I very much hope that the words of the mods have equal weight.
Thank you for speaking up, Schmiezi. I don't really have fun participating lately as well.
Though I also want to give kudos to Liberty for her work in answering the questions from a non-johnlock point of view. That is a look to the other side for me.

In my opinion you two do very good work moderating. With all heartblood. And that is a main reason why in general this forum (and I think almost everyone will agree on this, surely?) is a safe haven compared to the scary real world out there.
@Vhanja, thank you for the link, though at first glance I haven't found anything that hasn't been mentioned here?

JP wrote:

Well, there is one allusion to Johnlock. That's when Moriarty says them to elope at the waterfall. Their reaction is quite clear, isn't it? They call him impertinent and kick him down the abyss.
How could this happen in a head of gay Sherlock?

Well, but this would mean that homosexuality is something that main heroes take for shameful. So shameful that mere insinuation of it must be immediately punished by death.
Hmmm... how could this happen in a show co-written by gay man? Or is he a self-hating gay?

In my opinion Moriarty was kicked into the waterfall for the simple reason that he was an embodiment of all Sherlock´s fears and Sherlock needed to get rid of those fears to be finally free. But what do I know, I, silly Moon Landing Denier?
 

Liberty wrote:

• Why did John say ‘I hope you will be very happy together’ when Sherlock talked about Moriarty?
Because he was concerned that Sherlock was getting too involved with this particular criminal.  He’s worried that Sherlock is enjoying the puzzle at the expense of caring.  I think John recognises that like Moriarty, Sherlock needs distraction.  (However, Sherlock does actually care, which becomes more apparent later, I think).   

I wonder why John had to use exactly this "romatic vocabulary" to convey his frustration with Sherlock. "I hope you will be very happy together" is a bizarre remark to convey that.

Liberty wrote:

• Why did Donovan say to John ‘opposites attract, I suppose’?
Funnily enough, I’d say this was another gay joke, and it probably is, except that there’s no reason the statement has to be taken that way.  John seems to take it that way because he’s getting used to hearing it.    

This was hardly a joke. Donovan was trying to use the insinuation of homosexuality as an insult. I wonder why the authors needed to emphasise here that being gay is something insulting.

SusiGo wrote:

I agree, nakahara. And we should regard the scene as a whole which is absolutely sensational. I have done a study of several Reichenbach adaptations and this is the only one in which John saves Sherlock. The only one. It has never been done before. This is what our Sherlock desires, to be saved by his knight John Watson. Not by way of a cheap elopement, something regarded as immoral and smutty in those times, but by kicking the threat down the waterfall and then himself throwing his hat - the disguise, the mask he wears for the public - right after it. 

P.S. In my opinion TAB has lots of hints

Good point about the hat there. As we all know, Sherlock hates the hat, it is a symbol of people making fun of him and insulting him in real life. Yet he envisions himself as wearing it in his mind palace. And then, thanks to John´s timely appearance, he can get rid of it and free himself of all the hat embodies, no longer fearful of his own weakness and of other´s ridicule. And instead of overpowering Moriarty on his own, he really envisions John and only John as the power who will free him of all the fears Moriarty embodies. 

Thanks, Mrshouse and Susi!  I still have more to post, but as I say, don't want to spam the thread - there's pages of them!   It's interesting to work through as some are quite obvious, and some of them I just wouldn't have seen a Johnlock slant at all.   But it gives me a view of what other people are seeing (and vice versa, hopefully!).

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

• Why did John say ‘I hope you will be very happy together’ when Sherlock talked about Moriarty?
Because he was concerned that Sherlock was getting too involved with this particular criminal.  He’s worried that Sherlock is enjoying the puzzle at the expense of caring.  I think John recognises that like Moriarty, Sherlock needs distraction.  (However, Sherlock does actually care, which becomes more apparent later, I think).   

I wonder why John had to use exactly this "romatic vocabulary" to convey his frustration with Sherlock. "I hope you will be very happy together" is a bizarre remark to convey that.

Liberty wrote:

• Why did Donovan say to John ‘opposites attract, I suppose’?
Funnily enough, I’d say this was another gay joke, and it probably is, except that there’s no reason the statement has to be taken that way.  John seems to take it that way because he’s getting used to hearing it.    

This was hardly a joke. Donovan was trying to use the insinuation of homosexuality as an insult. I wonder why the authors needed to emphasise here that being gay is something insulting.

This is maybe just about the different ways people say things.   "I hope you'll be very happy together", to me, is just the sort of thing people say to each other, to point out the person giving too much attention to someone or something.   It's a bit like "Why don't you marry him/her/it?"   But I think there's also a hint there that Sherlock and Moriarty have something in common, at least from John's viewpoint. 

By "gay joke" I meant the ongoing misunderstanding that they are lovers (the ones that Moftiss refer to).  John certainly takes it that way.   I think the "opposites" is probably more of an insult to Sherlock - I don't think it's intended to be homophobic.

 

JP wrote:

"Hmmm... how could this happen in a show co-written by gay man? Or is he a self-hating gay?"
What about self-irony? He's the man who calls himself Gay-tiss...

This leads to nowhere. Why are we still discussing, knowing what the makers said? If they lied or not lied before, does not matter anymore, does it? They didn't confirmed the other "lies" the way they did with the last interview.
I don't want them stop "lying" because it's great fun. I don't want them to start hiding from the fandom that tells them what to do with their show.

 
Wow....this gets nasty....
I have nothing more to say if that is the current level. Pity.
Actually I thought the boss was clear enough but....

JP wrote:

"Hmmm... how could this happen in a show co-written by gay man? Or is he a self-hating gay?"
What about self-irony? He's the man who calls himself Gay-tiss...

This leads to nowhere. Why are we still discussing, knowing what the makers said? If they lied or not lied before, does not matter anymore, does it? They didn't confirmed the other "lies" the way they did with the last interview.
I don't want them stop "lying" because it's great fun. I don't want them to start hiding from the fandom that tells them what to do with their show.

Because this is a discussion forum and discussing things is what we do.  If this particular topic is of no more interest to you, you do not have to participate in it.

Last edited by tonnaree (August 21, 2016 9:10 pm)

I went out last night to help raise a  lot of money for cancer research, as one of my younger colleagues is dying of the disease...I'm rather glad I wasn't on here!
Can we all calm down?
Can I ask for a bit of clarification: so it's ok to insult the show creators?
Can I make a personal plea, as others seem to have a different opinion on free speech to me.
Certainly in life, we cannot legislate against personal feelings, we have to deal with them ourselves.
So can we be sure we are actually complaining about a real personal attack(which would usually be obvious by being directed at a named individual), rather than we just don't like what somebody says in their argument?

Treating everybody the same is something we should all agree on, yes.