John Watson

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

The damsel in distress thing has actually been around from the beginning, at least in the form of John being kidnapped in one sense or another. It got to be kind of a cliche.

 

But at least he was, as you say, a strong character then. Things only got worse in Series 3, with John being drugged and put in a bonfire by Magnussen and tricked into "forgiving" Sherlock via a bomb threat all in one episode.

 

I found "Thatchers" to be a relief because John was once more a strong character -- even though a good bit of his refound assertiveness turns out to have been ill-advised, and (along with Sherlock's misdirected deductions) ends up getting Mary killed. By "Problem," he's back in full form as the soldier, so I have every expectation that in Series 5 and beyond, John will continue to be the man that we (and Sherlock) admired in Series 1 and 2.

 

I hate to say it, because I like Mary (and Amanda Abbington's portrayal of her), but I think the introduction of her as such a strong character was a big mistake. She ended up hijacking the show for an entire series and more, and even though she did not come between Sherlock and John as many fans had feared she would, she nevertheless undermined their relationship by (as you say) overshadowing John. So, fond as I am of Mary, I'm glad they've gotten her out of their system.

[Redbeard]

Aw, if only this was in show. 

 

 

For supposed best friends John and Sherlock never look that happy to see each other. 

 

 

Yea it's MF and BC. I found the end of it too:

 

 

These are great to see because after some of those stupid reports that their "frosty" relationship might mean no Season 5, well, I certainly don't see that here.     Whew, that's one "barrier" for Season 5 knocked down woo-hoo!

[Pseudonym]

Where was that reported anyway? I only saw a mention of something about it this morning.

[Arcadia]

What is that from? Is it faked, or is it MF and BC at the end of a good take, or what?

 

Yes, it's from the DVD extras (I think?) It was BC's last day, final take, thus the hugs. The scene is right after they run out of Rathbone Place. Although I've seen the same sequence from a different angle, maybe one of the crew posted their version to youtube, or something.

 

 

Where was that reported anyway? I only saw a mention of something about it this morning.

In tabloids.

[Pseudonym]

Definitely good this came out then. I know they are both good actors, but that doesn't come across as two men with a frosty relationship to me. If that was true they could have got away with just a handshake or nod of the head or backslap, not a full on hug. 

The note I saw mentioning them not being friends had a gif of the time BC pinched MF's butt as he was walking past, again not sure you'd do that to someone you disliked when you could get away with not having to speak to them at all.  :lol:

[Boton]

 

 

My main objection is to his slander of John Watson!

???

 

 

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.  

[Pseudonym]

I see your point about John. I remember when I first saw it I was quite shocked - we don't normally see the good guys kill someone in cold blood, I thought something would happen that meant he didn't do it, or he would just shoot him in the arm or something rather than killing him. When it happened I was surprised the writers were willing to be so ruthless right from the get-go. That said, it didn't bother me and neither did Magnussen. I wonder what it says about each of us which act of violence has disturbed us the most? The killings don't bother me, the beating does. 

[Boton]

. That said, it didn't bother me and neither did Magnussen. I wonder what it says about each of us which act of violence has disturbed us the most? The killings don't bother me, the beating does. 

 

The beating bothered me more than killing CAM, that's for darn sure.

 

I think I know what it says about me, and it's when my sense of loyalty to someone kicks in and what that loyalty means to me once it does.

 

If I could save the people I love from living with the threat of death over their heads for the rest of their (possibly shortened) lives, I'd do anything.  I'd give up my life, my freedom, and my very soul to save them. And once I love someone, no matter how angry I am at them, unless they have taken actions to hurt me, I would never hurt them.

 

If I've moved in with someone, and one police officer has told me he's a drug user and another police officer has told me he's a psychopath she believes may one day murder someone?  Well, I wouldn't live there, but, if I did, I might consent to pick up the milk and beans from the grocery.  That's about it for a while until new roomie has proven himself.

[Arcadia]

Definitely good this came out then. I know they are both good actors, but that doesn't come across as two men with a frosty relationship to me. If that was true they could have got away with just a handshake or nod of the head or backslap, not a full on hug. 

The note I saw mentioning them not being friends had a gif of the time BC pinched MF's butt as he was walking past, again not sure you'd do that to someone you disliked when you could get away with not having to speak to them at all.  :lol:

Well, I think it's true that they're not "friends", in the sense that they hang out and do stuff together outside of work. Martin confirmed that in one interview or another.

 

But that doesn't mean they don't like each other, or enjoy each other's company, when they are together. I adore the sweet lady who runs the office where I work, for example, but we've never spent more than 10 minutes in each other's company.

[Pseudonym]

Yea, I don't think they're best buddies or anything, but they don't seem to dislike each other either. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The butt-pinching episode was years ago (December of '13), so they've already filmed four more episodes since then.  It's still available on YouTube, and was clearly just a prank.  MF seemed to take it in stride (and goodness knows he may have pulled worse stunts on BC).

[Pseudonym]

Yup, they didn't say it was recent or serious, just that it was amusing. 

[Surelock]

 

 

 

My main objection is to his slander of John Watson!

???

 

 

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.  

 

 

John probably saw that the cabbie was talking to Sherlock and convincing him to take the pill. The cabbie was a manipulative guy. I wouldn't say Sherlock had complete control of the situation. I mean even after Sherlock deduced that his gun was a fake, the cabbie almost convinced Sherlock to take the pill anyway. I don't think John necessarily meant to kill the cabbie. I just think he wanted to stop him from manipulating Sherlock. I also think John used the gun shot as a sort of alarm to snap Sherlock back to reality.

 

If you disagree with John's actions then what would you have done in his situation?

[mishab]

 

 

 

My main objection is to his slander of John Watson!

???

 

 

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.

[Carol the Dabbler]

John probably saw that the cabbie was talking to Sherlock and convincing him to take the pill. The cabbie was a manipulative guy. I wouldn't say Sherlock had complete control of the situation. I mean even after Sherlock deduced that his gun was a fake, the cabbie almost convinced Sherlock to take the pill anyway. I don't think John necessarily meant to kill the cabbie. I just think he wanted to stop him from manipulating Sherlock. I also think John used the gun shot as a sort of alarm to snap Sherlock back to reality.  [emphasis added]

 

That's a good point that had never really occurred to me before.  John shot him in the shoulder, didn't he?  So he may have been going for a disabling shot, but happened to hit a major artery.  That sort of precision is tricky, considering that everybody's insides are arranged a bit differently.

 

Also, the scene was very carefully tailored so that John would not be able to reach the room in time to, say, tackle the cabbie.  He had heard certain details of four forced-suicides already, and now he could plainly see the same scenario playing out again before his eyes.  He didn't yet know Sherlock very well, so to assume that he had the situation well in hand seems hazardous (especially since he didn't know precisely how the cabbie had forced his prior victims to take the pills).  His only options were gun / no gun.  Risk killing a man who is almost certainly a serial killer, or risk Sherlock dying.  I certainly can't fault his decision.

[Arcadia]

John probably saw that the cabbie was talking to Sherlock and convincing him to take the pill. The cabbie was a manipulative guy. I wouldn't say Sherlock had complete control of the situation. I mean even after Sherlock deduced that his gun was a fake, the cabbie almost convinced Sherlock to take the pill anyway. I don't think John necessarily meant to kill the cabbie. I just think he wanted to stop him from manipulating Sherlock. I also think John used the gun shot as a sort of alarm to snap Sherlock back to reality.

 

Interestingly, (or not ) I've never seen this scene any other way than this. ^ Which shows why I'm such a perfect audience for Moffat's writing; I'm soooo gullible.......

 

I admit I was surprised the cabbie died, but more because that's a lazy plot device designed to sever loose ends than because I thought it out of character or inappropriate. It bothered me more that they had Sherlock torture the guy, but as has been pointed out several times, Sherlock has always been represented as being rather more morally questionable than John. And I immediately assumed that would be part of his character arc; learning that it's not okay to physically hurt someone, even a serial killer, just because your ego wants to know if you won a game or not. Or even to extract the name of a villain. But I'm sure some people find that okay too. In fact, my own country is having that very debate (again) right now. You can probably guess which side I'm rooting for.

[Pseudonym]

You're all for the worst kind of torture I expect - we've learnt what you're like :P

[Arcadia]

That's right ... dangle cake in front of them until they squeal, I say!!!!!!! :d

[Pseudonym]

Dastardly. That's why we're all terrified of you. 

[Boton]

 

 

John probably saw that the cabbie was talking to Sherlock and convincing him to take the pill. The cabbie was a manipulative guy. I wouldn't say Sherlock had complete control of the situation. I mean even after Sherlock deduced that his gun was a fake, the cabbie almost convinced Sherlock to take the pill anyway. I don't think John necessarily meant to kill the cabbie. I just think he wanted to stop him from manipulating Sherlock. I also think John used the gun shot as a sort of alarm to snap Sherlock back to reality.

 

If you disagree with John's actions then what would you have done in his situation?

 

 

Oh, good thoughts!

 

It's not that I think that Sherlock actually was in control of things, it's just that I don't believe that John had enough reason to assume that Sherlock wasn't in control.  Realistically, he could see Sherlock lifting something blurry, possibly a pill, to his mouth, and nothing going on below the waist because he was looking through the window.  For one thing, he really didn't know if Hope was holding a gun on Sherlock; surprising someone by shooting them has a terrible tendency to make them clench, which tends to make them shoot whatever is in their hand.

 

What would I have done?  Quite frankly, I would have let Sherlock take the stupid pill, get myself over to the other building where I could get a better vantage point on Hope, and then hope I could get the situation secured in time to administer an emetic and get the poison out of Sherlock's system.  To my knowledge, they never said what the poison was, but I think the guy (Sir Jeffrey Pattison or someone?) looked like he was writhing at the point of his death, so there is a little bit of time before the poison acts.  Most things simply can't enter the blood stream that quickly.

 

(This is all, of course, assuming that I'm so much of a badass that I can get all this done, but hey, I trust that John could.)

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I agree that this is what the scene was supposed to do.  This scene, and the Angelo's scene with John's cane, they were both supposed to show us how much the pair need each other. 

 

I'm not saying that there aren't artistic and story-telling reasons for this scene to exist.  But I'm definitely saying that I cannot view this scene as a positive revelation about John's character.  Much like many of you had to figure out a way to get past the Appledore scene and still love Sherlock, I have to get beyond this one and still find a way to like John.  And I do, really: that cute little bundle of jumpers, jam, and rage. (TM Somebody Else on the Internet)  But it will always strike me as reckless to the point of irresponsibility.

[Surelock]

 

It's not that I think that Sherlock actually was in control of things, it's just that I don't believe that John had enough reason to assume that Sherlock wasn't in control.  Realistically, he could see Sherlock lifting something blurry, possibly a pill, to his mouth, and nothing going on below the waist because he was looking through the window.  For one thing, he really didn't know if Hope was holding a gun on Sherlock; surprising someone by shooting them has a terrible tendency to make them clench, which tends to make them shoot whatever is in their hand.

 

What would I have done?  Quite frankly, I would have let Sherlock take the stupid pill, get myself over to the other building where I could get a better vantage point on Hope, and then hope I could get the situation secured in time to administer an emetic and get the poison out of Sherlock's system.  To my knowledge, they never said what the poison was, but I think the guy (Sir Jeffrey Pattison or someone?) looked like he was writhing at the point of his death, so there is a little bit of time before the poison acts.  Most things simply can't enter the blood stream that quickly.

 

(This is all, of course, assuming that I'm so much of a badass that I can get all this done, but hey, I trust that John could.)

 

I think there's enough information for John to assume that Sherlock wasn't in control.

 

Remember what John says to Sherlock at the end of the episode:

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/42853.html

 

 

JOHN: You were gonna take that damned pill, weren’t you?

(Sherlock stops and turns back to him.)

SHERLOCK: Course I wasn’t. Biding my time. Knew you’d turn up.

JOHN: No you didn’t. It’s how you get your kicks, isn’t it? You risk your life to prove you’re clever.

 

 

John already knew that Sherlock was a guy who did dangerous things to prove he was clever. He also knew the cabbie was the serial killer. He saw that the cabbie was talking to Sherlock and Sherlock was about to take a pill. What kind of pill could it be? A poisonous pill, obviously.

 

Thus John concluded that the cabbie was taking advantage of Sherlock's reckless spirit in order to manipulate Sherlock into killing himself. So John fired a shot at the cabbie to stop him. As I stated earlier, I don't think he meant to kill the cabbie but I do think he made the right call.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I was surprised the cabbie died, but more because that's a lazy plot device designed to sever loose ends than because I thought it out of character or inappropriate.

 

Of course the cabbie died -- his name was Jefferson Hope, and Moffat had read A Study in Scarlet.  :P

 

Realistically, he could see [....] nothing going on below the waist because he was looking through the window.  For one thing, he really didn't know if Hope was holding a gun on Sherlock; surprising someone by shooting them has a terrible tendency to make them clench, which tends to make them shoot whatever is in their hand.

 

Oops!  I bet you're right.  (But fortunately the worst Jeff could have done was set Sherlock on fire.  (Though John couldn't have known that.))

 

What would I have done?  Quite frankly, I would have let Sherlock take the stupid pill, get myself over to the other building where I could get a better vantage point on Hope, and then hope I could get the situation secured in time to administer an emetic and get the poison out of Sherlock's system.  To my knowledge, they never said what the poison was, but I think the guy (Sir Jeffrey Pattison or someone?) looked like he was writhing at the point of his death, so there is a little bit of time before the poison acts.  Most things simply can't enter the blood stream that quickly.

 

I've heard that there are some awfully quick-acting poisons, and also some with no known antidote.  Maybe even those can be regurgitated safely if got to quickly enough.  I don't know.  Maybe John does -- though I doubt he's a poison expert.  In short, sounds iffy to me.  And frankly, I doubt it would be John-the-soldier's immediate inclination (which is all he has time for).

 

I have to get beyond this one and still find a way to like John.  And I do, really [....]  But it will always strike me as reckless to the point of irresponsibility.

 

In other words, you're saying the scene was written by Steven Moffat? 

[Redbeard]

I am not really a huge John fan, but I am 100% with him on this one.  If I saw my friend in a room with a known serial killer and something obviously bad was going down and I had a gun?  Sorry Mr. Serial Killer that would be a shoot first and ask questions later situation!  

[Arcadia]

Dastardly. That's why we're all terrified of you.

 

And rightly so. Okay, then, my job here is done.

 

 

... I was surprised the cabbie died, but more because that's a lazy plot device designed to sever loose ends than because I thought it out of character or inappropriate.

 

Of course the cabbie died -- his name was Jefferson Hope, and Moffat had read A Study in Scarlet.  :P

 

Realistically, he could see [....] nothing going on below the waist because he was looking through the window.  For one thing, he really didn't know if Hope was holding a gun on Sherlock; surprising someone by shooting them has a terrible tendency to make them clench, which tends to make them shoot whatever is in their hand.

 

Oops!  I bet you're right.  (But fortunately the worst Jeff could have done was set Sherlock on fire.  (Though John couldn't have known that.))

 

What would I have done?  Quite frankly, I would have let Sherlock take the stupid pill, get myself over to the other building where I could get a better vantage point on Hope, and then hope I could get the situation secured in time to administer an emetic and get the poison out of Sherlock's system.  To my knowledge, they never said what the poison was, but I think the guy (Sir Jeffrey Pattison or someone?) looked like he was writhing at the point of his death, so there is a little bit of time before the poison acts.  Most things simply can't enter the blood stream that quickly.

 

I've heard that there are some awfully quick-acting poisons, and also some with no known antidote.  Maybe even those can be regurgitated safely if got to quickly enough.  I don't know.  Maybe John does -- though I doubt he's a poison expert.  In short, sounds iffy to me.  And frankly, I doubt it would be John-the-soldier's immediate inclination (which is all he has time for).

 

I have to get beyond this one and still find a way to like John.  And I do, really [....]  But it will always strike me as reckless to the point of irresponsibility.

 

In other words, you're saying the scene was written by Steven Moffat? 

 

 

Oooooh, aren't you the smarty-pants today! :D Had your Wheaties this morning, I take it? :P

 

I thought the original Hope died of his embolism, not got shot by an ex-soldier?

[Redbeard]

I see your point about John. I remember when I first saw it I was quite shocked - we don't normally see the good guys kill someone in cold blood, I thought something would happen that meant he didn't do it, or he would just shoot him in the arm or something rather than killing him. When it happened I was surprised the writers were willing to be so ruthless right from the get-go. That said, it didn't bother me and neither did Magnussen. I wonder what it says about each of us which act of violence has disturbed us the most? The killings don't bother me, the beating does. 

 

The killings didn't bother me either - in fact nothing cements a friendship more than literally having killed for each other lol.  So the Magnussen shooting brings it full circle for me.  John killed a man to protect Sherlock, Sherlock killed a man to protect John (&Mary).  Hopefully now that's even it doesn't need to happen again.  Now the beating, I would like them to address it some point in the future, even in some small way.   That was between Sherlock and John, the central relationship of the series, so it cuts deeper than random bad guy of the week.