John Watson

[Van Buren Supernova]

I'd love to see those interview links also, if anyone has it. But maybe in Martin Freeman thread?

 

Because John is always cuddly and nice.

[Arcadia]

I can't find them anymore either. Sorry.

[J.P.]

I'd love to see those interview links also, if anyone has it. But maybe in Martin Freeman thread?

 

Because John is always cuddly and nice.

 

Especially when having a bad day... :P

[Bluebell]

Maybe he's just pissy because all the film makers now want to cast him either as the 'cute cuddly guy' or 'average office guy' or stuff like that, and he actually would like rather to be cast as serial killer or totally evil person?

(I am currently trying to picture Martin as the Joker... :D )

 

I would say give it a chance - even George Clooney was real good as Bad Ass in 'From Dusk till dawn', which I could have never imagined because he's...well, you know, George Clooney, the guy all the chicks go for in RomComs (yuck, by the way :P ...there are a few RomComs I like, but usually it's the sort of film I avoid....). I even would say Hugh Grant could play a serial killer, see if his acting is that good, right? So why not Martin if he wants to? ;)

[Arcadia]

Or maybe he's genuinely sweet and funny and we're just no good at deciphering him when he's a half-inch high on our viewscreen. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

Or maybe he's genuinely sweet and funny and we're just no good at deciphering him when he's a half-inch high on our viewscreen. :D

Genuinely intending to be funny, I think, other than times when he's seriously objecting to something. But he has the type of humor that some perfectly intelligent people tend to take literally.

 

And yes, he's stated that he'd like to play more "scary" roles -- and looks like he's finally getting some. (I just hope he doesn't get typecast as a psychotic serial killer!)

[Arcadia]

I think most actors want to play as wide a range as possible. Just more interesting that way.

[J.P.]

Wasn't it Ben that called him an alpha male or something like that?
He surely has some leader qualities - I'm still in awe of the one outtake when he stops all people on the set from starting to laugh. Try to do this in real life.

But it might be the alpha that makes me cautious.

[Pseudonym]

I remember seeing a quote, I think it was from Gatiss, saying that if John were standing next to anyone other than Sherlock he would be the most remarkable one in any room, the one people are in awe of and gravitate towards; he's confident, charismatic, a trauma surgeon and a soldier. He's definitely an alpha male. It's only the fact he chooses to stand beside Sherlock that makes him vanish into the background. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right -- they're both alpha males, which makes for an interesting dynamic.

 

And, from the writer's point of view, John has to be a veritable paragon of Boy-Scoutish virtues, just so as not to be entirely invisible next to Sherlock.

[Pseudonym]

Not sure murdering a taxi driver counts as boy-scoutish ;)

[Arcadia]

But he did it for all the right reasons! :d

[Carol the Dabbler]

From John's point of view, it wasn't murder, he was protecting Sherlock from a serial killer. (From our point of view, he was actually protecting Sherlock from himself, but that's irrelevant for purposes of evaluating John's character.)

[Van Buren Supernova]

But he did it for all the right reasons! :d

And the cabbie wasn’t a very nice man,

and a bloody awful cabbie, you should see the route he took to get Sherlock there! :p

 

Back to John,

Well if Martin is what you guys describe, that means he is a really good actor because I don't see all that in John. Rite?

 

Not sure I buy that John is alpha though. I think he is a strong beta, and alpha only when there is no strong alpha around.

(Whisky tango foxtrot we are talking about again? :D)

[Pseudonym]

Oh the cabbie definitely deserved to die, and it perfectly set the tone of the show that they were willing to be so bold as to have John, so often portrayed as a fuddy-duddy, blustering idiot, be bold enough to kill someone. Most shows would have had him sneak in behind the cabbie and wrestle him down, or shoot him and wing him so he could face justice for his actions... it made me blink and think 'oh okay, this is something new' that John did neither of those things, didn't hesitate, just took him out. It's also refreshing that he wasn't then plagued with guilt the rest of the season (all two episodes of it, lol).

Still, I think of boy-scouts as being goodie goodies, and John is way too ruthless for that. :D

[Arcadia]

I think he's an alpha who knows how to submit to authority when it's called for. In other words, the more grown up of the two. :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

Most shows would have had him sneak in behind the cabbie and wrestle him down, or shoot him and wing him so he could face justice for his actions... it made me blink and think 'oh okay, this is something new' that John did neither of those things, didn't hesitate, just took him out. [...]

Still, I think of boy-scouts as being goodie goodies, and John is way too ruthless for that. :D

Maybe, maybe not. Please recall that tackling the cabbie wasn't exactly an option. John couldn't get to the other building in time -- but he did have a gun, so that's what he used. Also, he didn't know exactly what the situation was, so he couldn't risk leaving the cabbie the least bit functional. He did the only thing he could reasonably have done.

 

Remember, Boy Scouts are resourceful! ;)

[Pseudonym]

I'm not saying he could have done that as is, I'm saying he would have been written as doing that. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right, I see your point. Apparently they wanted to make it clear from the get-go that John is no Nigel Bruce (not that those scripts were Mr. Bruce's idea, of course).

 

Moftiss seem to delight in painting their characters into corners. John basically had to shoot the cabbie. Short of conceding defeat (in whatever her goal was -- don't think we've been told so far), Mary had to shoot Sherlock (but as gently as possible). And short of reneging on his vow, Sherlock had to shoot Magnusson.

[Arcadia]

That's like my argument for the end of HLV ... If Moftiss had wanted to use something besides a gun, they would have. But they wanted Sherlock to be a killer. They wanted John to be a killer. So they both used guns to kill. I get why in John's case; he has a "strong moral principle" and he's going to (we assume) use his power judiciously. But why they wanted "psychopath" Sherlock to be a killer is beyond me. Something to do with being dangerous, apparently. That's sooooo important to boys. :p

[Pseudonym]

'Gently' shooting  :lol:

[Pseudonym]

That's like my argument for the end of HLV ... If Moftiss had wanted to use something besides a gun, they would have. But they wanted Sherlock to be a killer. They wanted John to be a killer. So they both used guns to kill. I get why in John's case; he has a "strong moral principle" and he's going to (we assume) use his power judiciously. But why they wanted "psychopath" Sherlock to be a killer is beyond me. Something to do with being dangerous, apparently. That's sooooo important to boys. :P

 

I remember Ben saying in an interview that Sherlock had to shoot Magnussen because it showed how badly he was beaten. 

 

PS sorry for the double post 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... why they wanted "psychopath" Sherlock to be a killer is beyond me. Something to do with being dangerous, apparently. That's sooooo important to boys. :P

 

They've said numerous times that in their opinion, Dr. Watson fudged his account of Milverton's death in order to protect Holmes, that it was actually Holmes who shot him.  So Moftiss were simply being true to their head canon.  But why they interpreted the original story in that way is another question -- would you care to ask it?

[Arcadia]

 

That's like my argument for the end of HLV ... If Moftiss had wanted to use something besides a gun, they would have. But they wanted Sherlock to be a killer. They wanted John to be a killer. So they both used guns to kill. I get why in John's case; he has a "strong moral principle" and he's going to (we assume) use his power judiciously. But why they wanted "psychopath" Sherlock to be a killer is beyond me. Something to do with being dangerous, apparently. That's sooooo important to boys. :P

 

I remember Ben saying in an interview that Sherlock had to shoot Magnussen because it showed how badly he was beaten. 

 

PS sorry for the double post 

 

Yeah, but there's other ways to do that too. There's some reason why they thought it was important for Sherlock to take a life. I don't mean like a clue to next season, just some reason why that was a satisfying resolution for them. Different strokes for different folks.

[Pseudonym]

They have said it'll play into the next season and the repercussions will be addressed. I wonder exactly what repercussions though, I can't see him being traumatised by it, they're obviously not going to lock him up since 'England needs him.' Is he going to be forced into doing extra jobs for the government? Other than official punishment I don't know what sort of repercussions they might mean, especially since a lot of very important and influential people are going to be relieved Magnussen is gone. 

Any ideas?