"BBC Sherlock" articles & other miscellany

[Arcadia]

The questioner sent in a good question. Can't say I appreciate the answer, but at least it was somewhat illuminating.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm gonna take a wild guess that he knew about the question ahead of time, and had given it some thought.  Interesting answer.  So they're leaving virtually all other options open -- Sherlock could occasionally wear a fake-nose disguise, despite what they've said in the past -- but they've decided never to reveal his sexuality.  I think that's a wise choice.  The canon Holmes comes across as a rather asexual creature, basically a brain on legs, and they're choosing to stay compliant with that.  Sherlock may actually be asexual, or he may be choosing to ignore his sexuality in favor of his intellect -- we'll never know.  Of course the Sherlolly crowd and the Johnlockers will be disappointed not to see their ship come in, but on the other hand, they'll never see their respective headcanons refuted either.  Fan fiction will be free to speculate while remaining episode-compliant.

 

[gerry]

In his own writing of TLD didn't he contradict that by having John assume SHerlock has had trysts with Irene over the years and ghost Mary alluding to the posh boy/domin8trix cliche? Didn't SM or BC say they've had sex? Or is that just Moffat's way of doing an end around what he and Gatiss agreed to? Seems like he likes to flirt with Sherlock and sex like by having Janine be in a tub with Sherlock but also claim they're leaving it ambiguous. It's probably why some shippers feel toyed with.

[Arcadia]

Nope. John told Sherlock he didn't know what he was missing (basically) and Mary alluded to the cliché, but neither knew whether Sherlock and Irene had actually "done the deed" or not. It was left very much open ended.

 

BC said they had a "loving" encounter, but that could mean anything, and anyway, that's just his head canon, not Moffat's.

[gerry]

That's why I said assume. Per the transcript John asks the rhetorical question about a tryst. What's the point of putting it in the script at all unless he likes the insinuation of Sherlock and sex?

 

Also, BC did say that Sherlock and Irene had sex in Elle UK though that wasn't a serious interview.

 

(Sherlock tries to look as if he doesn’t understand the fuss as John walks closer to him, frowning.)

MARY: Oh, the posh boy loves the dominatrix! (Raising her eyes to John as she speaks) He’s never knowingly under-clichéd, is he?

.......

(Mary, now standing up straight, smiles down at Sherlock as he looks up at John silently for a moment, then nods his head.)

JOHN: I mean, how does it work?

SHERLOCK (precisely, still not meeting his eyes): How does what work?

JOHN (smiling briefly): You and The Woman.

(Sherlock closes his eyes and sighs in exasperation as John continues.)

JOHN: D’you go to a discreet Harvester sometimes? Is there a ... night of passion in High Wycombe?

 

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/90556.html

[Carol the Dabbler]

The other characters are apparently just as curious as we are. In fact, it'd be unnatural if they didn't wonder about Sherlock and Irene or Janine. So OK, they put those words in the other characters' mouths in order to make the show more believable. But Sherlock isn't answering, and we don't see or hear anything definitive, so we really haven't a clue.

 

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what BC or MF or even MG or SM say personally. As Arcadia said, that's just their headcanon. It's not official till it's in an episode.

[J.P.]

Yepp, it's what John thinks. John and his own inner Mary.

[gerry]

The other characters are apparently just as curious as we are. In fact, it'd be unnatural if they didn't wonder about Sherlock and Irene or Janine. So OK, they put those words in the other characters' mouths in order to make the show more believable.

Can't the show be believable and not imply anything about Sherlock and sex? Why is it alluded to at all if the intent is for it not to matter or never revealed one way or another? Why have Irene be a domin8trix and a sex moan ring tone to notify him and the audience of her? It seems more like Moffat's way of playing both ends, claim it's ambiguous because Sherlock doesn't say we have sex but then have other characters imply it does so he can tease his view of things.

[J.P.]

Have we had this one from last year posted?
SDCC 2016: Sherlock & A Case of Sexual Identity
http://www.withanaccent.com/2016/07/27/sherlock-a-case-of-sexual-identity/

[Arcadia]

I think so. I remember reading it, at any rate. You could really sense their frustration ... poor guys, they just wanted the show to be fun, and everyone went and started loading it down with "meaning." :D

[J.P.]

They didn't get bored, they got fed up.

[Arcadia]

I hope that's not it. They hold all the power here; if they're hurt, they would do better to rise above it.

 

Easy for me to say, though. I can't really blame them if that's why they quit.

[J.P.]

Maybe it's not really wanting to quit completely, but a longer break could let the whole drama die. Being harassed by people who claim they love your work can be exhausting.

[gerry]

I'd imagine dealing with crazy extreme fans is part of the territory and something you should know is part of the gig/industry you chose to work in. It's something they're likely highly compensated for. It would be like athletes being surprised opposing fans would heckle them during a game and be so upset about it that they stop playing the game they love because of it.

[J.P.]

Still, I find people claiming they would kill themselves pretty disturbing.

[gerry]

Of course but why would it stop you from doing your job? Unfortunately there are unstable people out there. You don't stop living your life based on what they might do. I'm sure there are stalker and delusional fans of actors/actresses as well (Sandra bullock has a stalker) but do they stop working because of them?

[Arcadia]

I'd imagine dealing with crazy extreme fans is part of the territory and something you should know is part of the gig/industry you chose to work in. It's something they're likely highly compensated for. It would be like athletes being surprised opposing fans would heckle them during a game and be so upset about it that they stop playing the game they love because of it.

Expecting it and actually dealing with it are never the same, though. I imagine that's why "setlock" was rather more limited this season than in the past ... not that the interactions with the fans were necessarily unpleasant at those, but it's just wearing to have to deal with it. So they found ways not to. Being constantly called cheats, conmen and liars is probably a lot more wearing than that.

[J.P.]

It's not even what they have been called. But you have had "official" complaints sent out to BBC and the LGBT Switchboard Mark is a chairman (methinks) received a petition to remove him from his function. Amanda received a message that could easily be seen as a death threat. This is not something you can be payed enough for.

[Arcadia]

Yes, I don't think creative people usually expect to come in for that kind of harassment just for what they've created. Mark might have expected some for being involved with a somewhat political entity.

[J.P.]

I see the Switchboard complaint as extraordinarily mean. It must have been very hurtful.

[Arcadia]

I've been visiting some of those tumblr links you posted somewhere or other, because I was pleased to see there was a place on tumblr that was positive about the show instead of constantly running it down. I was even considering signing up for an account to make them easier to follow. But now I'm noticing there seems to be a lot of sniping between them and the tjlc'ers (and why do they often write it as t*lc, do you know?) Actually, it may be more specific than that ... it might be more between the Sherlolly people and the tjlc people. Either way, it does none of them any credit. *sigh* No place is safe on tumblr. Why? :(

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe it's not really wanting to quit completely, but a longer break could let the whole drama die.

 

I doubt it.  Hopefully some of the furor would die down, though.

[Artemis]

I've been visiting some of those tumblr links you posted somewhere or other, because I was pleased to see there was a place on tumblr that was positive about the show instead of constantly running it down. I was even considering signing up for an account to make them easier to follow. But now I'm noticing there seems to be a lot of sniping between them and the tjlc'ers (and why do they often write it as t*lc, do you know?) Actually, it may be more specific than that ... it might be more between the Sherlolly people and the tjlc people. Either way, it does none of them any credit. *sigh* No place is safe on tumblr. Why? :(

 

It took me awhile, but I like Tumblr (most of the time).  I see a lot of funny and creative things on there that I don't see elsewhere.  I just try to avoid "the discourse", as I've seen it called.

 

I don't follow a lot of "Sherlock" blogs though.  I'm not into shipping at all (though I occasionally like some of the art), and I want to stay far away from the hostility happening since season 4.  Aggressive Johnlockers are what kept me away from the fandom for years in the first place.

 

I haven't seen "tjlc" written as "t*lc" yet; I'm also curious as to why that would be.

 

 

[Artemis]

Does Mark Gatiss have any Sherlock regrets? "Maybe we shouldn't have killed off Moriarty in the second season"

 

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-16/does-mark-gatiss-have-any-sherlock-regrets-maybe-we-shouldnt-have-killed-off-moriarty-in-the-second-season

 

Thoughts?  Does anyone think that Moriarty was killed off too soon?

 

 

Personally, the death of Moriarty was one of my biggest disappointments of the show.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining that they wrote it that way, and it's not that I'm a Moriarty fan or anything.  Scott's portrayal was different, and well played in that respect, but I had to get used to him.  I was a bit jarred at first by his obnoxiousness, lol.  It was a very different take on the character than the one I'd envisioned in my head (I'd envisioned his demeanor to be smoother, more like CAM's, I guess).  It grew on me though.

 

Anyway, it wasn't the actor or the storyline specifically that I missed.  It was more the idea or possibility of Moriarty; Sherlock's nemesis, equal and opposite, always there, somewhere, in the background.  One of his schemes popping up every now and then, correlating with Sherlock's cases.  Always outsmarting but never quite getting the better of each other.

 

I love that dynamic, and I felt just a bit like "Sherlock" was missing something without it.  There are always other villains, but Moriarty is *the* villain.  The iconic, the ultimate, the epitome of the criminal mastermind.  "The Napoleon of Crime."  It's always Holmes and Moriarty.  I don't think he should ever have been permanently removed from the equation.  At least leave the possibility that he could return.  I would have actually been pleased to have seen that Moriarty somehow amazingly escaped TRF alive as well, but I knew it wasn't going to happen.  Sherlock was so convinced that he was dead, and I take Sherlock's word.

 

On a more technical note, I do believe they ran into some plot problems by killing him, faintly touched on in the article (e.g. the continuing cameos).  I felt a bit with Eurus like they were trying to replace what they lost with Moriarty, but it just doesn't quite work.  You can't replace what was already the ne plus ultra, you just end up with a less good but more over-the-top version of the original (which was already over the top enough with Scott's portrayal, lol).

 

I don't know if I'm saying what I mean very well, but those are my thoughts on the matter anyway.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Oh yes, I've said from the beginning that I thought they killed him off too soon. That's the biggest problem with the way they write this show, imo; they don't plan for the future. Tsk.