Side Effects (aka Collateral Damage) of "Sherlock"

[Hikari]

7 hours ago, gerry said:

I’m not talking about the whackadoodle fans who have lost sight of reality.  I’m talking about instances like EW asking about the lack of ILY call follow up.  LB was right... he was annoyed by the mere question and it wasn’t an out of bounds personal attack either so he bristles at reasonable questions too.  He seems to bring a lot of it on himself.

While Mark Gatiss is listed as a co-creator, and co-everything, and has worked tirelessly on his share of the program, Moffat's name is always listed first, and he always takes the lead (and uses up the lion's share of the oxygen) in their joint interviews.  Mr. Gatiss has a lot of other irons in the fire, chiefly his thriving acting career, while Moffat, who does not act, has only his behind-the-camera roles.  Where, please God, he will stay.  The upshot is, while I would love to lift some pints with Mark in the pub and enjoy being regaled with his stories, I'd run, not walk, to a far distant side of the street to avoid Moffat if I saw him coming.  Gatiss wins some points for Watsonian loyalty for sticking it through with this project, and his forays writing for Dr. Who as well.  I have a feeling that whenever a difference of opinion cropped up in the writers' room, Moffat's opinion held sway.  I have zero sympathy for whatever he brings upon  himself.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Carol the Dabbler
to remove overly personal remarks

[Hikari]

@ Carol,

Not heard 'Bendi' before?  It's quite popular over on YouTube.  I can't remember exactly where I picked it up, though it is categorically *not* because of his particularly porny schoolboy nickname, "BenidD!ck, etc."  My pal Mischief Girl and I have always used it as our pet name for him among ourselves.  I'm sure B. himself would hate it.  He prefers Ben.  So we won't tell him, eh? 

[gerry]

1 hour ago, Janyss said:

....I think Moftiss have respect for the public in the end.

I do wonder if this is true, about the public or media.

[HerlockSholmes]

Well! I feel a little like a stranger in a strange land. I never realised that fans were so vehement in their opinions.  

I’d  heard the expression ‘johnlock’ on here before but I really didn’t know that it was a serious suggestion. What have I missed? I see no suggestion of a possible relationship. Apart from jokey assumptions on the part of Mrs Hudson and the restaurant owner in ASIP what would make anyone think that a relationship was on the cards? Was this just wishful thinking on the part of some fans? This baffles me a little.

[HerlockSholmes]

I certainly don’t know enough about the reasons why there may or may not be another series. I always tended to assume that Cumberbatch was a lot younger playing Holmes than Brett, Rathbone, Cushing or Wilmer and so would maybe be more ambitious to play varied roles. I was stunned to find out today that he’s 42! I honestly thought that he was 27/28. Only slightly younger than the above actors. Brett was the oldest of the 5 to first play Holmes (at 51) Nevertheless I still think that ambition might be a factor. BC is a big star. More high profile than the other actors were that I’ve mentioned. So I’m unsure how keen he would be to take time off from Hollywood stardom and big movies for more Sherlock? I don’t think that he’s the Holmes fan that Brett and Cushing undoubtedly were? So the question is simply how much, if at all, does he love playing Sherlock? Others on here will know that much better than me.

[HerlockSholmes]

On the 11th Of April it will be 24 years since Brett’s last episode as Holmes was aired (The Cardboard Box.) Maybe it’s about time for someone to attempt another series? By that of course I mean a Victorian Holmes. I wonder what forum members would think given that the large majority are Sherlock fans rather than Holmes fans (I still find it weird to have to separate the two🙂) The only Holmes series since Brett have been the four Matt Frewer movies and the newer Russian series. I don’t know if any company would be prepared to attempt it? One issue would be expense I suppose (period costume and sets etc) The main issue for me though would be that they would be doing it in the aftermath of the Grenada series. Would writers/producers/directors etc want to be compared to that series.  Would any actor want their portrayal to judged against a man widely accepted as the finest Holmes ever?

[J.P.]

2 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

What have I missed?

A LOT my friend. A LOT! It it's worth exploring it's another question.

What I found especially bad in the case of Johnlock (and other same sex ships, aka pairings) that they are used as a… I have a problem to find a word for it… I mean that people start to identify with those pairings and think that propagating them will do good for the LGBT community. (I for my part think it's rather the opposite) It was especially visible in Sherlock's case when people demanded from Mark to play their game because he's gay. How dare he not to push the agenda?!

But we have really slipped into the Fandom… the WTF area right now.

So here is another little funny side effect. Each time I hear the word "creme brulee" I'm smiling.
Now you can try to deduce why  

[Hikari]

2 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

I certainly don’t know enough about the reasons why there may or may not be another series. I always tended to assume that Cumberbatch was a lot younger playing Holmes than Brett, Rathbone, Cushing or Wilmer and so would maybe be more ambitious to play varied roles. I was stunned to find out today that he’s 42! I honestly thought that he was 27/28. Only slightly younger than the above actors. Brett was the oldest of the 5 to first play Holmes (at 51) Nevertheless I still think that ambition might be a factor. BC is a big star. More high profile than the other actors were that I’ve mentioned. So I’m unsure how keen he would be to take time off from Hollywood stardom and big movies for more Sherlock? I don’t think that he’s the Holmes fan that Brett and Cushing undoubtedly were? So the question is simply how much, if at all, does he love playing Sherlock? Others on here will know that much better than me.

Hi, Herl,

To be absolutely precise (a Sherlockian virtue) Benedict is currently 411/2.  (b. July 19, 1976.)  Coincidentally, he shares a birthday with a certain cantankerous Know-It-All from my former cyber-home who started out keen for "Sherlock" and gradually became an anti-fan who disparaged it and BC, refusing to recognize BC as one of the most promising actors of his generation based on how much he disliked the 21st century rendition of Holmes as presented here.  He used to lord it over me quite tediously over not having read the entire Canon, but in less than a year I have surpassed him in Sherlockian scholarship, so he can dang well stuff that into his cherrywood and smoke it!

Ben was 34 when he debuted as Sherlock, and, like you, I assumed him to be in his late 20s, even though in certain views, Sherlock of the pilot episode looked possibly to still be an undergraduate.  When the cast reunited for S3 after an Hiatus that was roughly equivalent to the one in Conan Doyle, I was a bit shocked at how much he'd aged.  All that jet-setting back and forth across the globe and all that emoting one's way to multiple Oscar noms tends to take it out of a guy's skin.  Now that Ben is 411/2 and a dad of two, and has been playing Sherlock for the last 8 years, I think the time is well past for us to say that he looks a decade younger than his age.  It simply is not true any more . . he looks every bit of 411/2 . . though much more fit and with more hair than many guys his age are endowed with.  He is still, and will always be, younger than me . . unless I die prematurely, of course.

Ben is very in-demand, as you say.  He is multifaceted in his talents . . I mean, Sherlock, Shakespeare, Smaug AND Star Trek, in the same package?  He's played several brands of American & Australian.  Has certainly carved a niche in a still fairly young career as a specialist in Real People.  I'm sure he will always be grateful to Sherlock for making him an overnight star after a full decade of acting . .  but I think all the most talented actors do Get Bored doing the same role too long.  Grass does not grow under their feet.  I'm sure scheduling the time of such a busy leading man type as he now is is a nightmare.  I would have wished for more, certainly, but if Moffat & Co. feel like they've already hit all the highlights they wanted to, I suspect they are done.  Now, 10 years from now, when BC is the age JB was during his heyday, could there be a reunion at Baker Street for some of the 'mature' career of Sherlock Holmes?  We can hope for that.  Let's do.  (without holding our breath.)

[HerlockSholmes]

47 minutes ago, J.P. said:

A LOT my friend. A LOT! It it's worth exploring it's another question.

What I found especially bad in the case of Johnlock (and other same sex ships, aka pairings) that they are used as a… I have a problem to find a word for it… I mean that people start to identify with those pairings and think that propagating them will do good for the LGBT community. (I for my part think it's rather the opposite) It was especially visible in Sherlock's case when people demanded from Mark to play their game because he's gay. How dare he not to push the agenda?!

But we have really slipped into the Fandom… the WTF area right now.

So here is another little funny side effect. Each time I hear the word "creme brulee" I'm smiling.
Now you can try to deduce why  

Hi J.P.

Firstly I’m assuming that ‘creme brulee’ refers to The League Of Gentlemen?

Secondly I didn’t even know that Mark Gatiss was gay.

Thirdly I agree that I can see nothing to be gained from ‘pushing the agenda.’ Surely the LGBT community can’t think that bullying someone into a course of action because someone feels that it serves some kind of purpose can achieve anything positive? 

 

[Arcadia]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:31 AM, HerlockSholmes said:

Now that’s weird! 

Did I do something wrong?

I made the above post then edited it. When I submitted it it came up as a quote. I suppose I must have clicked quote rather than edit?

It's possible you hit the wrong button, but it's just as possible the forum software is still shaking down. I've removed the double and the follow up remark which I just quoted, just to keep the place neat.

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

On the 11th Of April it will be 24 years since Brett’s last episode as Holmes was aired (The Cardboard Box.) Maybe it’s about time for someone to attempt another series? By that of course I mean a Victorian Holmes. I wonder what forum members would think given that the large majority are Sherlock fans rather than Holmes fans (I still find it weird to have to separate the two🙂) ....

You don't have to separate the two, exactly, just be careful not to think they're identical.  It's more of an "and/or" kinda thing.  Surely the same situation has existed with prior adaptations, especially Rathbone's.

I'd be interested in seeing another Victorian adaptation (I'm assuming that you're not counting Downey's?) provided it was done well.  I must say, though, that if they can't improve on Brett, then why bother?

[Arcadia]

 

6 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Well! I feel a little like a stranger in a strange land. I never realised that fans were so vehement in their opinions.  

I’d  heard the expression ‘johnlock’ on here before but I really didn’t know that it was a serious suggestion. What have I missed? I see no suggestion of a possible relationship. Apart from jokey assumptions on the part of Mrs Hudson and the restaurant owner in ASIP what would make anyone think that a relationship was on the cards? Was this just wishful thinking on the part of some fans? This baffles me a little.

Depends on who you talk to. I don't see it any more than you do; I just see jokes being made about it. I do see two men who end up meaning a lot to each other, but that does not a romantic relationship make, imo. But it does to some people. I suspect different people have different reasons for seeing it that way; wishful thinking for some, political agendas for others, titillation, I suspect, for quite a few. And some don't have a reason other than they see the gay subtext but don't believe it's a joke. For a while there I started to think they were right, but further research convinced me otherwise. Other people's mileage may vary.

5 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

BC is a big star. More high profile than the other actors were that I’ve mentioned. So I’m unsure how keen he would be to take time off from Hollywood stardom and big movies for more Sherlock? I don’t think that he’s the Holmes fan that Brett and Cushing undoubtedly were? So the question is simply how much, if at all, does he love playing Sherlock? Others on here will know that much better than me.

Aha. That is the burning question that my brain refuses to let go of ... is the show over because BC doesn't want to do it anymore? Wahhhhh! He's said he wants to play Holmes again, but ... I don't know. I for one got - and still get - vibes that he was ready to move on. BUT ... I don't know, any more than anyone else does. It's just one of many possibilities.

5 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

On the 11th Of April it will be 24 years since Brett’s last episode as Holmes was aired (The Cardboard Box.) Maybe it’s about time for someone to attempt another series? By that of course I mean a Victorian Holmes. I wonder what forum members would think given that the large majority are Sherlock fans rather than Holmes fans (I still find it weird to have to separate the two🙂) The only Holmes series since Brett have been the four Matt Frewer movies and the newer Russian series. I don’t know if any company would be prepared to attempt it? One issue would be expense I suppose (period costume and sets etc) The main issue for me though would be that they would be doing it in the aftermath of the Grenada series. Would writers/producers/directors etc want to be compared to that series.  Would any actor want their portrayal to judged against a man widely accepted as the finest Holmes ever?

I think there would have to be some new twist in order for it to succeed, don't you? Not something as overt as setting "Sherlock" in the modern era, maybe ... but something different than faithfully adapting each story. The Guy Ritchie version seems to have done pretty well, for instance, although it's not exactly a series. And Elementary's still around, so it must be well-liked enough.

I think it's more likely that we'll see another Holmes-like detective next, though, rather than an actual Holmes. Just a hunch. Probably female and/or of color, just because that's the in thing right now.

[J.P.]

Quote

Firstly I’m assuming that ‘creme brulee’ refers to The League Of Gentlemen?

Spoilsport!

[HerlockSholmes]

50 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

You don't have to separate the two, exactly, just be careful not to think they're identical.  It's more of an "and/or" kinda thing.  Surely the same situation has existed with prior adaptations, especially Rathbone's.

I'd be interested in seeing another Victorian adaptation (I'm assuming that you're not counting Downey's?) provided it was done well.  I must say, though, that if they can't improve on Brett, then why bother?

I think that any new Holmes series would have to aim to improve on the Grenada series. Nothing wrong with aiming high though. And who knows, there maybe an actor that can improve on Brett. Obviously I can’t see it myself and I’m not at all biased😀 

[Arcadia]

Oh, I don't think anyone has to improve on Brett. Just find a different way into the character than Brett. That's the part that would make it interesting to me, I think.

I haven't seen the Grenada series in awhile, how does it hold up technically? Like, I still love the original Star Trek for its stories, but the filming techniques are undeniably last century. Could the Grenada series be updated in that way?

[HerlockSholmes]

Just to add, I’ve always thought that if a new series was ever contemplated a new Holmes would have to play Holmes and avoid the temptation to play Brett playing Holmes. By that I mean that Brett’s performance was so iconic and filled with his own eccentric touches it would be easy for an actor to fall  into that trap. Quite often you see Impressionists impersonating someone on tv but you feel that they are actually impersonating an other Impressionists impersonation. Clear as mud? 🙂 

so I tend to expect the ‘next’ Holmes to perhaps play the role a bit straighter and colder. Less Brett and more Rathbone or Wilmer.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

Oh, I don't think anyone has to improve on Brett. Just find a different way into the character than Brett. That's the part that would make it interesting to me, I think.

I haven't seen the Grenada series in awhile, how does it hold up technically? Like, I still love the original Star Trek for its stories, but the filming techniques are undeniably last century. Could the Grenada series be updated in that way?

Arcadia, I think you and Herlock simul-posted, so I doubt that he's seen yours.

My recollection is that the Grenada series had very good production values.  The original Trek set a pretty low bar for it's own updates, due to an ever-more-restrictive budget, but it's always possible to improve a bit  The Grenada look could probably be improved in the area of cinematography, for example.

[Janyss]

I would be very happy to rewatch Brett's series, and check on my feelings now I've seen Moftiss's one. That is, mainly, what put me in Sherlock Holmes's universe, some 25 years ago now. I think it should match technically...when watching the fog and the grey in London street in it, I had the feeling it was freezy cold even if the temperature outside was 30°C! So I have a great deal of hope on how it has aged!

I think Moftiss rank this series in what they consider as very faithful to the wording by ACD (too much for them, as they think that ACD himself implied suggestions even beyond his words), and frankly we can't disagree with them on the point. The screenplayers didn't bother with any kind of interpretation or subtext in any way. The series thus relies on the actors' work, on the plots, on the setting, the clothes...And I'd say it worked, in spite of all that Mark Gatiss (I think he's the main one on the point) can say about it. Doesn't mean one can't make another Victorian Sherlock, things less focused on plots, more on geopolitical situation of the time, whatever.... There's still much to be found in ACD, that's what Moftiss's work reminded of us.

 

[HerlockSholmes]

12 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Oh, I don't think anyone has to improve on Brett. Just find a different way into the character than Brett. That's the part that would make it interesting to me, I think.

I haven't seen the Grenada series in awhile, how does it hold up technically? Like, I still love the original Star Trek for its stories, but the filming techniques are undeniably last century. Could the Grenada series be updated in that way?

Again, trying to be as unbiased as a I can (whilst taking into consideration that this is my favourite tv series ever) it’s hard to see how the series could be improved upon as a whole. They certainly aimed high even though, in the latter stages, constraints took effect (cash, time and Brett’s deteriorating health etc) There was even one episode that Brett didn’t actually appear in due to ill health. Instead of waiting for him to recover they went ahead and filmed it with Mycroft being pushed front and centre. 

Theres always the possibility of a new adaptation and that adaptation will always be judged against previous ones. In the sixties, when it was aired, many felt that Douglas Wilmer was the definitive Holmes. It’s a thought but perhaps one day posters children or grandchildren might be sitting down to watch Sherlock 2050😀

[HerlockSholmes]

As for Star Trek, it’s a strange fact that I can watch and enjoy different actors playing Holmes but for me Kirk and Spock will always be Shatner and Nimoy. I can’t really appreciate others in the role. Just me I suppose🤔

[HerlockSholmes]

4 hours ago, Janyss said:

I would be very happy to rewatch Brett's series, and check on my feelings now I've seen Moftiss's one. That is, mainly, what put me in Sherlock Holmes's universe, some 25 years ago now. I think it should match technically...when watching the fog and the grey in London street in it, I had the feeling it was freezy cold even if the temperature outside was 30°C! So I have a great deal of hope on how it has aged!

I think Moftiss rank this series in what they consider as very faithful to the wording by ACD (too much for them, as they think that ACD himself implied suggestions even beyond his words), and frankly we can't disagree with them on the point. The screenplayers didn't bother with any kind of interpretation or subtext in any way. The series thus relies on the actors' work, on the plots, on the setting, the clothes...And I'd say it worked, in spite of all that Mark Gatiss (I think he's the main one on the point) can say about it. Doesn't mean one can't make another Victorian Sherlock, things less focused on plots, more on geopolitical situation of the time, whatever.... There's still much to be found in ACD, that's what Moftiss's work reminded of us.

 

Hi Janyss,

Id like to ask an open question based on the part of your quote that I’ve emboldened and underlined. Out of curiosity what does everyone feel that these implied suggestions are? 

[Hikari]

4 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Again, trying to be as unbiased as a I can (whilst taking into consideration that this is my favourite tv series ever) it’s hard to see how the series could be improved upon as a whole. They certainly aimed high even though, in the latter stages, constraints took effect (cash, time and Brett’s deteriorating health etc) There was even one episode that Brett didn’t actually appear in due to ill health. Instead of waiting for him to recover they went ahead and filmed it with Mycroft being pushed front and centre. 

Theres always the possibility of a new adaptation and that adaptation will always be judged against previous ones. In the sixties, when it was aired, many felt that Douglas Wilmer was the definitive Holmes. It’s a thought but perhaps one day posters children or grandchildren might be sitting down to watch Sherlock 2050😀

 

I will be forever grateful to my friend Mischief Girl for gifting me the complete Granada Sherlock Holmes series in a pristine (and massive) box set.  I inherited her set after she converted her entire DVD collection to digital format.  Me, I'm so old-school I still prefer the physical item.  I have watched all of them, but I sped through them pretty quickly over a year ago, and need to watch them all again, this time more slowly.  Mr. Brett remains the definitive Canonical Holmes for me.

Until I actually dug into the stories, I had the popular conception of Sherlock Holmes as cold, rational, detached, and more or less humorless.  The Holmes I encountered in Canon is mercurial, moody, sarcastic, witty, solicitous, infuriating, patriotic . . and extremely funny.  Unless he's being a total arzehat to Watson and Mrs. Hudson (often).  This man is anything but cold, detached and humorless.  He has trained himself in these skills, and eschews 'common' emotions as grit in a highly sensitive scientific instrument (ie, Himself.)  His life is a study in disciplining himself to transcend his own humanity in the interests of deduction, and when he succeeds at this, he succeeds brilliantly.  But underneath the Great Brain there is a beating heart and a mass of very human contradictions.  Or as BBC Dr. Watson put it, "the most human human being."  Sherlock Holmes does not do anything tepidly or by halves, including his human side.  Jeremy Brett captured this Sherlock Holmes--a man of great vitality, vision and eccentricity, but also of equally great negative tendencies and the profound loneliness of his singular position.  I can't not see the very human parts of Sherlock Holmes after Jeremy's portrayal.

[Janyss]

9 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Hi Janyss,

Id like to ask an open question based on the part of your quote that I’ve emboldened and underlined. Out of curiosity what does everyone feel that these implied suggestions are? 

Hi Herl,

This is about something Moffat and Gatiss said somewhere in the bonus of DVD series 3. I don't remember exactly, I'll try to rewatch, but they say somewhere that ACD MEANT something  that the "word-to-word" adaptations miss. If I remember correctly, that is about the interactions between John and Sherlock  and humour in it -but they don't suggest any romantic relationship. Moftiss have eliminated this option in their work, which is very coherent as they have chosen to depict the relationship between John and Sherlock as one of brothers by choice. By the way, how could some people blame Mark Gatiss for choosing not to depict John and Sherlock as a couple (as another post quoted)? This, JUST because he himself is gay? Makes no sense. 

To come back to the first idea: of course anyone can read much, again and again, beyond ACD's words: our writers did this much: if you focus on the way Sherlock refers to his elder in Bruce Partington, you can read "brother Mycroft" in a very neutral way. But Mark Gatiss seems to be the one who read a rivalry between the two brothers by blood in this possibly bitter-sweet expression. Some fans -may be future other Sherlocks creators, whoever knows?- can do the same on amounts of excerpts:: for instance, take these few words in which Watson describes Mycroft paying a visit to Sherlock: "at his (Mycroft's) heels came our old friend Lestrade". You have two choices here: first one, you just consider that Mycroft enters first and Lestrade second. Over. Second one, you think that may be ACD suggests something he couldn't write between the two guys in his very conservative time. Subtext. Oh God. I have a contradiction here between my literary assertions and my "lady Smallwood number one fan -or not that far- mode" :)!     

[HerlockSholmes]

Thanks for the explaination Janyss. Not having read much about this particular subject I was wondering if Gatiss had made any wild leaps of imagination. As I said earlier I’d never realised that there was a ‘movement’ who felt that Sherlock and John ( I still have to stop myself typing Holmes and Watson🙂) should be in a relationship. If I recall correctly didn’t they say that they wanted to be as faithful to the original’s as they could within a modern setting. Using the storyline to make a political/sexual statement would definitely not have fallen within that aim.

The relationship between Sherlock and his brother is one that I think they’ve handled well. Obviously they’ve read more into things than Doyle intended but it hasn’t been to the detriment of the series or to Doyle’s characters. If you’ve seen the Grenada episode ‘The Golden Prince-Nez’ there’s a scene between Holmes and Mycroft where Mycroft pulls out a small magnifying glass. Holmes observes ‘isn’t that father’s?’ ‘Yes,’ replies Mycroft. Holmes follows with ‘he gave it you you?’ I think that he then says something like ‘how ironic.’ These aren’t the exact words as I’m quoting from memory but it does speak of a definately rivalry. Im not with my books at the moment and so  to be honest I can’t recall if this scene is in the actual story or whether it was an addition. I suppose that one difference in the relationship of Holmes and Mycroft compared to that of Sherlock and Mycroft is that in the Canon Holmes fully accepts that Mycroft is his superior in observation and deduction whereas in Sherlock the level of rivalry wouldn’t allow Sherlock to admit to this. In fact Mycroft actually mocks his ‘slower’ younger brother.

I think that Gatiss is brilliant as Mycroft. I can even imagine him playing Holmes in a traditional series. There would be something of the Robert Stephens about him. Wouldn’t that be a twist🤔

[Arcadia]

For the time being I'll have to dredge this all up from memory. But between all the "behind the scenes" videos, interviews, question and answer sessions, etc.... this is what I remember:

The rivalry between the two brothers was inspired by "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes", aka TPLOSH, which the Moftisses claim to be their favorite Holmes adaptation. Gatiss also mentioned that he based it somewhat on his relationship with his own brother when they were younger.

Moftiss have always, as far as I can recall, maintained that they've only ever been poking fun at the notion that Holmes and Watson were gay, an idea which far precedes their time. The whole "they must be gay" idea seems to chiefly stem from the evolution of language and culture; some people can't imagine any other explanation for all the "my dears" and "ejaculations" in the canon, or the idea of two men living in the same dwelling.

But they brought some of it on themselves, imo, because I also remember one of the Moftisses saying they didn't know themselves whether "their" Sherlock was gay, straight, or something else when they started the show, and they remained pretty vague about it for quite awhile, until the "Johnlock conspiracy" got a bit ugly. At which point Moftiss, Cumberbatch and maybe some others stated unequivocally that this Sherlock, at least, was not gay. I'm pretty sure Moffat said he also didn't believe ACD's Holmes was meant to be gay, although that's a dimmer memory than the others; I might have made it up. At any rate, the core of the Johnlock movement refused to believe them, and got pretty bent out of shape when they didn't get the ending they wanted.

Personally, I think they've left it pretty open-ended; if you want to see Sherlock and John as a couple at the end of TFP, it's not hard to do so. If you prefer to see them as "just" friends, that's equally possible. I really don't understand what all the hullaballoo is about.