Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ozgood

Series 5 Rumors, Speculation, and Wish Lists

Recommended Posts

Totally agree, he's my least favorite Watson of all the Watsons I've seen.

 

Rathbone's Sherlock is much less emotive. Not sure I want to see BBC's Sherlock with that particular brand of "maturity". Much of the snark is missing too, which is what I'd really hate to see lost. Rathbone still throws out a rare one though. I've been watching some of the old films lately, and in the last one I saw there was this little quip:

 

Watson: "How did you know he wasn't a real policeman?"

Holmes: "Because he was more help than hindrance, which isn't typical of a policeman."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good post S4 Sherlock would have the new maturity with the occasional snark and some of the 'bit not good' moments that he's known for in S1 & S2 but just not as often as he had then.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope they don't make John into that Watson! He was a real buffoon.

 

I cannot imagine that they'd ever do that.  For one thing, Martin Freeman would object strenuously, and I do believe they like to keep him happy!  John might become more settled, like Edward Hardwicke's Watson in the Granada series, but that's about as far as I can imagine them taking him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think settled is the right word for Johns development. He isn't a bachelor anymore, he is a widower and father. A good constant for Sherlock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind John having a screw up moment, but it would only work if Rosie were still little, non-verbal. It would be something along the lines of her crying and John not figuring it out but Sherlock realizes what type of cry it is, corrects John in his normal Sherlock way (potentially less brash) & John hits his own forehead realizing he's been an idiot. Then we go back to chasing criminals and Sherlock berating Mycroft because he can.

 

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think that's a fair characterization ... maybe some discussions about John end with someone hoping he'll screw up, but I don't think it's that common. I think most of us want what SanaB said ... for him to be "a good constant for Sherlock."

 

I for one also like to see character development, though, and I appreciated the arc John went through in this series. (I can't say I "liked" it, because it was too sad. :smile:) We got to see a side of him that was only hinted at before, and it was dark ... but in the end he refused to surrender to it, and returned to Sherlock's side. I think he's a better man for the journey, frankly. But I agree it was harrowing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think that's a fair characterization ... maybe some discussions about John end with someone hoping he'll screw up, but I don't think it's that common. I think most of us want what SanaB said ... for him to be "a good constant for Sherlock."

 

I for one also like to see character development, though, and I appreciated the arc John went through in this series. (I can't say I "liked" it, because it was too sad. :smile:) We got to see a side of him that was only hinted at before, and it was dark ... but in the end he refused to surrender to it, and returned to Sherlock's side. I think he's a better man for the journey, frankly. But I agree it was harrowing.

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had an idea as an addendum to my original John idea. The mess up he does with the crying child is in flashback form that Sherlock brings up, John says something to the effect, "you agreed to not bring that up ever." Whereby Sherlock replies with, "But John, you learned so much after that with my help. You learned then. You'll get though this (whatever the issue is that causes the old memory to be brought up) as well. We'll learn together. I need my blogger & friend."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary definitely marginalized John in the show. That scene in HLV where Sherlock tells him it was like inevitable Mary lying could happen because John loved danger was emblematic of that. He wasn't really allowed a dignified response to anything Mary did. After she died, I didn't find him marginalized, I actually thought he was the focus in TLD (maybe not the kind of focus you would like) though Sherlock/Eurus was the focus of everything in TFP.

 

I do agree though that John may be a technical lead but generally the focus is squarely on Sherlock. Even John's wedding was more about Sherlock than anyone else. I'm not sure though if that's ever going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Moftiss says a lot of things, including that Sherlock's past doesn't matter either. But now we have a whole episode showing us just how much it does matter. So I wouldn't take any remarks about John too much to heart. They clearly have their minds on things other than Sherlock lately; if and when they ever become interested in it again, who knows where they'll go with it? Whatever they think we least expect, I bet. Sherlock Holmes on Mars, maybe. :smile:

 

I agree there's been a lot of negativity towards John, but it seems to me there's been a lot of negativity towards everyone. This group lambastes Mary, that group vilifies Moftiss, the group over there censures Eurus or Sherlock or Molly. Sort of human nature to choose sides, methinks. Not always nice, but happens a lot. Just have to muddle through the best we can, I guess. Sorry it's spoiled things for you, though. :(

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I haven't read much of the John discussion, here or elsewhere, so I don't know exactly what negativity you're referring to.  I probably haven't seen the worst of it.  But I think there are plenty of valid critiques to make about John in series 4 without it following that the critic is vilifying him.  You yourself said that John's role as a "moral center" was taken away.  Some people felt that, and felt it viscerally, and were very disappointed by his characterization this series.  Others liked it for the very same thing, feeling that it gave him more dimension or developed his character in new ways.  Still others were unaffected and simply enjoyed the unfolding of the story; or never thought he was truly a moral center in the first place.  I don't align with every perspective, but I can still understand and appreciate them.

 

John is an interesting case because he's not the title character, he is a sidekick; but he is absolutely essential.  As much as I like and relate to Sherlock, the main draw of the show for me is the friendship, not any one character individually.  There is no Sherlock Holmes without Dr. Watson.  There just isn't.  Since the stories were written, their friendship has been propounded as an ideal, and I like to see that standard upheld on-screen with relative constancy.

 

Moftiss said that in series 4, they were aiming to depict that friendship reaching its lowest of lows.  Does it make sense for the writers to want to explore that idea?  Sure it does.  Is it what I wanted to see happen, especially in that way, with violence?  Not really.  They set out to tear down and then rebuild the friendship into something unbreakable, but personally I felt that it devolved a teensy bit too far, and not quite enough time was spent on the rebuilding before moving on to the next adventure.  Some of that was due to John's characterization and how his screen time was utilized.  I would rather have seen more of the ideal; and I hope to in series 5, if we get one.  Do I begrudge the writers for what they wrote?  Absolutely not.  I had more issues with series 4 than with the previous three (primarily plot holes and the secret sister), but I love the show, and I like John, because there is no show without him in it too.  He is half of a partnership.

 

I don't think John's character (or anyone's) really needs defending, to be honest.  I understand the urge, but as invested (and often quite intelligent) viewers, sometimes it's all taken too seriously.  It's fun to debate and share viewpoints, but trying to convince anyone to abandon theirs and adopt one's own is needlessly frustrating and probably futile.  Many of those viewpoints are built upon emotional reactions evoked by the show, and series 4 was written especially to do just that.  There are rational speculations and logical answers to details, such as who said what to whom and what may have led to what and was there symbolism behind that thing; but personal taste and emotional responses aren't so open to corrections.  I'm content to have mine, and to let others keep theirs.  I don't need anyone to be right or wrong.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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. :smile:

 

John is an interesting case because he's not the title character, he is a sidekick; but he is absolutely essential.

Thank you. That's a very good way of looking at it.

 

Moftiss said that in series 4, they were aiming to depict that friendship reaching its lowest of lows. [....] They set out to tear down and then rebuild the friendship into something unbreakable

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they really say that?

 

They did in fact, if memory serves.  :smile:  I could be mistaken, all that info gets muddled sometimes; but I believe it was in a documentary interview I watched.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the charm of the show is over.

 

That's what my brother said when I asked him, although he didn't elaborate.  He was excited when I told him series 4 had aired, but apparently he didn't even watch beyond T6T.  I wonder how many other viewers feel this way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

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. :smile:

 

John is an interesting case because he's not the title character, he is a sidekick; but he is absolutely essential.

Thank you. That's a very good way of looking at it.

 

Moftiss said that in series 4, they were aiming to depict that friendship reaching its lowest of lows. [....] They set out to tear down and then rebuild the friendship into something unbreakable

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.

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the centre of the show is their friendship. It's very special and they need each other. John had always been someone who is attracted by danger. But he also tries to balance that with an ordinary, solid every-day-life. Sherlock on the opposite doesn't have a solid life. He is alone, has no family of his own. He easily looses control in weak moments and is a junkie. He needs John to stay with both feeds on the ground. Their friendship is the main issue for me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For me the charm of the show is over.

That's what my brother said when I asked him, although he didn't elaborate. He was excited when I told him series 4 had aired, but apparently he didn't even watch beyond T6T. I wonder how many other viewers feel this way.

 

I was really tempted not to watch after T6T either because I disliked HLV and T6T so much but I figured there were only two more episodes so why not stick it out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

I'd like to see more, but "some" would be fine. 

 

This is how I read "Sherlock and John show" 50% Sherlock & 50% John. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  But I wouldn't say that the show's charm is irretrievably gone -- it's just been in hiatus for a while.  What with Moftiss's talk about future episodes being about "Sherlock and John solving crimes together," I think we have good reason to hope for the rebirth of the other two ingredients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of a better place to put this...

 

I was speaking to a colleague today mostly about Dr. Who, which turned into griping about Moffat.  As we talked, I sort of came to the realization that maybe the reason S4 looks like it wrapped up so tidily for a mid- to long hiatus is that Moffat desperately needs a break. I've spent a lot of time thinking it is difficultly of booking (or working with) either BC or MF, but I'm starting to think that Moffat is burnt out right now.  Maybe a bit of a break, even if he is working on a totally different project, is what is needed for him to come back to being able to create some quality content.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pretty sure all along that BC and MF's busy schedules were largely a convenient excuse. Moffat always seems to be the one whose script isn't ready till the last minute.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not like any of them work on Sherlock during the hiatuses (hiati? :smile:) anyway, so I have a little trouble accepting that it's the workload that's the issue. Mostly I just get the impression it stopped being fun. Which is a good reason, imo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Moffat has been on top of his game for a season or more of both shows.  I think Sherlock held up better, maybe because he had Gatiss as a writing partner and he'd had ideas since he was a kid.  But it was definitely time for him to have a break.  I don't blame him; it is hard to keep creating on a consistent schedule.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

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.