|
|
Post by mllemass on Mar 5, 2017 0:23:27 GMT
I just watched this documentary on tv:
I think it might have been discussed on our old IMDb board, but I don't remember it. It's Canadian and it's from 2012. It looks at all the ways the Sherlock Holmes stories have influenced actual police work, science and, of course, movies and tv. They show scenes from BBC Sherlock being filmed, and Mark Gatiss is interviewed.
Near at the end, they deal with the "homoerotic" issue that they say SCD never intended. They say that it comes from the way Jeremy Brett portrayed Sherlock Holmes, and the new BBC version has continued it by having most of the people that John and Sherlock meet assume they are more than just flatmates.
Has as anyone else seen it?
|
|
|
|
Post by igs on Mar 5, 2017 11:19:42 GMT
I haven't seen this documentary, nor have I seen more than a few episodes of Jeremy Brett's Holmes. But I have seen 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' (the movie Gatiss and Moffat cite as a big influence on Sherlock), and in that one Holmes gets out of a marriage to this woman by claiming he and Watson are lovers and there's a whole big thing on that. I don't know about any homosexual subtext prior to this film existing or being debated, but it does precede Brett's Holmes by some 15 years. I really disliked Watson in the film though, I found him to be quite irritating, so I wouldn't say the film is a particular favorite of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 5, 2017 11:41:44 GMT
I never got any homosexual subtext out of the Jeremy Brett series but maybe I missed something. I haven't seen Ir it years. I started watching "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" but got bored so never finished.
I guess my interest in Sherlock Holmes up to "Sherlock" was purely in the stories because I'm a big detective fiction fan. Then when "Sherlock" aired and increasingly became more about the man himself than the cases I enjoyed that aspect of it.
I think that, influenced by The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Moftiss played the are they lovers thing for comedy value. Trouble is they did not know when to stop with the joke and ended up spawning the militant Johnlock faction who too the whole thing waaaaay to seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 6, 2017 15:18:22 GMT
Trouble is they did not know when to stop with the joke and ended up spawning the militant Johnlock faction who too the whole thing waaaaay to seriously. The trouble is that the shippers immediately latched onto the humour that was written into the show and made it into something it was never intended to be - they thought it was a "subtextual secret code" directed at them to signal that their fanfics were actually canon to the show. Those who weren't part of TJLC never saw the humour as anything more than it was intended to be - a satirical comment on stereotyping in today's society. M&G have explained this countless times but those "fans" only want to believe that the writers were "queerbaitng" them from the get-go so they just will not accept the truth. IMO the writers in no way "spawned" the faction that ended up being so unhappy with the show - TJLCers did that totally on their own. But you are right about one aspect - they took the whole thing waaaay too seriously! :-)) |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 6, 2017 16:42:55 GMT
I don't really agree that Moftiss did nothing whatsoever to spawn Johnlock fic. Of course they did. Just like the little teases of how Sherlock interacted with Irene Adler or Molly Hooper gave rise to Adlock and Sherlolly fiction. And there's nothing wrong with any of that.
Just because one particular small group within one particular element of the fandom chose to take things way too seriously does not mean it is all Moftiss fault either.
But to say they played no part whatsoever in the genesis of that line of "fantasy" is, in my opinion, simply not true.
And they really did beat the "we're not a couple" joke to death.
All that being said I am not blaming Moftiss for the lunatic element of the JL fandom. There's no way anybody can deal
With people like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 6, 2017 18:47:59 GMT
Well, that kind was my point. I don't think there is any "trouble" at all with the usual fanfic crowd that comes from any TV show. It stays within the boundaries of the fanfic world and that's fine by me totally. And of course the show (created by M&G) is the source of those fanfics. Again nothing wrong or troubled in that aspect at all.
The "trouble" aspect comes not from that, but comes into play when that fanfic aspect is taken out of context by certain fans and injected into the show (only by TJLCers) so that they give it a different meaning that the writers never intended it to be given.
And my contention is that M&G played no part in that using something from the show out of context. That is where I define the "trouble", and I don't think any of that can be set on M&G's shoulders. That taking out of context (trying to say that Johnlock is canon in the show and is the endgame of the writers) should be laid entirely at the feet of TJLC people.
The only "trouble" came about because TJLC fans "spawned" (or gave birth to) the idea that Johnlock was something actually made by the writers. They are the ones who propagated the idea that the satirical social comments made by M&G were evidence of "Johnlock", written by the creators into the show as canon.
And that was nothing more than a lie made up by TJLC to legitimise their fanfics as part of the show proper. M&G ha no part in that at all.
I actually think that you and I are on the same page about this really but just perhaps not reading from the same paragraph exactly.
:-))
|
|
|
|
Post by igs on Mar 6, 2017 19:06:38 GMT
The only "trouble" came about because TJLC fans "spawned" (or gave birth to) the idea that Johnlock was something actually made by the writers. But it was. They only backtracked when people began to take them seriously. Take this interview by Martin Freeman from 2011: Telegraph It is an issue that Sherlock Holmes's fans are as wary of plunging into as their hero was the Reichenbach Falls. Martin Freeman has, however, described the BBC series Sherlock as having "the gayest story in the history of television".
"It's about the relationship between the two men and how it develops and how it changes," Freeman tells me. "It is about the things that wind each other up and the things that they genuinely love about one another as well. We all certainly saw it as a love story. These two people do love and kind of need each other in a slightly dysfunctional way, but it is a relationship that works. They get results." Now this is Freeman, not Moffat and Gatiss. But saying no one involved in Sherlock ever egged on the Johnlockers is just being dishonest. They did, but then they stopped when they realized fans actually took them seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 7, 2017 18:43:36 GMT
The only "trouble" came about because TJLC fans "spawned" (or gave birth to) the idea that Johnlock was something actually made by the writers. ... Now this is Freeman, not Moffat and Gatiss. But saying no one involved in Sherlock ever egged on the Johnlockers is just being dishonest. They did, but then they stopped when they realized fans actually took them seriously. I never said that no one involved ever egged on the Johnlockers, I specifically said "the writers", so I don't think I am being "dishonest" in my remarks. I said that the creators never wrote or intended Johnlock to be part of the show and M&G have said so right from the beginning. So any interpretation to the contrary isn't because of what the creators wrote. Here's an interview with Moffat from before Season 3 aired in which he states clearly that Sherlock isn't a character that is interested sexually in men - This is before TJLC became an entity but there were those types of fans out there who later became part of the TJLCers voicing their opinions about Sherlock's sexuality even back then. I can't find any reference where M&G say that there was a purposeful sexual element (written by them) to the relationship between Sherlock and John. In fact I don't think the position of M&G has changed since day one - the show isn't about queer relationships. It is about the friendship between two unlikely people. They have brought it into the 21st Century (and that is where they played on the social satire element of it) but the relationship is still basically the same as it was in ACD's day - about their friendship. And the shippers were told this right from the first season. They wanted to take what they saw and make it something the show never presented. Which is completely OK in fanfic (and the show's creators have said so) but it isn't what BBC Sherlock is about (also said repeatedly by M&G). The fact that an element of shippers decided to twist what was presented into fitting their agenda isn't the fault of M&G. It is on their (the fans) shoulders. And to counter MF's quote you might remember BC's comments from Dec 9/2011 about Sherlock's sexuality (about Scandal in Belgravia) - he was quite adamant that Sherlock and John are not meant to be portrayed in a gay relationship - I bolded the word for emphasis. So the actors may be split 50/50 on their opinions but the real ones that count are those of the creators of the show M&G and they have been rock steady in their definition as to what the show is about, at least to me. :-)) |
|
|
|
Post by igs on Mar 7, 2017 19:43:04 GMT
I never said that no one involved ever egged on the Johnlockers, I specifically said "the writers", so I don't think I am being "dishonest" in my remarks. I didn't mean you specifically with the "dishonest" remark.  But I also understand why comments like Freeman's would cause confusion, since he does say " We all certainly saw it as a love story" which implies others involved in the storyline (such as Benedict and the writers) saw it that way too, since Freeman by his lonesome can't be "we all". It's these kinds of statements that initially gave fire to the Johnlockers, so it's not an idea that was purely borne out of fangirls' slashy minds on overdrive. I remember reading these things when I first got into Sherlock (when series 2 was airing) and I was intrigued by the idea of there being a romance between the two, but after the "I was just pretending to be dead for 2 years, gotcha!" thing I dismissed the possibility cause I couldn't see it organically happening anymore. I don't think John and Sherlock were ever really the same anymore after that, not because of Mary's presence in John's life but because the characters just changed in relation to one another for obvious trust-related issues. Moffat did use to refer to Sherlock and John as a "love story" as well, like here: 5/2012"It’s always definitely a love story." But then he goes on to talk about sex, and imho that is where the real confusion comes from, with two different mind-sets interpreting his words differently which yeah, people can't read minds. Moffat says John/Sherlock isn't sexual, but goes on to say this "Sex is not really the issue among any of these people [John, Sherlock, Irene]. Love is. Infatuation is. I think John Watson is infatuated with and fascinated by Sherlock Holmes. I think Sherlock Holmes absolutley [sic] relies completely and utterly on John Watson and is devoted to him. I think Sherlock is infatuated to the point that he can barely function around Irene Adler." This is what I have been saying is my biggest (and only really substantial) issue with "queerbaiting" in Sherlock, ie. explicitly drawing parallels between male/male and male/female relationships (also John/Irene re: Sherlock in A Scandal in Belgravia) but then disregarding the m/m ones as obvious jokes and the m/f ones as potential romances. Anyways, I think by saying "sex has no place here" Moffat means to rule out the possibility of any romantic relationship between John and Sherlock, but then his comments have been read by people who don't automatically equate romance ("love story") with sex. |
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 7, 2017 21:26:40 GMT
I didn't see any ambiguity in that interview with Moffat. In fact he says it outright -
How much clearer does he have to be? I don't think any ability in mind reading it needed to catch the meaning of what Moffat was talking about there.
He was direct when he said there wasn't any idea that sex would be a part of the love between characters. And as far as I know TJLC crowd are pretty cohesive about portraying Holmes and Watson as sexual "lovers" who are much more than friends who love each other. Thousands of fanfics and fan art pieces lay testament to that, so there shouldn't be any question of that stance, I would think. And I also think it is pretty clear to me from that quote that platonic friendship is the kind of love Moffat is talking about.
That's the kind of twisting I am talking about - the creators say the characters "love" each other and that shipping faction twisted that into the writers saying that Johnlock is the endgame. Then they turned around and tried to place the blame on the writers and say "you made us think that Johnlock was going to happen on the show, because you put all the queerbaiting in the show - what were we to think?!!?!" And nothing could be further from the truth. I never saw any Johnlock at all (and I am willing to bet I am not alone in these thoughts). What I did see is exactly what the creators always said they intended - to show a unique close friendship between Holmes and Watson. Exactly the same dynamic that was written into the ACD stories.
The TJLCers took remarks by M&G out of context (just like the took segments of the show), fit it into their agenda and then claimed that the creators had put the Johnlock there, so when M&G said "No, you are wrong, the show isn't about JL at all", then they were accused of queerbaiting - an entirely false construct made by the shippers, who wouldn't listen in the first place to what M&G have been saying all along.
If there were any JLers out there who were confused it was because they wouldn't take their fingers out of their ears long enough to listen to what M&G had been telling them since the start.
:-))
|
|
But I also understand why comments like Freeman's would cause confusion, since he does say "We all certainly saw it as a love story" which implies others involved in the storyline (such as Benedict and the writers) saw it that way too, since Freeman by his lonesome can't be "we all". It's these kinds of statements that initially gave fire to the Johnlockers, so it's not an idea that was purely borne out of fangirls' slashy minds on overdrive. I remember reading these things when I first got into Sherlock (when series 2 was airing) and I was intrigued by the idea of there being a romance between the two, but after the "I was just pretending to be dead for 2 years, gotcha!" thing I dismissed the possibility cause I couldn't see it organically happening anymore. I don't think John and Sherlock were ever really the same anymore after that, not because of Mary's presence in John's life but because the characters just changed in relation to one another for obvious trust-related issues.