I wonder if a love story between a woman and a man would be reduced to a "slash series", too. 

As for the rest - I had the same thought about the shattering climax. But since sex has never been explicitly shown in the show, I think they would not go that way with Sherlock and John either. For me it would be enough to see that they are in a relationship without leaving any doubt or ambiguity. And having seen Moffat couples like Vastra and Jenny, I am quite sure they would be fully capable of doing that. 
 

GimmeCat wrote:

I wonder what people imagine when they dread a Johnlock resolution. Like, do they think the show is suddenly going to become 90 minutes of John and Sherlock making out and having sex? Do they think the writers are suddenly going to change their characters into touchy-feely sex fiends onscreen? Is that what people are seriously afraid will happen?

The temptation there is to say "not that that would be a bad thing..." but realistically, we all know that's a ridiculous thing to fear, because no matter where they're taking this, they're not going to suddenly turn the show into a porno. Literally nothing will change, except there being an open declaration of the love that's already visible to the naked eye onscreen.

I honestly don't see how it could "ruin the entire show" considering how the entire show, so far, has been exactly about John and Sherlock's relationship with each other.

Beautifully said. 
 

My answer could be very long, but perhaps suited to better to the Johnlock debate thread (which reminds me, I've only got to HLV with all those questions over there, and not long to go!).  To make it clear where I'm coming from, it's very much not a case of dreading seeing sex on screen!  I've no idea why they'd need to show sex on screen anyway (why would anyone think that?).  And I have a history of supporting gay rights, am arguably bisexual myself, have read, watched and written same sex stories from my early teens, etc. etc. 

I would have been more than happy to see them in a relationship from the beginning.  I'm not big into romance, but if it's well done, I'm happy with it. 

My main issue at the moment would be that Moftiss have made it so vehemently, passionately, sincerely clear that that's not what they're doing.  This is different from covering up plot points.   If they have been lying in those situations (Mumbai, SDCC) where they were talking in the context of gay rights and identity, then I'd be very, very disappointed in them. 

My other issue would be that it would change the story, change the characters, etc.  For instance, instead of being an innocent who was deceived by his wife, John would also be guilty of deceiving Mary, and marrying her when he's in love with somebody else (and it wouldn't make any sense for him to accept her back) - not that that would necessarily make a bad story, but it would be a different story, different characters.   And along with that, I don't think there has been the build-up - we haven't been on board with it.  Instead the possibility of that kind of relationship has been raised and dismissed.

The only way I could see it working is for it to start in S4 - for them to fall for each other then, after all the years of "just" friendship (it can happen!).  But my first point about what Moftiss have said about still stands.  I would be very disappointed in them for saying that stuff. 

I'll leave the rest for the appropriate thread, if it comes up there! 
 

I think it is Holmes who mentions a "sad bereavement". Nothing more is said about the fate of Mrs Watson. 

Btw, this is really interesting. I know how Mark Gatiss cherishes correct grammar, he even once talked about falling in love with Ian Hallard because of his perfect knowledge of correct language. Please look at this:

Who is Mrs. Mary Watson?
Mark Gatiss referred to Mary as Mrs. Mary Watson. Not Ms. Mary Watson or Mrs. John Watson. Now remember Mark Gatiss is a known grammar fanatic (and he is just a few years younger than I am). When I was growing up learning the proper forms of the day (before Ms. was in use) women’s names went like this:

Miss <her first name> <her last name> e.g. Miss Mary Morstan - never married

Mrs. <his first name> <his last name> e.g. Mrs. John Watson - married or widowed

Mrs. <her first name> <her last name> <his last name> e.g. Mrs. Mary Morstan Watson - divorced, longer format (For women divorced multiple times this can get quite lengthy. Every ex-husband leaves a mark.)

Mrs. <her first name> <his last name> e.g. Mrs. Mary Watson - divorced, shorter format

Thank you for allowing me to share this bit of 20th century archaic grammar.

source: http://enjoytheelephant.tumblr.com/post/154207683543/who-is-mrs-mary-watson

 

Last edited by SusiGo (December 9, 2016 8:49 am)

Yes, GimmeCat, this is what I thought. In the third fall explanation Sherlock did jump, even though he landed on a mattress. Canon Holmes, however, did not jump or fall at all. And remember this little exchange from TEH:

MARY: You died. You jumped off a roof.
SHERLOCK: No.

But how will you know in advance if people are right? 

Okay, I see. Then you should be careful in the spoiler thread in the weeks to come. 

I'm only skimming thru detailed speculations, too. On the other hand, tidbits of ambiguous information help me stay afloat till the new episodes air. Don't remember being that impatient for the new year to come, ever.

Vhanja wrote:

I won't. But when I see it in the show, I will recognize it, and so it won't be such a big surprise as if it were something I've never thought of or read about before.

I feel the exact same way. I get more and more careful now of what I click and read. I already skipped at least some of the texts and links posted in this forum. It's an exciting time. I can't wait anymore and at the same time restraining myself from information... :D

It's nice to hear from Martin, and it's a good interview. Thanks for posting!  If I get time later, I might see if I can find the whole thing.