Jump to content
IanMichelle

What year do you think John and Sherlock met?

Recommended Posts

I'm writing some fanfiction and I'm just wondering what year you peeps think our dear boys met? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there! Glad to see you've jumped right in!

 

I think we're supposed to believe the series takes place in something like "real" time; in other words, on or near the air date -- except when they have to make up obvious gaps, like in Scandal. I've always assumed those gaps were meant to bring the narrative up closer to the air date.

 

So if I'm right ... the boys met in 2010. Although they started filming in 2009, I seem to recall (?) so that would work too.

 

Anyone else have a theory? :smile:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. It's what I imagined too.

But the makers seem to avoid any hints allowing you to estimate the exact year(s), so you can only deduce the time by the phones our boys use. :P

 

But now, thinking about it: the series have a slight feeling of being "out of its time". It could be 2000 or 2016...

 

BTW, do you know if anyone made a timeline for the whole series? (asking rhetorically because I'm sure someone somewhere did)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be too far out of its time, though, since they have smartphones with touch screens, which have been popular for, dunno, a decade or so I'd say. Also John's laptop, those things were far heavier and clunkier not too long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I have seen a timeline somewhere ... but naturally, me being me, I have no idea where. But it's out there! Maybe more than one, actually. I remember there's some -- disagreement -- on some of the (*coughHLVcough*) dates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can't be too far out of its time, though, since they have smartphones with touch screens, which have been popular for, dunno, a decade or so I'd say. Also John's laptop, those things were far heavier and clunkier not too long ago.

Yes, that's why I wrote that only the devices give away the time. But story-wise it could be anytime after smartphones became popular (because Sherlock uses them as a source of information for many times). Laptops are not really relevant, so far any computer with www connection would do (it would only take a lot of space in the scene when Sherlock is deducing the ghost dating women in TSOT :P) But to me - apart from the smartphones - the whole show has just a feel of blurry "recent".

 

Wait... in TBB Sherlock is talking about new model of watch worn by Seb. Does he say an exact date, or only "it's on the market for XX months"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea, sorry, but you made me remember another luxury item on the show - Irene Adler's phone. According to Sherlockology, it's a Vertu Constellation Quest (and hella pricey), and Vertu presented these in October 2010. So unless Irene Adler stole a prototype (which I wouldn't put past her, though) we have an earliest date of sorts for Scandal and can work backwards from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's at least one timeline: http://bakerstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Sherlock_timeline

 

And according to John's blog, they met on January 29 ... but John's blog doesn't list years, so the 2010 is assumption on the timeline's part, presumably since that's when the show aired. But I'm going with it, because I Believe in John Watson in spite of all the inconsistencies in his blog...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! There is an in-universe confirmation of the date!

 

Here's another timeline: https://swanpride2.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/sherlock-timeline/

 

And they note this:

3. The year date for the show is based on one receipt shown which marks the day Eddie van Koon died as the 22.03.2010. This  also fits with the claim that the day in question was a Monday (yes, I really looked this up, and was very pleased to discover that someone did his research) and the wrong date on Sebastian’s watch.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, we're not obsessed. Oh no, not at all... :p

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they met 2010, then Sherlock is 29 I think. If 1981 actually is when he was born that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, we're not obsessed. Oh no, not at all... :P

Hahah. xD Nope. Totally not. 

 

Hm. Good to know. Molly has a cat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how long before Sherlock met John do you think he was off drugs? I mean, before he turned into a "occasional user" instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It think it's on one of the commentaries, but Moffat or Gatiss mentioned that they originally meant Sherlock to be younger, but then decided to simply make him the same age as Benedict. Which would make Sherlock 40 this year. Although he sometimes acts 12. :p So does Ben, for that matter.... :d

 

I don't think there's much evidence he was ever anything but an occasional user. Nor is there any evidence to the contrary, so I think you're pretty free to make up any back story you like, and you'll have just as good a shot of getting it right as anyone else. :smile:

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how long before Sherlock met John do you think he was off drugs? I mean, before he turned into a "occasional user" instead.

 

I agree with Arcadia.  There's very little in-universe evidence that he was ever more than an "occasional user," although I think many would argue the point.  I tend to think he's always had it more or less under control, although intelligent minds will differ on the point.  I base my reasoning on the idea that Conan Doyle made his hero an occasional user who partook of then-legal substances, and Moftiss would probably not have deviated that much from the original template, plus just a selfish personal preference that I don't want to believe that Sherlock is struggling with addiction in every scene I watch him in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It think it's on one of the commentaries, but Moffat or Gatiss mentioned that they originally meant Sherlock to be younger, but then decided to simply make him the same age as Benedict. Which would make Sherlock 40 this year. Although he sometimes acts 12. :P So does Ben, for that matter.... :D

 

I don't think there's much evidence he was ever anything but an occasional user. Nor is there any evidence to the contrary, so I think you're pretty free to make up any back story you like, and you'll have just as good a shot of getting it right as anyone else. :smile:

 

Whew, blowing the dust off this one . .!

 

I always assumed that our pair was meeting and solving crimes 'in real time', so they met circa 2010 in Barts lab.  That would tally with John just being home from Afghanistan.  When our famous flatmates meet for the first time in Conan Doyle, Sherlock was days shy of his 27th birthday, and Watson, 18 months the elder was 28 1/2.  Even though Ben was 34 at the time, I thought it could easily have passed for a decade younger, so it fit.  Martin looked significantly over 'sunny side of 30' but, hey, he'd just come back from a war zone.  Ben in particular has aged a lot in what, 8 years, but they both work like insane people, and Ben has two kids under 4.  Takes a toll.

 

Ben looks *really* young in the unaired pilot, like 'undergraduate' young.  I'm glad they reshot it and revamped Sherlock's signature style.  SH is too contemporary and far too cuddly and approachable in their first effort.  In either version, Doctor Watson's wardrobe is unflattering but at least in the aired version, they ditched the distracting white undershirt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way, how long before Sherlock met John do you think he was off drugs? I mean, before he turned into a "occasional user" instead.

 

I agree with Arcadia.  There's very little in-universe evidence that he was ever more than an "occasional user," although I think many would argue the point.  I tend to think he's always had it more or less under control, although intelligent minds will differ on the point.  I base my reasoning on the idea that Conan Doyle made his hero an occasional user who partook of then-legal substances, and Moftiss would probably not have deviated that much from the original template, plus just a selfish personal preference that I don't want to believe that Sherlock is struggling with addiction in every scene I watch him in.

 

 

"Sometimes it's *so hard* not smoking . . ."

SH, "Sign of Three"

 

I think when we meet him, SH has weaned himself off whatever he was using (not cigarettes, something stronger) . . but the fact is, he's known to Lestrade as having that history.  ('It stops being pretend if we find anything'.)  Why would Lestrade hit upon the pretext of 'a pretend drugs bust' as a means of getting into Sherlock's home unless there was precedent?  Lestrade is not altogether joking with the 'if they find anything' part.  There is a chance in his mind, based on past history that something illicit might turn up, besides human body parts.  If SH had been a boy scout and had never touched any bad stuff, going through the motions of searching his flat for dope would have been silly.

 

 

Sherlock's past history, one way behind the occasional reccie use, is certainly well known to his brother.  An occasional user doesn't need to make an exhaustive list every time he gets high.  Perhaps the whole arrangement of consulting with Scotland Yard for free was an arrangement worked out by Mycroft--community service as it were, in lieu of a custodial sentence on a drugs charge.  Would not look good for the British government to have a sibling in the joint.

 

 Considering how quickly and completely SH slipped back into usage for the TLD, that wolf is never far from his door, like for any addict.  So I think that a newly clean again SH is now attending NA meetings, and John is going to Narc-Anon for loved ones of addicts. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In either version, Doctor Watson's wardrobe is unflattering but at least in the aired version, they ditched the distracting white undershirt.

I think John's wardrobe generally suits the character very well. The undershirt seemed appropriate for someone fresh out of the army, but yeah, I'm just as glad that it doesn't usually show anymore (we do see it again in Great Game, when he wakes up on Sarah's couch, so he does apparently still wear one).

 

The main thing that I think could be improved about his wardrobe is the color scheme. The colors are actually very nice, and go together well, but they're generally "autumn" colors, whereas I'm pretty sure that John is a "summer," and should therefore be wearing more blue. (There is some improvement in this regard and Series 3 -- maybe Mary's influence.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

By the way, how long before Sherlock met John do you think he was off drugs? I mean, before he turned into a "occasional user" instead.

 

I agree with Arcadia.  There's very little in-universe evidence that he was ever more than an "occasional user," although I think many would argue the point.  I tend to think he's always had it more or less under control, although intelligent minds will differ on the point.  I base my reasoning on the idea that Conan Doyle made his hero an occasional user who partook of then-legal substances, and Moftiss would probably not have deviated that much from the original template, plus just a selfish personal preference that I don't want to believe that Sherlock is struggling with addiction in every scene I watch him in.

 

 

"Sometimes it's *so hard* not smoking . . ."

SH, "Sign of Three"

 

I think when we meet him, SH has weaned himself off whatever he was using (not cigarettes, something stronger) . . but the fact is, he's known to Lestrade as having that history.  ('It stops being pretend if we find anything'.)  Why would Lestrade hit upon the pretext of 'a pretend drugs bust' as a means of getting into Sherlock's home unless there was precedent?  Lestrade is not altogether joking with the 'if they find anything' part.  There is a chance in his mind, based on past history that something illicit might turn up, besides human body parts.  If SH had been a boy scout and had never touched any bad stuff, going through the motions of searching his flat for dope would have been silly.

 

 

Sherlock's past history, one way behind the occasional reccie use, is certainly well known to his brother.  An occasional user doesn't need to make an exhaustive list every time he gets high.  Perhaps the whole arrangement of consulting with Scotland Yard for free was an arrangement worked out by Mycroft--community service as it were, in lieu of a custodial sentence on a drugs charge.  Would not look good for the British government to have a sibling in the joint.

 

 Considering how quickly and completely SH slipped back into usage for the TLD, that wolf is never far from his door, like for any addict.  So I think that a newly clean again SH is now attending NA meetings, and John is going to Narc-Anon for loved ones of addicts. 

 

 

I think I wrote that original post sometime after I had seen HLV, and at that time, I agreed with you that Lestrade thought that using was within the possibility for Sherlock, but that he was actually clean - the Magnussen stuff was a pleasant excuse to go back to a habit he enjoyed.

 

After TAB and TLD, I have to say I think he's a more serious user than that. I've sort of revised to thinking that he believes that this is a habit he can pick up and put down, and that everyone else is horrified because of the social stigma.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In either version, Doctor Watson's wardrobe is unflattering but at least in the aired version, they ditched the distracting white undershirt.

I think John's wardrobe generally suits the character very well. The undershirt seemed appropriate for someone fresh out of the army, but yeah, I'm just as glad that it doesn't usually show anymore (we do see it again in Great Game, when he wakes up on Sarah's couch, so he does apparently still wear one).

 

The main thing that I think could be improved about his wardrobe is the color scheme. The colors are actually very nice, and go together well, but they're generally "autumn" colors, whereas I'm pretty sure that John is a "summer," and should therefore be wearing more blue. (There is some improvement in this regard and Series 3 -- maybe Mary's influence.)

 

 

Carol,

 

I see you did your colors in the '80s, too.  I'm a Winter.  I agree that with his sandy coloring and blue eyes, MF is a Summer.  Some of their picks for John's wardrobe aren't the most flattering for MF's body type.  That olive-colored outdoor jacket with the ties, for example.  I'm torn as to what is less flattering to Martin--the lumpy oatmeal-colored sweater or the black-and-white striped pullover that looks like a convict's uniform.  The regular button-down shirts and jeans aren't bad . . though it's Marks & Sparks all the way for our skint Doctor.  Trust-fund Sherl, on the other hand, gets all his bespoke threads on Savile Row, so there's a definite disparity.

 

Watson's wardrobe is, barring a few odd choices, like the convict shirt, plain, masculine and utilitarian.  Appropriate for an ex-soldier working at an NHS clinic, down to the boat shoes.  But you're right--the colors are muddy.  In fact, I didn't realize that Martin's eyes were blue until 'Sign of Three' when he woke up in the drunk tank and was sitting in direct sunlight.  The interiors are so dark on this show, except for the St. Barts lab . . and they've got MF in such drab colors, there was nothing to bring out his eyes' natural color.  I thought his eyes were brown or hazel until the third season!  He has very nice blue eyes, but they are dark enough to not announce themselves the way Benedict's Tessaract orbs do.  I'm not sure Bendi's eyes don't actually glow in the dark, like a cat's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After TAB and TLD, I have to say I think he's a more serious user than that. I've sort of revised to thinking that he believes that this is a habit he can pick up and put down, and that everyone else is horrified because of the social stigma. 

I would like to believe that some people don't get addicted. (I know someone who's occasionally enjoying a cigar, but is not a smoker at all) If it was so, Sherlock used patches to boost his brain and not as a substitute for cigarettes.

As for the other stuff, it all depends on how much he was "lying" in TLD. He could exaggerate the side effects to make John (and everybody else) believe how bad his addiction is. That's why he was so horrified about the wrong Faith, because he thought he still had it under control. TBH, I still don't know what to think about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hikari --

 

MF's eyes do appear to be hazel of a sort, what Mom's ophthalmologist calls a "blue-hazel mix." If one puts everyone's eyes into one of only two categories, blue or brown, then they're clearly blue. But as you say, they're dark, plus they're not a pure blue.

 

Don't feel silly for not noticing sooner. My eyes are roughly the same color (I'm also a summer), and yet I initially thought his were brown.

 

I cannot *stand* that green jacket! It doesn't fit him at all gracefully, and those ties make me think of something a scarecrow would wear! But I like the oatmeal sweater, even though it really should be a different color for John. And I can take or leave his striped knit shirts. In S3 he had a blue plaid shirt that I liked.

 

Must admit though that I'm usually too distracted by what's going on to pay a lot of attention to wardrobe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the black-and-white striped pullover that looks like a convict's uniform.

Ugh, that shirt. Worst thing he wore, in my opinion.

 

The green jacket doesn't bug me so much, I actually thought it was a nice color on him. (It didn't look olive to me though; more like a grayish or muted "seafoam" green.) The fit, though, was awful, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the black-and-white striped pullover that looks like a convict's uniform.

Ugh, that shirt. Worst thing he wore, in my opinion.

 

The green jacket doesn't bug me so much, I actually thought it was a nice color on him. (It didn't look olive to me though; more like a grayish or muted "seafoam" green.) The fit, though, was awful, I agree.

 

 

The black-and-white stripey pullover is a great fan art favorite with the Tumblrs.  Somehow that garment just says, "I'm Sherlock's b*tch and I like it."  JW traditionally was a rugby player . . is that supposed to be reminiscent of a rugger jersey?  Because to me it looks more like something from the Garanimals line popular with the preschool set.

 

That green jacket also has the effect, with its ties and sacklike construction of making Martin resemble a preschooler out on a field trip.  I'm sure the costume designer didn't intentionally set out to dress him like a Hobbit, but it kind of turned out that way.

 

Shall we spare a word for Sherlock's indoor attire?  The suits and shirts are well-chosen for Sherlock, who is a Winter.  That's why he looks so smokin' in the Purple Shirt of Sex, and can carry off so much black.  His actor is a natural Autumn, our gingy Ben (with freckles) but they transform him as Sherl.   The deep blue dressing gown is a very flattering color on him.  So why did they ditch it in S3 and put him in that horrid tomato-colored red one?  And the baby-poop khaki lab coat did him no favors at all.  He should always only wear the blue dressing gown.  Or nothing would be eminently acceptable also.  ^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 278 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.