doesn’t this just ruin your night

Sherlock in T.S.o.T.: “You offered to be a shoulder to cry on on at least three different occasions, which means you still feel romantically involved.“ Sherlock in T.L.D.:

HOLYYYY SHIT

OMG

Would you not?

oh for FUCKS SAKE

I never made this connection before—

Hudders knows

Surprisingly okey

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​

This is really weird stuff. He is the same author of TBB, the manual of the series, how is it possible that he has strayed so far from the rails … that by the way he had put down himself. I wonder if there is a reason (“conspiracy”) for this. The scripts were only released later. A track to follow for those who want to follow it? A look how ugly and foolish the Show could be if Sherlock wasn’t gay? Because yes, there is Sherlock’s declaration but then they fight like an old couple, but the suggestion goes beyond the subtlety and having Sherlock declare that he is not gay creates obstacles to the plot and above all to the subplot, really too big. Of course he is saying that they weren’t gay (they are not), the two of them together, this does not exclude that he is gay on is own. Like  John’s “non-gay” who doesn’t exclude bisexuality … but it sure would have worked like shit. Surely a thorough and comparative reading would be interesting!

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

I think this script and TRF one is a fake.

What the hell is a fruit machine? Is that a British term?

Edit: I just googled it. Slot machine? Also a test for homosexuality?

I learned something new, at least.

Two old paintings complete the erotic metaphor

As you know, we talk about paintings (and art in general) on this blog. (We also talk about sex quite a bit, but hopefully in not-too-crude terms for your liking.)

And you will have probably already noticed that there are two (!) paintings in the ‘Sherlock’ episode 3x02 ‘The Sign of Three’ (TSOT) that we have so far neglected to mention.

Both can be seen in the same Mycroft-on-the-treadmill scene as the giant peacock painting we discussed last time (see here: x).

One of those two paintings is displayed on the wall to the right of the knight’s armour…

… And the other one is hanging opposite this lovely (and, as we’ve already discussed, quite erotic) modest-but-not-too-modest-knight ensemble, in other words, on the opposite wall:

Let’s start with the second one and leave the first one for later.

Despite it’s relative blurriness and the fact that it’s hanging far away from us (the camera and thus the audience) on that distant wall, I am reasonably certain that it’s an Edward Ladell. Usually, his paintings are easily recognisable.

Let’s pretend that it’s this still life by Edward Ladell:

Spoiler alert: It isn’t!

I can show you a couple of other paintings by Edward Ladell that AREN’T IT either.

It’s not this one…or this one…or this one:

Are you beginning to see a pattern? 

Yes.

Dude painted the (more or less) same painting (with minor variations) over and over and over again…Yeah, he was zen like that.

I’m not even exaggerating when I say there must be hundreds of them. And that’s not even counting the copies and fakes…

In any case, I lack the energy to sift through literally hundreds of still life pictures by Edward Ladell until I somehow magically pick the right candidate. And, on the show, it’s too blurry to really make out which one EXACTLY Mycroft has hanging in his exercise room, anyway.

But what could it possibly mean? How does this pretty still life fit in with the gigantic peacock painting we’ve already discussed (x)? And what about that other painting to the right of the knight’s armour?

Find out that and hopefully much more UNDER THE CUT…

Fair warning: If you were shocked at how quickly I turned the discussion of the peacock painting into a sex joke in that other post, this post might not be suited to your tastes either. Because this will all be about sex, and probably even more openly, shockingly so. (Sorry, not sorry.:P)

Keep reading

@sagestreet I once found a pic of the same room, idk if it helps…  

That’s very plausibly the painting! Good sleuthing! I wonder if the room was chosen for the artwork, then?

ties that bind, socks that hold

Why your socks should match your tie, not your outfit

Intro: John as the body, Sherlock as the heart

After observing their attraction cues and their protests to those attractions, I wrote this post about how Sherlock is uncomfortable with his emotional attraction and how John is uncomfortable with his sexual attraction and vice versa. (x)

TIES

Watching the scene where Sherlock and John have a mock affair, at the encouragement of Mary something struck me,

The repetition of the word, ‘tie’, makes this funny.  They attempt to co-ordinate the excuses for their mock affair and fail, twice.  It’s made funnier by the fact that Sherlock attempts to recycle, ‘tie’, each time, in a different context and still fails.

Then, I thought about this show and repetition.  When something is repeated there’s always a reason.  Like, Irene saying, 'I know what he likes’, several times, this is a meaningful clue to us about what Irene’s role is on the show.

So, 'ties’.  What are, 'ties’?  They’re things that go tightly around your neck.  They can be colourful.  Formal, informal.  They can be loose, they can be tight.  They can be a noose.  Then I thought abut the saying, 'the ties that bind’, and, 'cutting off all ties’: 'ties’ are bonds, they’re attractments.

Now, once we have a theory, we can check it against other mentions of ties by Sherlock.  We know that Sherlock fears them and shuns them, literally.  And also,

In this context this association is further cemented.  This comment is against the backdrop of John being what I call, 'first lady John’, he is being incredibly supportive and attentive, like the wife of a public figure.  Furthermore, this case is about a man grateful to be reunited with his family, at last, and we have this Sherlock looking child admiringly giving him this tie pin.  This shot is evocative equally of parent lock as it is of Sherlock’s inner child.  In either possibility, Sherlock is keeping himself insular: he doesn’t do ties.

SOCKS

Then I thought that if ties were symbolic then socks could be, too.  When I thought socks I immediately thought about the Red Hot Chilli Peppers playing with nothing but socks on their penises.  And about men masturbating into a sock.  A sock is a tube.  It is phallic.  It’s a sheath.  It could have a sexual connotation.

So, a penis reference for John and a heart reference for Sherock fits with the idea that this is each of their areas of fear of attraction.

Yet, here each of them is representing them and bringing them up.

Now, if we look at the socks/tie scene again we can see that John wants to get the right, 'socks’.  And Sherlock wants to get the right, 'tie’.  In a relationship one would hope to get both, the right person for your heart and body: someone you love and want, as well.  But, we see each is concerned with a different aspect: sex and love.

Then Mary, goes with John’s idea of, 'socks’.  Why don’t you get the right socks?  Mary agrees you should pick the right person to be with sexually.  i.e. her.

(Mary takes the side of the sexual analogy because in this context she represents sex.  She is the one that John loves who has sex with him, this is her advantage as a potential mate of John’s over Sherlock.  If we theorise that John loves Sherlock even more than he loves Mary then why is he choosing Mary?  Because she will have him [Remember his proposal, ’…if you’ll have me, Mary…  Now, remember Irene saying, 'Have you ever had anyone?’, to Sherlock.  To have = sex].  Simple as that, Mary will have John, sexually, she will be in a relationship with him.  Sherlock closed that door and John went another direction.  Doesn’t make it the right choice, though.)

Now, what are the right, 'socks’, for John?  With whom should he be sexually attached?  Mary?  Or Sherlock?

Here we see John ready to marry Mary and he says that the socks should go with his outfit.  Whereas Sherlock thinks the socks should go with his tie.

OUTFIT

An outfit is the whole of one’s clothed, 'look’.  The totality of all your clothes, one’s appearance.  'Outfit’, is John’s appearance.  

If he picks socks to go with his outfit, he picks Mary.  His appearance is that of a straight man, since he’s never explicitly said he’s bi.  The sexual liaison he is choosing goes with his image.

Sherlock is saying that his socks should go with his tie.  Your penis should go with your heart.  John should be with Sherlock because he loves him more.  

I LOVE THIS. 

Also i just realised that @just-sort-of-happened‘s interpretation of tie meaning here is very clearly confirmed in one of Moffat’s doctor who episodes. In The Wedding of River Song, the doctor removes his bow tie and unfurls it to use to bind his and River’s hands together during their impromptu wedding. So tie = heart/love….bond?? Yep, definitely.

lol has anyone else seen this? i noticed the subtitle and then when i went back to listen out for is there is really clearly a woman saying jumpers fkdsjndjknfjks? i can only assume this is somebody doing a line prompt that was meant to be edited out (1:07:38ish if anyone’s interested)

Wow, yes this is real… There’s a woman’s voice as Sherlock pauses just before he says “jumpers”, but if she says “jumpers”, it is cut off or faded out. She may actually be saying “John”.

To be clear, it’s not anyone in the room, it’s a disembodied voice.

Yes!!! @lesbianlondongrammar I’ve noticed this a while back since I watch the show with subtitles on, and it really brings it to the surface! It does sound like jumpers.

Like, people who jump. 👀

I was thinking the same thing about the ambiguity of the word jumpers! I’m just struggling to really connect this to any definitive Point and it feels like it could have been a mistake but then HOW wasnt this spotted in editing?? I wish I knew who’s voice it was !

The voice comes as far away as an echo. If we stick to the coma theory it could be someone who talks about …. jumpers and this has stimulated Sherlock’s imagination, making him process this sentence that has a poor meaning, even if some of us managed to give it a sense, but let’s face it, we’re good at finding the meaning of tiny things … However it has a monotonous cadence, very similar to Eurus. Echo in mythology was a nymph who partially deprived by Juno of the voice, she could only repeat the last word heard. Echo falls in love with Narciso, but she is unable to verbalize her love. The perfect image of undspoken loves. …. why we only hear it in reference to John’s jumpers but it is still a mystery  for me ;-P

What if it’s suppose to be The Woman? His libido.

He’s just deduced “Hamish,” and shattered the glass.

His little meltdown is his libido battling his brain (Mycroft).

Not you..You! John Watson, you keep me right.

Right = alive.

Jumpers is a pun. Love/Murder metaphor.

WAKIE WAKIE!

Seven errors. Coincidence?

The Sherlock crew is rarely so lazy.

I’ve discovered a scene with seven continuity errors in a row. One might say they are merely mistakes but I’m going towards crack TJLC and say there is a reason and a meaning.

Discontinuity editing in realistic drama is traditionally considered to be incorrect. Instead of laughing at these “mistakes” I’d like to show you how discontinuity can also be used as a way to subtly deepen the story and to tell us more about the character. Pointing out the cuts will however change the way you see the scene, so think twice. Johnlock subtext guaranteed.

If you are brave enough…

Keep reading

Sherlock “shows his hand” to the audience in TSOT, but not to John. This was posted in 2015 and discusses a “continuity error” that was recently given a hilarious narration by a redditor (x). Thanks to @waitedforgarridebs for digging up the link (how do you always know where to find everything?? XD).

*Sherlock sits forward*

John says “It’s your go.”

*John sits back and spreads his legs as far as he can.*

John: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Go on what, John? Please explain 😏😏

HMM.