I think that they have deliberately chosen not to tell an episodic story like e.g. Granada Holmes. Instead they concentrated on long narrative arcs spanning several or all episodes so far. Sherlock's personal development at at the centre of the show (a show about a detective). And I think that his relationship to three men is central to the show: Mycroft, Moriarty, and John. All three will have to be developed and solved in some way or other. There is always a progression, relationships changing, never staying the same. And I personally think that the only thing we have not seen about Sherlock and John is a romantic relationship. There is no way back to the arrangements of S1 and 2. We had them as friends sharing a flat, living apart during John's marriage, so there must be something new in the future. This does not have anything to do with making demands on the writers, it is about the logical progression of the story. 
 

Well, the relationship with Mycroft isn't going to be become romantic (I hope!).  It's not the only way a relationship can progress.

Liberty wrote:

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).

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.  

But this interpretation of the scene only appears as the most obvious to you. It´s not universal.

I only see Sherlock being uneasy with the conversation about sex and marriage. He was shown to be shy of the subject before too, for example in TSOT in "We have lots of sex" conversation with Molly.
Victorian Watson presuming that Sherlock´s love interest is of female sex is understandable if we remember that homosexuality was regarded as something criminal in the era.
But Sherlock never confirms it, he is merely uneasy. 
And how do we know his unease doesn´t come from his gay identity which he tries to hold secret?
If you think about it - why would he be uneasy about admitting that he is attracted to women if he was straight? What point would be to supress the feelings of love then? There´s no danger of being punished. There is no chance of ridicule just the opposite - he would be regarded as normal and the proper member of society. He would not loose his mental faculties either, because he´s already attracted and he has his rationality intact regadless...
So, holding his gay identity secret is the possible interpretation too..
 

SusiGo wrote:

There is no way back to the arrangements of S1 and 2. We had them as friends sharing a flat, living apart during John's marriage, so there must be something new in the future. This does not have anything to do with making demands on the writers, it is about the logical progression of the story.

I agree. I'm just not convinced that logic is Mofftiss' driving force these days. It seems to me that the next big plot twist is more important to them than logic. Which also seems to be a logical progression: After all, their plot twists got bigger and bigger with each series, from a pretty mild one in TGG through a pretty tragic one in TRF up to a really huge one in HLV. I'm sure they'll attempt to top that one in S4. And should that require John to be back in 221B just like before, I'm sure they'd put him there.
 

I hope we all wish to see John back in 221 B.

@nakahara, but I onlysee that as a continuation of the cafe and staircase scenes and discussions around Irene in SIB and indeed about Redberad in HLV. I don't see it as a real mystery.

Last edited by besleybean (July 30, 2016 9:47 pm)

Of course I want him back there, for the right reasons.

besleybean wrote:

What would be the wrong reasons?

For example, only being there because Mary kicked him out of his house and he has nowhere else to go. Would be a bit disappointing, that.
 

I think I mentioned here previously that the pocket watch , picture and line about the ladies arches are directly stolen from tplosh and the context.
A Victorian Holmes when invited to remark on the hotness of the scantily clad ballerina in front of him - notices her strong feet  . Later Holmes refuses to have a reproductive sex holiday with said ballerina claiming - he and Watson are happily together. One might suspect something queer is going on.

How thankful I am to live in such interesting times.

Yes Besleybean . Pretending to be queer.
I meant to say - I think the role of Lady C was written for Laura Pulver/Irene , but she couldn't  do it.

Mothonthemantel wrote:

I think I mentioned here previously that the pocket watch , picture and line about the ladies arches are directly stolen from tplosh and the context.
A Victorian Holmes when invited to remark on the hotness of the scantily clad ballerina in front of him - notices her strong feet . Later Holmes refuses to have a reproductive sex holiday with said ballerina claiming - he and Watson are happily together. One might suspect something queer is going on.

How thankful I am to live in such interesting times.

Yes, and I personally feel that TPLOSH Holmes is probably gay, even though he's obviously acting gay there.  (Although, he does, in his way, fall for the "Irene" character too, and is heartbroken when she dies). 

But yes, I do agree that it's a quote from TPLOSH, used in TAB when Sherlock is trying to pretend he isn't interested in Lady C in that way.  His perceptive, mind palace Watson sees through it.