mishab

So Mary is really a man in disguise then because she ran out after John and Sherlock to chase after a murderer on her wedding day. Which female character worth her salt today wants to be protected and be asked to sit out instead of facing the danger? I don't think it's a guy thing anymore. I don't know about other people, but, just as a data point, I like to be protected. If that means a gentleman asks me to sit out and refrain from chasing a murderer on my wedding day, I'm fine with that. I am sure it feels nice to be protected some times. I was talking about the general trend in fiction where female characters always deny protection because it is considered not 'feminist'. In John's case, it's in his nature to face danger and seek out adventures and not because he wants to portray himself as a macho man.

So Mary is really a man in disguise then because she ran out after John and Sherlock to chase after a murderer on her wedding day. Which female character worth her salt today wants to be protected and be asked to sit out instead of facing the danger? I don't think it's a guy thing anymore.

Mary and Sherlock both. She may have suggested the plan, but Sherlock didn't have to go ahead with it.

Red balloon was a sign of John's intelligence not being appreciated. Not the other way around. i don't think John sees himself so much of an oddball. His depression and isolation in the beginning was due to PTSD. Many soldiers who were perfectly normal before heading to war find themselves unable to adjust once they return home. usually they attend counselling sessions. In John's case, Sherlock was his counselling session. John isn't a social butterfly but he doesn't have a problem making friends. At the beginning of ASIP, John's friend circle would have mostly been fellow army men who must be facing similar issues like Sholto who had cut off all ties. Also do remember the writers are stingy when it comes to giving John a background. we don't see many of his friends but they magically appeared at his wedding, it need not be a statement of how shallow his other friendships are. Moftiss don't allow John leave Sherlock's orbit even once so all major moments of John's life have to include Sherlock playing the starring role. They are afraid that even if they briefly introduce John's other friends/family members it will some how take the focus off Sherlock. So i don't consider the lack of any mention of other friends/family as a definitive proof of John's "prickly" nature.

To me its charm is gone because I felt John and Sherlock's relationship was no longer the center of the story. John himself felt marginal to the story. For many it was due to the lack of good mysteries or the unrealistic nature of them where before this show has always been known for being intelligent. I would not have minded a TFP kind of episode if it was done only once. But this whole series was just a tad full of over the top scenes. People whose only concern is Sherlock's character development are the ones who seem to really like this season. The show maybe called Sherlock but the main ingredients include John and good mysteries to solve and it feels like this season only did one of the three right. This is how I read "Sherlock and John show" 50% Sherlock & 50% John.

They've already used John's background to some extent -- for example, when he saves Bainbridge's life in TSo3 and when he compares the three of them to soldiers in TFP. So there's no reason to believe they won't do it again. I'd like to see more, but "some" would be fine. At this point we haven't much idea where they might go in S5 other than "Sherlock and John solving crimes" -- which sounds good to me. So I see no reason to be pessimistic about John's future in the show. Thank you. That's a very good way of looking at it. Did they really say that? What a relief! Here I've been assuming that was just more of their "dark and exciting" theme. But that explanation together with their statement that future episodes would feature "Sherlock and John solving crimes" gives me hope that they intend to go forward with the more mature Sherlock and John in stories of a more traditional-yet-modern Holmesian nature -- more like the show I fell in love with. 'Sidekick' is a term used by the fans but i have never heard any one involved in the show describe John like that. In fact MF mentions in one of his interviews that John and Sherlock are equal partners. Moffat went as far as to call John the central character. There was equal focus on both characters the first couple of seasons. But by S3 i think mainly due to BC's increasing profile it became more centered on Sherlock. They have been calling this show 'Sherlock and John show' since the beginning, but that did not stop them from making 2 out of three episodes in S4 where the focus was on Sherlock and a third character. They sell the show that way because the original stories was always about the two of them but not in this version. We might as well call this show Sherlock and Mary, Sherlock and Eurus etc etc.

Moftiss have said all along that they see BC and MF as a co-leads. In the opening credits, they've even attempted the usual equal billing thing where one actor is first top-to-bottom but the other is first left-to-right: . . , , . . Actor A Actor B ... but it doesn't work quite as well as usual here, due to the length of BC's name. That said, it is (and I think has to be) a bit different with the characters. As even MF has pointed out, the show is called "Sherlock," not "John," so Sherlock is the focal character. However that does not mean that John has to be a lesser character in any other respect. (For example, several of us have been pointing out that it would make a great deal of sense for John's medical and military experience to play a part in solving more cases.) I think there's a great deal of room for improvement in this regard, especially over S3 and S4. Maybe they thought that giving him a wife would naturally focus the stories more on John, but as you've pointed out, it seemed to end up focusing them more on Mary and Sherlock. However, that arc has ended now, so hopefully the focus will be more like S1 and S2 again. As for John's fatherhood playing a role, that should definitely be a factor of his character -- but I'd hate to see it become the focus. John should remain primarily Sherlock's sidekick (sorry, but that's what he is -- when Elementary elevated Joan to co-detective status, they ruined the whole dynamic of the show in my opinion). He just needs to be a more active and involved sidekick, as he was (for example) in Blind Banker. If anybody wants some fatherly screw-up moments, I'd prefer not to see Sherlock setting John straight. It'd make a lot more sense to me if Mrs. Hudson and/or Molly pointed out the obvious, perhaps to *both* John and Sherlock. But by and large, John should be a caring and competent father -- in keeping with his overall character. I agree with you regarding the negative comments on this forum. I too have felt the need to defend John all too often, again with regard to S3 and S4. I don't offhand recall any such comments regarding S1 or S2 (though presumably there were a few here and there). Regarding John's "moral center" status, I agree that the need for that has diminished. But Sherlock still needs a stalwart friend, and I believe we saw John return to that status when he held out his hand to help Sherlock up off the floor in TFP. For me the charm of the show is over. It worked best when it was just john and Sherlock. You are far too positive about John's future in the show. Moftiss have already said during sherlocked that they don't consider John's background important. To me it feels moftiss are more interested in exploring the dynamics between Sherlock and other characters rather than john. I won't be surprised if they dream up of another quirky female character who is just so much better than john at everything. Good luck for the few john fans who are still here.

What John needs to be is a co-lead not a sidekick. Being a 'good constant' is not enough. He should be good at something without being overshadowed by Sherlock. Being a father is what i think should be John's thing. I have seen far more negative discussion in the John thread than positive and it's not just here in other boards as well. Lately i feel all i have been doing in Sherlock fandom is to defend John. As for his character development in s4, it's fine to show different shades to a character, but what Moftiss did was to take away his uniqueness to the story. John's role is to be the moral center but it felt more like Mary was doing that job. Ultimately there should have been a moment in the season where we could see John returning to that role. But thanks to Sherlock's new found humanity, now John is neither the most intelligent man nor is he the most moral.

No more John screw ups for me. I think there were far too many in S4. I think it's time we get the capable John Watson from the first episode. It's bad enough that Moftiss decided he cannot be a good husband and now let's just make him a bad father as well. Why does all discussions around John end up with people wishing for him to mess up? I am just fed up with John being used as a prop to show Sherlock's awesomeness in everything.

Yu-p. If that's what Martin Freeman meant to convey, he did a great job. Now comes me, the amateur psychologist for fictional characters: This is why Sherlock works as a friend for John in spite of everything, because he can deal with John's anger. John can afford to unleash all his unpleasantness on him, which has to be reigned in at all other times because he thinks he has to be this super good guy. Sherlock can take it and he also understands it even though he claims he doesn't. He doesn't waste time getting angry back at John, he looks beyond and asks, now what does this mean and what am I going to do about it. There's an interesting contrast between how John acts around his therapists and how he does around Sherlock. With the professional people whom he pays to help him, he is very reserved, hardly lets down his guard and withholds crucial information (like the fact that he is having an almost non stop conversation with his dead wife). With Sherlock, eventually, it all comes out. Of all people! Maybe it helps that Sherlock is a self-proclaimed sociopath, so beside him, John will always look pretty good. Or Sherlock is just so infuriating that he can't stop himself. Whatever the reason, it works. I don't think John tries to be some kind of saint. I am not sure what instances you are talking about where he is hiding his unpleasantness. Some of his anger towards Sherlock is justified and in some cases, well, he has bad days too. Just like Sherlock. If Sherlock is saving John's life some days, he is also being a dick to him most days. And Sherlock infuriating most people is established in the show since episode 1.

Love this idea! I am hoping for a regular mystery. Th ep starts with some Baker street domesticity, then a client walks in and tells them a story and off they go dashing around London looking for clues. No Mary/Moriarty or Eurus.

It's a cause and effect thing. If John is less 'pricklier' in TFP, its because Sherlock has matured a lot in this episode. He is no longer ordering john around and even asked him if he is ok more than once where the old Sherlock wold not have bothered at all.

"..it's even embedded in Sherlock's mind (TAB) about how high is John's expectation and pressure on him about that." Is John's expectation really high? Is it so difficult to say ,for example, to the grieving couple in TST 'I am sorry your son died. I will try my best to find his killer'? Are geniouses like Sherlock so delicate that expecting them of basic courtesy is putting pressure on them? If you were in John's position what would you do everytime Sherlock says something inconsiderate? The apologies in this show are generally non-existant. If we can accept Sherlock's 'apology' in the empty hearse then i dont see why we can't do the same with John's apology. It's not just John but everyone around Sherlock expect him to be better behaved. Mary is also seen correcting Sherlock more than once in TST but it's mostly fallen into John's hands to push Sherlock to be more cordial. I dont think John seeks to be a moral compass.He does not go around correcting people in general. His main reason for being with Sherlock is the adventure and thrill that Sherlock provides him. But like a said before, if you have a friend like Sherlock, wouldn't you also try to correct him?

I am pretty much done with the show. As a life long Watsonian I thought this show would do something different with the character and give him proper justice. the writers may have pulled him out from the literary hell hole that is a sidekick but they have only pushed him into another archetype ie the 'damsel in distress'. S4 showed they have run out of ideas for him and future episodes are only going to be even more Sherlock centric than before with john pushed to background playing the supportive friend like they did in TFP.

How exactly has Mary changed and illuminated the show? Or whatever he said. Some one try to explain it to me please. John and Sherlock were already each other's best friends, solving crimes and annoying each other like they did in the books much before Mary walked in to their lives. How exactly did she turn them in to the Sherlock Holmes and John Watson we know about and love? Was John not willing to save and protect Sherlock before Mary? Was he not already a morally conscious man before Mary? Why does John have to be reduced for the sake of Mary? If this was the other way around, if Moffat had said Mary became the woman she is because of her husband, what a furore people would have made about it. I can understand how Mary's death would have changed Sherlock to be less arrogant like how he is in the books. But apart from that she does not take away much from Sherlock. But it's a whole different case when it comes to John.

No special meaning, just an abbreviation of my name And I adore Martin's winking pics, so used it as my avatar!

??? I'm guessing Carol the Dabbler is referring to how Moffat seems to think that John shooting a serial killing cabbie that was trying to get Sherlock killed is equivalent to Sherlock shooting a sinister but innocent man who was not intending on taking any life but was fine with simply ruining them. The former is much more justified than the latter. I'm going to respectfully disagree. John's shooting of the cabbie has always bothered me much more than Sherlock shooting CAM. For a long time, I was suspicious of John because of that action. Even now, I really can't quite get over the fact that John Watson decides to intervene in a very fatal way in a crime in progress that Sherlock may well have had in hand, just a couple of days after they'd met. I don't think John had any reason to have that kind of loyalty to Sherlock that early, and I don't think he had any reason to believe that Sherlock wasn't playing out a game that was within his control. I find his shooting of Jeff Hope to be capricious, reckless, and disturbing, and I don't think it demonstrated any sort of high moral character that Sherlock seems to ascribe to it. Sorry. I know that's not the popular opinion, but that action almost kept me from being able to engage with this portrayal of John Watson at all. But yeah, I think Sherlock was completely right in his actions at Appledore. That scene was what cemented John and Sherlock's friendship. That it was a bit reckless demonstrated to Sherlock they both are alike. John knew that Hope was a killer and the only way to save Sherlock's life, in John's eyes, would have been to shoot Hope. John along with the audience were meant to believe Sherlock would have taken the pill, if John had not shot Hope. The scene was filmed in such a way to generate the suspense of whether John would reach Sherlock in time, the suspense was not whether Sherlock would have taken the pill or not. With regard to loyalty, John was part of the army and I think he would be used to situations which would make people loyal to one another very quickly. The adventure which they shared was a situation like that. That he became loyal to Sherlock almost instantaneously is what i like the most of their friendship.

Starting from series 3, the only function for John seems to be Sherlock's damsel in distress. Instead of making him a complementary partner to Sherlock, he is just made out to be source of drama for Sherlock and give him the opportunity to play the self sacrificing hero. This character arc for Sherlock, to be a good man, could only happen if John is weak. So they took away all the strengths that made John such a compelling character in S1 & s2. Add to that Mary, who not only takes over John's function but also almost takes over Sherlock's not to mention the function of a client. Her character dev is just unbelievable, think of every good quality a person can have and they have put it in her. Every other character in the show has a flaw but not her. And people call John a mary-sue! I think Moftiss can only respect characters who show extraordinary abilities. People like John, Molly and Lestrade are ignored while Mary, Sherlock and Mycroft are given more and more to do. Mrs Hudson too has to be a race car driving, drug cartel running woman to be taken seriously. Why could not she just have been a regular yet be a strong person?

It might never happen, but I would love for them to make a special episode like TAB which is about John's life.

Thanks for the welcome Carol! Yeah. He does not go round doing stupid things just to satisfy his cravings for danger. He is a more sensible and balanced person than that. I don't understand why people always interpret his sense of adventure as something darker.

Thanks for the welcome, Toby. The thing about cheating is that though I understand he needs to be given flaws, it was disappointing to see him having such as common ordinary joe kind flaws. I mean Sherlock has this traumatic childhood experience to explain his 'sociopathy', Mary has some badass cool backstory, but John is given this lame mid life crisis type arc. John is ordinary only in the sense he does not have great genius skills and is a much more compelling and interesting character than this . Someone on this thread mentioned how we no longer know what does John brings to the show. He is supposed to be the emotional and moral figure but it seems like Moftiss do not just want Sherlock to be the intellectual superior to John they want him to be morally superior as well.

I believe it was written this way to make Mary the all knowing saint. Until now we had never any reason to believe John would not go and save Sherlock immediately if he thought Sherlock was in danger. Watch ASIP, TGG, TAB etc for the many times John rushes to save Sherlock. It's in keeping with Moftiss' head canon that Mary is apparently the glue that holds their friendship together. The side effect of that is we are now made to question John's loyalty towards Sherlock.

Posting for the first time in this forum, though i have lurked here for a long time. I have seen many people say here and on other sites how much they are disappointed in John in this season. I don't deny he has done some pretty sh***y things including the beating but i won't say i am disappointed in him. For one, i do not buy some of the character arcs he has this season such as the cheating thing which just felt tacked on. I blame poor writing for why it is difficult this season to relate with John. We did not get any insight into his feelings or thought process in TST to help us understand his behavior. John beating Sherlock was difficult to watch just as it was difficult for me to see Sherlock manipulate John into forgiving him in TEH, or make him the subject of his experiments in the Hound. In real world, the actions of both would be difficult to forgive. But this is fiction and we are to assume fictional people have higher tolerance to being punched, manipulated, shot etc. and that's why despite everything J & S forgive each other. Also to note John beating him in such a way is such a one-off thing which probably will never occur and only happened when John was under such emotional turmoil. Have you all never done anything truly awful when you are under immense trauma? People have also pointed out how much Sherlock does for John but you seemed to have forgotten how much John has to deal with being Sherlock’s friend. He gets experimented on, is left out in all the important decisions, gets yelled at. Throughout the show until TLD, Sherlock either makes fun of John’s feelings or ignores him. Sherlock so rudely left him behind to get a taxi for himself in TST. And all that’s forgiven because he is a genius trying to solve a crime, a sociopath who doesn’t really understand emotions. Why isn’t the fandom just as understanding about John’s behavior as they are with Sherlock’s? All the criticism about John being angry at Sherlock but you ignore the reason why he is angry in the first place which is almost always at what Sherlock has done. Surely John deserves to be appreciated for standing by Sherlock through most of their friendship except after Mary died which was the only time he has ever been truly angry at him. And even then he agrees to accompany Sherlock when the latter asks him. I am not trying to put Sherlock down, I understand why Sherlock does what he does but I also think John is allowed to show his frustration with Sherlock now and then and not be villanised for it.