It's difficult, because we didn't get to hear that interview, but it wasn't really reported like that.   They seemed to talk about it one part of the interview, and then talk about lying in another part, while making it clear they weren't lying about JL.  It's worth a read.

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/27/sherlock-a-case-of-sexual-identity/

" 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.”

And this interview was confirmed as legit by Mark, and I think by Sue too?  So we can't just assume it's bad reporting. 

The pbs tumblr comment is different, because they are very jokey with their comments there, and we don't have context.  But, it does fit with what's above and what's in the rest of that interview.  It also fits with what Mark said at Mumbai. 

 

They may well not be teasing about John and Mary separating in some way (death, divorce or whatever!).  The "I love you" is definitely a tease of some sort, but I wonder ... we were talking earlier about how the general public don't really see Johnlock, so it certainly wouldn't be a Johnlock tease for them.  And as Mark said, it really doesn't look as if he's talking to John in that clip.  In fact you could see that John and Mycroft are the two who are ruled out.  It would have been more of a tease if we'd just heard his voice, saying it! 

Exactly what I've been thinking, nakahara

I don't think everything they write are aimed at Johnlockers. I don't think they write "I love you" or the divorce comment to tease Johnlockers, I doubt they think much about that part of the fandom while writing. They write the story they want to write, as they've stated. 

I hope they won't. It would lessen the show if they did, in my opinion. I love the ambiguity.

Also, Sherlock's "I love you" is a big deal also in a non-Johnlock context. If it's real statement (and not, say, a password), it shows huge development of his character.

Last edited by Vhanja (December 16, 2016 10:05 am)

KeepersPrice wrote:

This response from SM kind of sums it up for me:
Don’t take anyone to be what they say they are, or you’ll never be a good detective. -SM

And I too love the ambiguity and the "tease" in the show. I don't want it to stop. I love all the speculations and clever people finding "hidden" things (rainbow lighting, elephants, etc.) that could indicate Johnlock.. I get that some people see this as baiting but I unapologetically say I love this aspect of the show. *sorry*

I'm with you on this KP.  Personally I loved the Q&A yesterday.  Such epic trolling!  The way I see it if you're going to ask them a direct question about plot development, you shouldn't be surprised or insulted when they feck with you. 
 

ewige wrote:

Liberty wrote:

It's difficult, because we didn't get to hear that interview, but it wasn't really reported like that.   They seemed to talk about it one part of the interview, and then talk about lying in another part, while making it clear they weren't lying about JL.  It's worth a read.

http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/27/sherlock-a-case-of-sexual-identity/

" 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.”

And this interview was confirmed as legit by Mark, and I think by Sue too?  So we can't just assume it's bad reporting. 

The pbs tumblr comment is different, because they are very jokey with their comments there, and we don't have context.  But, it does fit with what's above and what's in the rest of that interview.  It also fits with what Mark said at Mumbai. 

 

 
Maybe it's just a question of careful wording? Martin and Benedict aren't very likely to go off into the sunset together.

But reading the whole thing, and the talk about representation, and perhaps looking at what they said about representation in the previous interview that they're talking about, do you think it's likely that they're hiding Johnlock by talking about Martin and Benedict?  Those are the actors playing the parts, they are the ones who would act out the relationship, so I can see what they mean.  It's a bit like Benedict sometimes referring to Sherlock as "me".  He's clearly not talking about himself as a person, but about his performance.   

There is some technical ambiguity in the language, in the same way that there is in what Mark said at Mumbai (he said that they wouldn't be in an openly gay relationship, which technically means that he hasn't denied they would be in a closeted gay relationship.  Or maybe a bisexual relationship, etc.), but I think if you look at the whole picture it's a lot clearer what message they are trying to get across.

ewige wrote:

Can we stop for a minute to appreciate Benedict's description of the show from the Guardian Guide article?
“We are slasher fiction and an updated version of a Victorian classic, so that in itself plays into the world of fan obsession,” he ponders.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/dec/17/benedict-cumberbatch-sherlock-series-four
Are they allowed to name things with their true names now? ggg

Apparently. :-)))

This Is The Phantom Lady wrote:

I doubt he knows what that word means... but aw! 

Oh, at this point in the game I think he knows very well what slash means.  
 

Actually "slasher" means a particular kind of horror - the gory kind where people get slashed.  It's not the same as "slash", which kind of means pairing two characters together.  

I think you're right, Phantom, that he doesn't know what it means, because I remember him saying exactly that phrase in another interview, ages ago, when he clearly meant "fan fiction".   It's not slasher fiction, and if it really was slash fiction and he was hiding a plot point, he wouldn't call it that!   So my guess it that he meant the same as he did last time.   Maybe somebody should tell him!