Tell me who got married to whom, again?

I giggle every time he does that little hand swing

Not Gay, or TSOT by Steve Thompson

Late to the party, I know, but I finally read the shooting script of this episode dated 25 March 2013. And I am feeling the way Sherlock did when John asked him to be his best man. Baffled. This is from the same author who wrote the TRF script? Because it is really, really terrible not good. No wonder Mofftiss decided to re-work it and put their names to it as well. 

Sorry to say but this is not Sherlock as we know it. This is a comedy, and not a very good one at that. It lacks the quality of mixing fun and sadness, irony and subtlety. Still, it is a fascinating experience to compare what was there and what they made of it. I have no idea if I will find the time to go through the whole script (and I have no idea if anyone would be interested) but let me give you one example I have not seen discussed before.

We all know that there is a pattern of Sherlock never ever declaring his sexuality or denying that he is in a relationship with John. Sure, we have John “Not Gay” Watson, but we never get to see Sherlock “Not In A Relationship With John” Holmes. Now please have a look at this:

Just imagine they had filmed it like this. It would have destroyed so many things that come before and after - Sherlock dancing alone in 221b, Sherlock looking at the chair, Sherlock leaving the wedding. On the other hand it would not because they are not in this script. Not a single one of them. 

If they had filmed it like that there would have been no Sherlock taking drugs after the wedding (Canon!) and no tarmac scene because it would not have made any sense. Actually, they could have scrapped the whole of TAB as well. 

Sherlock clearly stating that he is not gay is something that Mofftiss avoided until the very end of S4. And the very fact that they cut this dialogue and went instead for THE SPEECH and Sherlock dancing because he had always loved it and leaving the wedding alone with his armour on is quite telling. 

(If you are interested in further comparisons, please drop me a hint.)

@ebaeschnbliah, @possiblyimbiassed​, @sagestreet​, @thepersianslipper​, @the-signs-of-two​, @raggedyblue​, @sarahthecoat​, @i-believe-n-sherlock-holmes​, @devoursjohnlock​

yikes, it's like mofftiss never let him watch the rest of the show!

You know why I think Sherlock can’t ever remember Lestrade’s first name? Because in Sherlock’s head his name is Dad. It takes a bit for kids to understand that monikers like Mom and Dad aren’t also those people’s names. After all, who’s the only other recurring character who doesn’t have a first name? Mrs. Hudson. And she is definitely Sherlock’s pseudo mother figure.

This is brilliant. During the end of TRF I thought “Moriarty has just targeted Sherlock’s symbolic father (Lestrade), symbolic mother (Mrs. Hudson), and love interest (John).”

MMMHMMMM

EMP, Planes, And What It All Means

I would like to come back again to this Twitter exchange X from February between Twitter user JP, Arwel Wyn Jones and Douglas Mackinnon:

This took place at a time when we just started to think about an Extended Mind Palace including parts of HLV. And the director of TAB himself raised a question most of the casual viewers - and some in the fandom as well - had not even considered, i.e. that all modern scenes in TAB might be Sherlock’s imagination. I never believed that the modern scenes were real. For once, I am not sure that they would mix real and imagined modern scenes. And the argument that only the last plane scene is real does not hold either because of the list. 

So we have a director telling us to question the reality of the plane scenes. But there is more because JP states: If the differences are intentional, the scenes are imagination. And Mackinnon answers: Do you really think we’d do anything unintentional? To me this is saying: Yes, they are intentional, yes, the scenes are imagination. 

So far, so good. But this leads to another point: If all the plane scenes are Sherlock’s imagination, there are two options:

I leave you to your deductions. 

Tags under the cut

Weiterlesen

Reblogging for reasons.

YEP.

TRF

I have been wondering about this sentence since 2012 because we never learn anything about the very private things that are revealed in the article. No one ever mentions them. In TEH for example John does not even know Sherlock’s parents were alive. But this is not the most curious thing about the article.

Because at this point Jim had already met Eurus. I am quite sure that Jim did not say hello, recorded the videos, and went away. Eurus must have given him something in return and I suppose it was information about his beloved adversary. Which means that Mycroft as well as Eurus told Jim all about Sherlock’s life story. 

Question: So what was in the infamous article by Kitty Riley? Neither Redbeard the dog nor Eurus, Victor Trevor, Uncle Rudi, the fire, nor anything else of importance could have been mentioned because then John and everyone else would have known about Sherlock’s past. And if Jim knew all about Sherlock, why did he not use it against him? 

The only one who tried to use information about Sherlock’s childhood is Magnussen. Think of that. 

@ebaeschnbliah, @sarahthecoat, @loveismyrevolution, @tjlcisthenewsexy

(via gosherlocked)

to me, this casts deep suspicion on all of s3-4. I take it as established, that "euros" does not exist as an actual walking talking person like sherlock or john, she is a metaphor only. The rest of s4, on top of being patently unbelievable, is further called into question every time she appears. The same way we know the graveyard scene in TAB, and everything "modern" leading to it, is fantasy, by the self propelled skeleton.

S3 looks on the surface more "real", but i remember clearly even on first viewing, how each episode fell apart like a house of cards within minutes of the credits rolling, as my friend and i turned to each other and began to question it. And, kinda like s4, the meta that makes the most sense of s3, is the stuff looking at the subtext, the mirrors, the metaphors, ie, NOT the surface reading.

So, what does this mean for that line in TRF? well, either TRF is also metaphorical, or is "real", and whatever was in that article is only represented metaphorically, if at all, by anything in s3-4.

IF at least all of s3-4 is metaphor, then "john" doesn't have to line up with john in s1-2, because he's part of what's inside sherlock's head... another avatar like "euros".

It's about time for me to watch Reb's TJLCE "what it Means" video again, but IIRC, one metaphorical way of looking at the characters is, sherlock=his true self/this telling of the story; mycroft=the writers of bbc sherlock; moriarty=past fans/sherlockians/pastiche​ writers, with their strict homophobic control on the story, including their ideas about sherlock's "life story", his history, the whole history of the character, and how they squash the queer reading any chance they get. That's majorly oversimplifying, and please watch the video (again)cos Rebs explains it way better. But to me, it lines up: "moriarty" thinks he knows holmes' "life story" and what "mycroft" has tried to keep under wraps, and wants to ruin it.

I probably haven't explained it very well.

But anyway, coming back to what is metaphorically revealed in s3-4, well, there's reams of meta, just let go of the surface reading, it is never going to make "real" sense. "moriarty" meeting "euros" is basically homophobia and repression working together, which of course they do. OR, from a different metaphorical angle, if moriarty=sherlock's id, and euros=sherlock's repressed feelings, well, yep, makes sense that they are in cahoots, and that bits of both pop out now and then, looking like something else. Repressed feelings are very good at that, hurt and fear look like anger, anger looks like depression, etc.

All these holes in his habit: John Watson's clothes in Series 3

Keep reading

John wears the same outfit in HLV when finding Sherlock on drugs and in his I’m-losing-Sherlock-to-Janine scenes that he wore during the Fall? Wow.

@shinka Do you have a list of all the times he wore that outfit? I’m curious to know where else they’ve applied this.

I think i have read something, a long time back when i was a lurker, but i probably dont have a bookmark...

the way sherlock looks at john in series three though. all that unspoken longing. 

AAAUUUUGGGHHH!