As soon as you strip [the trappings] away, its exactly the same, except it’s now. Then the focus immediately falls onto the eternal brilliance of Doctor Watson and Sherlock Holmes and their characters and their friendship.
so we went into Another Country like “mark gatiss has definitely seen this movie 500 times” and pretty sure i have just found the origin of the phallic horn that’s placed in front of John’s crotch in TAB
the quality of another country is really low but
is this just some kind of common british dick ornament
I entertain the thought that it was read backwards because what we are ‘shown’ is actually Sherlock’s recollection. It’s the recurring dream he tells Ella about, so the show is actually Sherlock’s ‘version’.
I have no fucking clue and I’ve come to terms with that
I still think this is a clue to missing footage. Reading it backwards or forwards shouldn’t have made a difference if what we were shown were the entire story, except to spoil the Norbury plot. And besides the E storyline, the episode we saw actually suffers from being too straightforward: on the surface, it’s action-driven, without much nuance.
I’m still leaning towards John having been shot at the end of TST; if they started with the shooting, then seeing the cover-up story unfold afterwards would make more sense. We only got to see it forwards, with no reveal at the end; that’s exactly why it made no sense to us.
Also, they may have had to explain the structure of the entire 4th series at that readthrough.
The actors get the scripts beforehand, and read them at home. If they were suddenly asked to read them backwards at the table reading, that indicates to me that the content and context were different from what was on the pages they received initially.
I interpreted Mark to mean that they did the week backwards, that they started filming before they had the read-through. That was what was backwards. No?
I think they really read just the script backwards. Filming 1st without a read through is unheard of, especially for Sherlock. Sources:
Doctor Who writer uncomfortable with historical “inaccuracy”, that in itself is a joke. In other news Mark Gatiss remains a racist piece of trash.
His stans will make all kinds of foolish excuses for this
my god he is a piece of garbage
“PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION In 1964 the release of the film Zulu, starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine, and in 1965 the publication of the book The Washing of the Spears, written by Donald Morris, generated a popular interest in the Anglo-Zulu War which has endured to the present day. Numerous books and television documentaries have appeared, and at the time of the centenary another movie, Zulu Dawn. By this time the Anglo-Zulu War is probably the best known of Queen Victoria’s small wars of empire. Zulu has attained iconic status. The Journal of the Anglo-Zulu War Historical Society is in its seventeenth year…The war was short – just eight months long – and the course of it was simple: British invasion, defeat, invasion again, victory (and the reverse, of course, for the Zulu). There were half a dozen short, pitched battles, and a dozen or so attractive or intriguing personalities to reckon with. It was a case of imperialism (or colonialism) against an indigenous people defending their independence, Europe against Africa, white against black. The average reader easily grasps the outline and main features and then fits in the dramatic details. Yet in all the literature on the war simplification has resulted in an omission. The war was not simply one of white against black, colonial against native. Over half of the fighting men in the invading British army were blacks from the Colony of Natal, and they served the Queen willingly. They have not fared well at the hands of popular or scholarly writers.” X
What in God’s name is wrong with Mark Gatiss? Does he ONLY know about the history of horror films, because he already just proved how little he actually knows or respects ACD, now THIS?
a couple of months ago i was reading this book for my lgbt+ american history and literature class called The Beautiful Room is Empty by Edmund White, which is a semi-autobiographical book about a gay man growing up in the 50s and 60s (and it’s also really really good). but as i was trying to read it in peace i stumbled upon this line that just stopped me because i knew it, and i just sat there like ‘what the fuck’ before realizing why i recognized it:
“But for me, the tuxedos (which depersonalize waiters and lend distinction to friends)…”
here’s the paragraph in full
and i realized that it’s almost identical to one of sherlock’s lines in the empty hearse
and i was like oh my god MARK and it was bothering me for months because i researched it to see if maybe both sources were referencing something else altogether but i couldn’t find anything. and so finally this past sunday at the sherlocked con, i was like ‘shit i never asked mark about that book’ and i looked over and there was no one in line for an autograph from him so i went over and asked the woman next to him if i could take a few minutes to ask him a question
and she said yes and so i started telling him this whole story and it was really sweet because when i asked him if he’d read the book he was like “of course i have :)” like genuinely happy to be talking about this book and possibly to realize what i was bringing up
and i told him about how i’d recognized it and realized what it was and i was about to say ‘because it’s in the empty hearse!’ and he cut me off and said ‘it’s the line about the waiter’ and i was like ‘!!! yeah!’ and he started reciting the line with me like. saying it right behind him and i got so excited to have that finally answered, because i mean he just straight up told me that he referenced THAT quote in THAT SCENE
so um. he Did That thanks for coming to my talk
@fleurdebee: Very interesting choice of quote indeed (and I am glad you got the chance to ask Mark in person).
“… permitted me for two minutes on a stretch to imagine we were a club of lovers…”
MARK DID THAT!!!
And… that’s here though…. (why aren’t they just fucking tell the truth about their intentions … its annoying by times 😣)
But it was all a joke, right? They never intended to go there, obviously. Smh. I hate them.
I absolutely feel you, @totally-sherwholocked!!! A (silly) part of me is still like “something must have gone wrong and they must have been unable to do it so they said fuck it all to hell we’ll just mess it up” (because things like this reference aren’t just…. obvious gay jokes? You have to KNOW this book to get it and that’d be a really… obscure gay joke?) but when I see their hostility to Johnlockers and fans generally and basically all the things they messed up with s4 blah blah blah, I totally feel you. I wish it’s be the former case but it absolutely isn’t… fucking sigh. I hate this.
As far as I’m concerned, I still go with the former, because there’s too much evidence pointing to canon Johnlock being their goal. (I mean… not just the writing and references to other books/romance movies, but again, the acting, the editing, the lighting, the music… EVERYTHING from A to Z!)
But if they really didn’t intend to go there as they claim, it means two things: 1) MASSIVE, high-level (and OBSCURE, as you said!) queerbaiting; 2) they know they fucked up and did bad, so they’re trying to cover their arses and gaslight the fuck out of their audience, because they’re cowards and horrible people.
Well as for possibility 1), why the fuck would you go for obscure queerbaiting??? I mean, I don’t know why anyone’d go for queerbaiting at all, but let’s assume you’re that piece of shit who just… wants to, for whatever reason. Is that pettiness? Is that arrogance? Is that trolling on every conceivable level? So even if the hardcore fans who, despite being hurt, still want a bit of a puzzle, they’ll get burnt even on such a microscopic level? Because let’s face it, no one else ever would have caught that particular reference; we’re just lucky our group of people are mostly LGBT+ nerds of the highest order; we come in all varieties and of different backgrounds, so nerd a can write about the cinematography queering Sherlock, the other catches the music choices etc… and the lit nerds catch gems like this one up there. So, like… why? Why????
As for 2)—I’ve wondered about that before, too. I mostly try not to care anymore what they did or didn’t plan to do… yet the fact remains that there are too many things to dismiss it as coincidence (confirming #1), but when coupled with their hostily at the con towards fans or Johnlockers (… or whomever that isn’t themselves lmao) or their general arrogance… that doesn’t make sense either? I mean, if something went wrong and they couldn’t do it anymore the way they wanted to, wouldn’t I be sympathetic towards my audience who’d wanted the same? Why turn spiteful and hateful? And if they realised that their particular brand of queer Sherlock was a mistake–a careless mistake? a subconscious mistake? (I’m still behind the idea they’re subconsciously shipping ACD’s Holmes/Watson as couple and just… are too anti queer readings they don’t even realise it)–if they realised this, still, why, again, turn spiteful and hateful and resentful and negative towards your fans instead of a sincere apology??? Why the distaste? Why “I don’t need fans; I’m a fan myself”? What the hell?
I don’t believe that the queer subtext and even TEXT in BBC Sherlock was an accident. I think they knew they were putting it in, but it was
meant to stay at the subsonic, wink and a nudge level that these gentlemen from
the 20th century were used to. People who grew up under Thatcher
where it was illegal to discuss homosexuality in schools knew the benefit of
coding, shared lingo – the secret hand shake that queer people passed around to
survive under the radar of mainstream culture.
To face a 21st century audience that suddenly is
not only free to admit their queerness but start demanding representation in
media must have BLOWN THESE MEN’S MIND. What? WOT? You aren’t supposed to talk
about these things OUT LOUD.
It would be disingenuous of us to say that homophobia is
dead, in fact much of the queer persecution that seems to be ramping up as
neo-conservatives step up to power around the globe nearly BEGS for more
positive representation as push back. I can’t say if Mark Gatiss would be harassed
for being the man who turned Holmes and Watson gay, but I can’t believe he
wouldn’t hear something from angry dude bro Holmesians. You know he would, and
this is Mark’s home, his life. Being gay in a hetero world is a corner he’s
carved out for himself through some very rocky growing-up years. People might
be angry at Moffat for making Homes and Watson kiss, but I’m sure the backlash
to Moffat, the gay man in the writing duo could be INTENSE.
As it is, they made a jumbled, dream-like fourth series, and
many viewers are disgruntled, and a small segment of angry invested fans are
furious sending ugly twitter messages and haranguing the BBC, but NO ONE has
attacked him or his lovely husband, Ian Hallard on the street. No one has
camped outside their house or damaged their cars. They might have gotten bad
press and lackluster ratings, but he’s not afraid for his safety.
I can’t profess to know the motivations or the pressures
that Moffat and Gatiss face in making Sherlock, but I’m sure they are layered
and complex. I try to have some compassion for them even if I am not happy with
where they took my favorite show.
Alright guys, I asked Mark and Steven about Garridebs!
Mark, very sincerely and personably (make of that what you will), agreed with me about the moment’s emotional importance, and expressed that he had really hoped to include the scene. He said that they (I can’t remember his wording exactly) either tried it or he ran through some possible scenarios and it wouldn’t have fit anywhere (this depends on the different opinions of “was Johnlock intended to be fulfilled or not”). He mentioned the writing phenomenon of “kill your babies” when saying how much he wanted to do the scene. He even called it “throttle the nursery” because it was such a big blow to him.
Steven said that there have been plenty of scenes where Sherlock and John’s care for each other has been shown (his exact emphatic words were “yes yes they would just say wow this is my favorite person!”) and so the Garridebs scene would not be a revelation of that care, as it was in the novels in Victorian times. He said the moment itself is “a retelling of The Red Headed League, but not as good”. I could tell that this is a question he’s been asked before or has thought on a lot, because he delivered the answer very straightforward and with an air of, he’s tired of explaining this and finds it very obvious.
So, interpret all this however you want, I mean shit I still have my strong opinions in this. But I’m just very glad to have been able to ask them both, and in a more private and informal setting, and actually get answers.
I just met Mark Gatiss and I showed him my Sherlock tattoo and he touched his heart and awwwed and shoot my hand and his hand was warm and firm and then he tried to read my skirt to figure out which Sherlock Holmes story it was from and he couldn’t figure it out but he said it’s “definitely from the Adventures of” and then I asked him who his favorite character to write is and he said “Sherlock, of course” and I said “of course, he’s your brother” and he said “of course, he’s my brother!” But loud and snippy like Mycroft and it gave me life
First day of Sherlocked LA, and lots of interesting tidbits! Got to do one of those meet and greet over wine deals, where we got to ask questions. I asked Mark if he was going for an “unreliable narrator” thing with the set things changing within episodes, e.g. The 221 hallway light. He was surprised and said he hadn’t noticed it, and no it was just a mistake. He said any differences were just mistakes. Someone asked him about the lighting if the skull picture, and he said it was a lightbox behind the pic, and that in some scenes it was just too bright so they dimmed it in post. So absolutely no meaning behind it, and he seemed quite sincere about that and even commented that people read too much into things like that, and that they don’t aim for that (meaning subtle meta meanings). Later I brought the same thing up to Arwen, and he said one of the lights had gotten broken and they couldn’t find an identical one, so they just threw a similar one up. Then he explained that there were 2 sets for the stairs, split by the landing, so that’s why you see both different lights in the same scene. Really kind of sad about all the meta we make up that is absolutely not there at all.
The saddest thing is that they don’t care about continuity at all? I mean meta or not, even if you don’t hide stuff in your background PLEASE make it look coherent and the same set even if it isn’t. Good lord.
Remember the comment Moffat made about “Hell mend you” if you didn’t catch the clues in Series Three? Remember him repeating Sherlock’s line “You see but you do not observe” when asked about possible hints or holes?
EVERY TIME, and I do mean every time, a new meta piece was highly circulated, it hurt my heart. I stopped reading meta, and I stopped believing in anything like tj*c very soon after S3.
That’s not because I thought the theories were impossible, but because I suspected Mofftiss were either cowards or not as talented as we thought, or both.
Remember, this was a detective show about the powers of acute observation.
You don’t produce sloppy continuity mistakes like that in this kind of show, just as you don’t have characters using 21st century slang or showing obvious Velcro closures in Downton Abbey.
And it may have started as their own little AU fanfic, but is became a very well-paid, long-term, highly-promoted source of income for a lot of people at a major television network.
Can’t find that prop lamp again? You have TWO YEARS between each series – you could MAKE one that looks enough like it to be passable.
Can’t find your way out of the corner you’ve written yourself into into? GET AN OUTSIDE OPINION OR THREE.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 