue!

Vhanja · July 30, 2016 6:57 pm

It is not wrong, sorry. We don't know if they know the academic meaning of the terms or not, which - from the context - I thought it was clear was what I was talking about.. (And I was talking about Benedict, not Moftiss. And I said "I have a feeling he might not", not that he surely did not).

Since we are in the argumentative corner today.

Anyway, this is a thread about Johnlock, not language discussions, so I won't discuss it any further.

Last edited by Vhanja (July 30, 2016 6:59 pm)

besleybean · July 30, 2016 7:00 pm

Seems to be a lot to catch up on here.

Schmiezi · July 30, 2016 7:03 pm

Lautrela wrote:
Amen for the glitters, yeah !

Here, have some of mine. :-)

besleybean · July 30, 2016 7:13 pm

Well I guess it's up to people what they watch Sherlock for.
But personally I watch it with the expectation of no relationship between the leads.

Schmiezi · July 30, 2016 7:15 pm

Lautrela wrote:
Thanks !
For what it worth, since I'm kind of new to the fandom, I just discovered TJLC recently (thanks to ou guys mentionning it) I watched the vids In the end I didn't even knew what to think anymore. I've read the Moftiss interviews too, and I've decided that I'll wait and see what's in store. But I'll keep the glitters in my mind palace cause it help me to stay alive.*share glitters with people who feel like it*

I can full understand you. There is a Chinese curse saying "May you live in interesting times." Quite sums up our Situation right now. ;-)

besleybean · July 30, 2016 7:16 pm

'interesting' is one way of putting it.

besleybean · July 30, 2016 7:21 pm

Quite so.

nakahara · July 30, 2016 7:52 pm

Liberty wrote:
But in TAB, the other possible "love interest" John mentions (or effectively, Sherlock mentions to himself) is Lady Carmichael. In both cases, he tries to tell himself that his interest in the women (Irene and Lady C) is non-romantic, non-sexual admiration, but John (or Sherlock himself) sees through that, and goes on to question him about his impulses, and asks him why he chooses to be alone, essentially asking him why he doesn't act on sexual and romantic feelings.

Liberty, I´m sorry, I can kinda see the attraction between Sherlock and Irene.... but Sherlock and Lady Carmichael??? What?

Sherlock spoke highly about her but otherwise.... They barely exchanged glances! When her husband was shot, Sherlock didn´t even try to comfort her. He was not at all interested what has become of her after she was widowed, he rather drugged himself up and dreamt about Moriarty.... is this like the love interest behaves?

And don´t accuse me than I cannot recognise straight Sherlock when I see him, please.

Here. 24 minute of the movie. Definite Sherlock – Irene romance. I would never doubt that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K3Nwdg9x3w

Compare with this adaptation, 4:45 segment and on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8LG_bLmEhY

Jeremy Brett´s Sherlock not merely speaks about his client´s pleasing characteristics, but sensually touches her. Yet is this romance? Definitely not. Sherlock just acquiantances himself with his client´s job and character that way, that´s all. And note how similar this sequence is to the sequence we had in TAB regarding Lady Carmichael.

I believe what we had in TAB regarding her is exactly what we had in Solitary Cyclist regarding Violet Smith. It´s Sherlock´s way of picking up clues, nothing more, in my opinion.

nakahara · July 30, 2016 7:59 pm

Vhanja wrote:
However, you can't blame the writers for some people losing interest. That happens all the time in a long-running show. Some love it immediately, some hate it immediately. Some grow to love it as time goes, some tires of it as time goes. That is how it is, and is no fault of the writers. People are different and we react to the show in different ways (just look at this thread).

If you're gonna fault them for some people losing interest, then they should also get the credit for all the people who still love the show.

Yes, some people loose interest because they no more find the show interesting. But others are shied away by the conduct of the creators themselves. I am speaking strictly about that category. And I find it´s sad. No matter what, this show has an excellent cinematography and wonderful performances of the actors involved. What a pity some people will only remember with bitter taste in the mouth....

And of course, the creators should be credited for the people who still love the show. But I´d wish they wouldn´t diminish their number with badly-chosen words or acts...

besleybean · July 30, 2016 8:04 pm

Or possibly by just not providing what some people want?

nakahara · July 30, 2016 8:08 pm

besleybean wrote:
Or possibly by just not providing what some people want?

Such people left long ago with the introduction of Mary Morstan, I believe.

Vhanja · July 30, 2016 8:15 pm

besleybean wrote:
Well I guess it's up to people what they watch Sherlock for.

Absolutely. I watch it for the great writing, the great acting, and the all-round great quality of all aspects of the show. I feel that sometimes gets lost if we reduce it to "will they or wont' they?", as if that is all that matters with the show.

besleybean · July 30, 2016 8:16 pm

Quite so.

Vhanja · July 30, 2016 8:19 pm

nakahara wrote:
What a pity some people will only remember with bitter taste in the mouth....

Well, that is their choice. If they did go through with Johnlock, I'm convinced other people would only remember the series with a bitter taste in their mouths. You can't please all and neither should you try.

Liberty · July 30, 2016 9:03 pm

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
But in TAB, the other possible "love interest" John mentions (or effectively, Sherlock mentions to himself) is Lady Carmichael. In both cases, he tries to tell himself that his interest in the women (Irene and Lady C) is non-romantic, non-sexual admiration, but John (or Sherlock himself) sees through that, and goes on to question him about his impulses, and asks him why he chooses to be alone, essentially asking him why he doesn't act on sexual and romantic feelings.
Liberty, I´m sorry, I can kinda see the attraction between Sherlock and Irene.... but Sherlock and Lady Carmichael??? What?

Sherlock spoke highly about her but otherwise.... They barely exchanged glances! When her husband was shot, Sherlock didn´t even try to comfort her. He was not at all interested what has become of her after she was widowed, he rather drugged himself up and dreamt about Moriarty.... is this like the love interest behaves?

I don't see any obvious sexual attraction between Lady Carmichael and Sherlock (I do see it with Irene), but then Sherlock suppresses sexual attraction. I think we only know about it because of the greenhouse scene.    I won't go through it all because I think I've summarised above, but here we are (from the wonderful Arianne de Vere), Sherlock and John talking about Lady C (essentially an invention of Sherlock's, based on the pilot's looks):

WATSON: She’s a remarkable woman. (begins his man to man talk by mentioning Sherlock's interest in Lady C - this is on Sherlock's mind as it's his mind palace).
HOLMES: Who? (pretends he doesn't know who he's talking about)
WATSON: Lady Carmichael.
HOLMES: The fair sex is your department, Watson. I’ll take your word for it. (pretends he isn't interested, and attributes it to Watson)
WATSON: No, you liked her. A “woman of rare perception.” (sees through him)
HOLMES: And admirably high arches. I noticed them as soon as she stepped into the room. (pretends his admiration is not romantic/sexual)
WATSON: Huh. She’s far too good for him. (picks up on his real feelings)
HOLMES: You think so? (passes the buck and tries to attribute it to Watson again)
WATSON: No, you think so. I could tell. (is perceptive)
HOLMES: On the contrary, I have no view on the matter. (tries to deny it)
WATSON: Yes you have. (insists)
HOLMES (after a momentary pause): Marriage is not a subject upon which I dwell. (gets closer to the truth - that he tries to avoid the subject of romance rather than not being capable of those feelings).

Then there's a similar section with Irene, with Watson (mind palace Watson!) being perceptive and Holmes denying it as he edges closer to the truth about his feelings on sex/romance.    As it's essentially a a conversation with himself, it seems that he hasn't fully managed to suppress sexual/romantic feelings, and feels uncomfortable about it, and at some level questions his choice to be alone.

I'm not saying for a minute that my interpretation is the only possible interpretation, but I think it's the most obvious one, the one that's apparent on first viewing it.    So it's not fair to say that Moftiss have shown him as gay - you don't show a character as gay by showing them as attracted to the opposite sex, but not to the same sex.

besleybean · July 30, 2016 9:06 pm

Makes sense to me.

Last edited by besleybean (July 30, 2016 9:06 pm)

SolarSystem · July 30, 2016 9:06 pm

nakahara wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
However, you can't blame the writers for some people losing interest. That happens all the time in a long-running show. Some love it immediately, some hate it immediately. Some grow to love it as time goes, some tires of it as time goes. That is how it is, and is no fault of the writers. People are different and we react to the show in different ways (just look at this thread).

If you're gonna fault them for some people losing interest, then they should also get the credit for all the people who still love the show.
Yes, some people loose interest because they no more find the show interesting. But others are shied away by the conduct of the creators themselves. I am speaking strictly about that category. And I find it´s sad. No matter what, this show has an excellent cinematography and wonderful performances of the actors involved. What a pity some people will only remember with bitter taste in the mouth....

And of course, the creators should be credited for the people who still love the show. But I´d wish they wouldn´t diminish their number with badly-chosen words or acts...

Well, whatever the future will bring, my love for S1 and S2 will never be diminshed by it, that's for sure. Those six episodes (plus the unaired pilot) will always be the show I fell in love with instantly. When I watched those episodes the show spoke for itself, and I suppose that's always the best thing to concentrate on: the show itself. Everything else - what the writers and creators have to say, what the actors have to say, what the fandom has to say - can be a nice addition. Nothing more, nothing less.