I remember being furious that Martin acted so well in that episode, because I was worried he would steal Andrew's BAFTA!

ewige wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Well, it was before my time (I came to Sherlock in spring 2014 IIRC), but you piqued my curiosity, so I had a look back to see what was being discussed on this thread just after TSOT.  Turns out they were all talking about Star Trek!

Get out!
*off to find the relevant pages herself*

That's what happens with so many Star Trek Fans around.

I remember shipping Janeway and Chakotay. Today I wonder why the hell I did not ship Janeway and Seven. :-D

Schmiezi wrote:

ewige wrote:

*off to find the relevant pages herself*

That's what happens with so many Star Trek Fans around.

I remember shipping Janeway and Chakotay. Today I wonder why the hell I did not ship Janeway and Seven. :-D

 
Ahem... *raises hand*

It was even called a conspiracy too... with way less evidence to rely on, I might add!

Last edited by ewige (January 19, 2017 8:50 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Some people have very different ideas on 'evidence' to me.

That is definitely true.

I apply what I learnt about how to analyse texts. And with a TV show, "text" also means music, lightning, camera movement, how the actors are arranged, etc.

You I think (please correct me if I am wrong) only consider the  words of both the characters and the creators / actors etc.

I freely admit that the Johnlock people as a group know much more about literary analysis and so on than I do, and that I have read some very intelligent and thoughtful stuff.  I also don't know what means what when it comes to film-making.  However, coming to it from outside of that field of study, I can see that the methods people use (I'm just going by what I've read on tumblr and so on) lean more to constructing an argument rather than what I would call objective analysis.   Not that it's wrong to construct an argument, or make a case! (And if I get time, I'm thinking of doing one over the weekend!).  But it's a different thing to weighing up the evidence. 

I don't think I've ever seen a comparism of Johnlock evidence and the alternative. And I feel there's a kind of dismissal of the surface reading sometimes.   Not Johnlock, but you know I spent ages and ages thinking about Mary in HLV and all the odd things that happen there - well, I finally came to the conclusion that the only explanation that really made everything come together was that Sherlock really, really liked her.   They really liked each other.  And I think that turned out to be the right explanation - the simplest one. And I feel that sometimes the simplest explanation is missed.  In the same way, if Sherlock and John are "just" friends, that explains an awful lot too. 

Some of the arguments I've seen just seem to show that John and Sherlock love each other, which nobody has disputed.  (We dispute whether they also fancy each other!).  So being prepared to give up their lives for each other, is to me, proof of love, not sexual attraction.  We also see Mycroft prepared to give up his life to help Sherlock, and Mary actually giving her up life for Sherlock, but I think that both of those come from a place of love and caring, rather than attraction/romantic/sexual feelings.
 

Liberty wrote:

you know I spent ages and ages thinking about Mary in HLV and all the odd things that happen there - well, I finally came to the conclusion that the only explanation that really made everything come together was that Sherlock really, really liked her.   They really liked each other.
 

I loved HLV because of that - Sherlock sacrificing his freedom and probably his life for people he loves the most. It was very poignant. Then I came across the M-theory - a very smart and very lengthy tretease - and was like, no-no-no, it totally negates Sherlock's sacrifice and his inner tears, but it explains a lot of odd stuff, but but...

I don't think that romantic love is any more complex than friendship in case of Sherlock and John. I saw it without going into any metas at all, just adding two and two together. Reading metas and thinking more about it made the show appear very clever, apparently cleverer than it was supposed to be.

I don't know how the filming is really done but some video hints are just so persistent that I can't believe they are not deliberate. The first thing that comes to mind are all the rainbows. The bloody rainbows are there in every bloody episode! (Gotta check S4 again, but it's true for the other seasons at least.) Also, Benedict's poses are often very suggestive, or to put it better, they are filmed in a suggestive way. Who's in charge of all these things? Random camera men? Directors that vary from ep to ep? So who told different people again and again to do certain things in a certain way? I have a feeling that a certain flirtation with the idea and with the viewers was intended. And this is without going miles deep into the ocean of Sherlock metas.

besleybean wrote:

Benedict is a sexy man...that's just the way he stands, it's part of his super hero stance!

That he is, but I mean something more like that:






Re: rainbows
Yes, swastika used to be a religious symbol too. Back in the day. Way back.

No. Sherlock is the first person I have ever seen dribble WHITE vomit.
Then they twirled him around , shrunk him down and popped him into Johns mouth for a scene change.

They call it subliminally suggestive in advertising. 

I thought it was a great way to show somebody just falling asleep during his work...