Vhanja wrote:

I agree. However, we have consistently seen John with women and interested in women, showing no interest in men.(If it walks like a duck...). If he's bi, it's quite closeted and not relevant for the story. Just as BBC Sherlock might be gay, but it's not relevant because he doesn't act on it anyway.

And Mofatt actually made a fairly good point when he saI'd that if Sherlock had been romantically and/or sexually attracted to John, he hadn't wanted him as a room mate to begin with because he wouldn't have wanted that daily distraction.

Distraction or not, when we first see them in ASIP, something "clicks" between them right away and sparks fly....
 

Oh, it does. But that doesn't have to be romantic.

besleybean wrote:

I don't think it is.

Apparently. ;-)

Vhanja wrote:

Oh, it does. But that doesn't have to be romantic.

It doesn´t HAVE to be, but I am not suprised if people interpret it that way.
 

Oh yes, they definitely have chemistry.  But not sexual, I don't think.   Sherlock isn't discombobulated around John at the beginning the way he is around Irene.  

The question of their sexual orientation - of course in real life, gay men can and do have relationships with women, marry, have children, etc.  Things aren't clear cut.   But in the show, I feel I've got to look at what is being said, what I'm being told.   They are telling a story.   You don't tell a story about a baker, but only ever show them working at the post office, have them win a baking competition at the end of the story, and say "but lots of people have two jobs!  And we showed them with flour on their shoes in some shots so the clues were there!".   Bad analogy, I know, but my point is you'd have lost the audience for the story - it would look like you're telling a different one.  They've made John only date women (and had him tell us that he's straight) which means that they haven't been telling us the story of a gay or bi John. 

I've always maintained Sherlock is ambiguous, but that's mainly because of a lack of data.   But I notice that a lot of people see him as gay, or probably gay.   I don't really understand why - what does gay mean?   I know we all have our own definitions, but doesn't gay just mean mostly attracted to your own sex?  But we never ever see Sherlock being attracted to men.  Unlike John, he doesn't tell us which way he leans.  But the only bit of data we do have on attraction is an attraction to a woman (or women), which would tend to make him bi, or even straight.   So where is the evidence that says he's gay, on so little data (and that data that does exist telling us the opposite!). 

I agree that it doesn't really matter if he's going to keep it repressed, but also agree with Vhanja about that coment from Steven Moffat - it absolutely makes sense that he wouldn't easily live with somebody whom he fancied.   And of course, he could be gay and not fancy John, but it almost seems to me as if that should be addressed if he was gay - why didn't he fancy John?

nakahara wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Oh, it does. But that doesn't have to be romantic.

It doesn´t HAVE to be, but I am not suprised if people interpret it that way.
 

Me neither.

I was wondering... seeing as several scenes were open for interpretation - does that mean that if Johnlock had happened, those who saw only a friendship would have the right to be annoyed and have a go at Moftiss because the writers didn't follow up on their expectations?

Now, to be honest, I don't think I would, because they have denied it so clearly.  I always thought that if they did it, it would have to be something new, because, as I say, they hadn't told that story from the beginning, so we hadn't been on board.   It would have to be two friends, who, years down the line, realised they fancied each other.   But I think it would be difficult for them to go ahead and do it after what they've said. 

I'm still wondering where the proof is that Sherlock is gay?

Mothonthemantel wrote:

I have not really seen anyone insisting they write anything , I think maybe so many people asking and hoping and theorizing and supporting it in the fandom may make it seem a bit like that ?
I have seen the gay or trash thing.People are enitled to that opinion though?

If you check out Mark Gatiss' twitter mentions, he has over time had quite a lot of messages from fans demanding Johnlock, and last week after the article some accusing him of queerbaiting and even threatening him if he didn't deliver. So it has progressed a long way from people privately hoping and theorising, to confronting the writers in an aggressive way.
 

nakahara wrote:

“It’s worth saying – because we never get the opportunity to actually say it. The whole notion, the idea of them possibly being a couple is inspired by the joke in the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, our favorite version. And we thought that was a good idea to run with that. In the 21st century it wouldn’t be an issue. People would just assume. Maybe we’ve done it too many times I don’t know. That’s all it is.  
 
But we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it. ”
 
LOL! Did they just openly confessed they were deliberately queerbaiting the fans? Wow, that´s just... I can´t find words! I always suspected that was the case but to have it admitted in such a dismissive manner is something else entirely. LOL.
 
Well, no big deal. For me, nothing will change because I never trusted Mofftiss much and shipping Johnlock is a source of great fun for me, whether it will openly appear on screen or not.
 
 

I'm always a bit suspicious of written interviews for many reasons. There's no guarantee the journalist - either intentionally or unintentionally - has accurately represented what the interviewee has said. Plus tone of voice, context, the possibility of irony or humour is absent.

Having said that, I don't think the quote above does confirm they were intending to queerbait. I think there's ambiguity about the word "people". I read it to mean that "people" means the other characters in the show, eg Mrs Hudson, Angelo, the gay pub owners in THOB, who erroneously assume that Sherlock and John are a couple. This is a misunderstanding which is always corrected in the show. I don't think the kind of exasperation that Moffat & Gattis express when they talk about people expecting Johnlock to actually be made canon is consistent with this earlier statement if they expected their audience to assume they would be a couple. So in this case I really think 'people' = characters not audience. So I don't think you can cite it as an admission of queerbaiting.

Last edited by Shani (August 2, 2016 8:55 am)

Shani wrote:

nakahara wrote:

“It’s worth saying – because we never get the opportunity to actually say it. The whole notion, the idea of them possibly being a couple is inspired by the joke in the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, our favorite version. And we thought that was a good idea to run with that. In the 21st century it wouldn’t be an issue. People would just assume. Maybe we’ve done it too many times I don’t know. That’s all it is.  
 
But we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it. ”
 
LOL! Did they just openly confessed they were deliberately queerbaiting the fans? Wow, that´s just... I can´t find words! I always suspected that was the case but to have it admitted in such a dismissive manner is something else entirely. LOL.
 
Well, no big deal. For me, nothing will change because I never trusted Mofftiss much and shipping Johnlock is a source of great fun for me, whether it will openly appear on screen or not.
 
 

I'm always a bit suspicious of written interviews for many reasons. There's no guarantee the journalist - either intentionally or unintentionally - has accurately represented what the interviewee has said. Plus tone of voice, context, the possibility of irony or humour is absent.

Having said that, I don't think the quote above does confirm they were intending to queerbait. I think there's ambiguity about the word "people". I read it to mean that "people" means the other characters in the show, eg Mrs Hudson, Angelo, the gay pub owners in THOB, who erroneously assume that Sherlock and John are a couple. This is a misunderstanding which is always corrected in the show. I don't think the kind of exasperation that Moffat & Gattis express when they talk about people expecting Johnlock to actually be made canon is consistent with this earlier statement if they expected their audience to assume they would be a couple. So in this case I really think 'people' = characters not audience. So I don't think you can cite it as an admission of queerbaiting.

I respect your opinion, Shani (and welcome to the forum, by the way!). Still, the identity of the "people" mentioned above isn´t so important to me as the fact that the authors put the queer references into their work deliberately (as "jokes"), they did it many times, but never actually intended to deliver anything on them. That, in my book, constitutes queerbaiting although not everybody might see it my way....

As to the claim that queer references were just "jokes"... it´s interesting that the list of these jokes was quite extensive, plenty of them appeared in about every episode...

(here is the rough list of them):

http://tendergingergirl.tumblr.com/post/148253047591/gay-jokes-in-bbc-sherlock-at-what-point-is-it

...and the actual gays always found them quite unfunny, as far as in 2010 when the show was first broadcasted:

http://www.thagomizer.net/2010/08/sherlock/

 

Last edited by nakahara (August 2, 2016 10:10 am)