I just started watching this show this season. After a couple of episodes I discovered I really liked it. Now I don't care if Watson and Sherlock ever get together but if they do why not? What's wrong with a little romance. Life needs it!
Love is like a friendship caught on fire.-Jeremy Taylor
As someone who would prefer Holmes and Watson retain the platonic friendship they currently have, I wonder what you think is wrong with friendship?
It's not that I am against romance, and I don't think many of the other people who feel the way I do about shipping Holmes and Watson are against romance either. Hell, given the number of Korean dramas I watch, I would say I am quite a fan of romance on screen. (As well as real life, but that's another topic.) I don't think it's an accurate conclusion that people who are against the idea of shipping the two are against romance as a whole.
I genuinely enjoy seeing two adults who are able to be close, accepting, and steadfast friends. I don't enjoy seeing the same storyline repeated ad infinitum across multiple shows based on the premise that a male and female cannot be friends. Because TV is dominated by shows that play out the same contrived storylines, a show that doesn't "go there" is a luxury for me.
Cat ξ
Once I realize the absurdity of my actions, I feel better. (Peter Handke)
I genuinely enjoy seeing two adults who are able to be close, accepting, and steadfast friends. I don't enjoy seeing the same story line repeated ad infinitum across multiple shows based on the premise that a male and female cannot be friends. Because TV is dominated by shows that play out the same contrived story lines, a show that doesn't "go there" is a luxury for me.
I just started watching this show this season. After a couple of episodes I discovered I really liked it. Now I don't care if Watson and Sherlock ever get together but if they do why not? What's wrong with a little romance. Life needs it!
The idea that an unmarried man and woman can be friends for a sustained, indefinite amount of time without falling in love (and then falling out and breaking up) is juvenile and unrealistic.
I have had friendships that have lasted several decades with both straight men and lesbians who haven't fallen in love with me, and vice versa. I'm not vain enough to think otherwise. It's also very limiting on who my friends would be. That is the juvenile and unrealistic expectation.A lot of women think that way. It is an interesting phenomena. Women always think they could have male friends and a lot think they have. It is not juvenile because a lot of grown women think that too.
Ahhh, so the guy who helped me finish the pagoda in the back yard when Spouse-Like-Person was in the hospital wasn't my friend? I know I'm not his type because I've seen the married women he hits on when he's drunk (or sober).
Cat ξ
Once I realize the absurdity of my actions, I feel better. (Peter Handke)
Ahhh, so the guy who helped me finish the pagoda in the back yard when Spouse-Like-Person was in the hospital wasn't my friend?Do you mean pergola? Anyway, no guy would help a woman that much if he did not find her at least attractive. But that does not mean he would hit on you.
Nope. It's a pagoda, complete with tile roof and dragons. π―π΅π°π·π¨π³
The friend was in it for the fry bread and beer. His type is younger and rather Scandinavian. I'm First Nations and look it.
Seriously, though, you do realize that you are arguing that men only socialize with those they find sexually attractive, don't you? Do you really think men aren't safe around women, furniture and furry woodland animals?
Cat ξ
Once I realize the absurdity of my actions, I feel better. (Peter Handke)
Do you really think men aren't safe around women, furniture and furry woodland animals?Why would I think that? I am a man. This is not the first time this subject came up. I even discussed with my friends and colleagues. Almost all women insist that they can, and almost all men think they can't. Now can't you see the answer?
No, they were not.
These are tv-shows. Tv-shows like UST, because they think it is a viewer magnet. I think that you must be an MRA. I have become increasingly able to spot 'em. They are patronizing, treat their POV as self-evident, even though it is completely false.
shareWell, to be fair, I've seen lots of people who aren't MRA's treat their POV as self evident. I have been whitesplained to by SJW's a few times, even if it doesn't reach the quantity of times I've been mansplained to.
That being said, the perspective that "all" men are unable to curb impulses to hump whatever they find handy seems silly and outside of my experience.
By listing the number of TV shows that use romantic tension as if TV illustrates reality proves my point in a way. Enough shows do this that there is a narrative value in seeing something that isn't standard operating procedures.
Cat ξ
Once I realize the absurdity of my actions, I feel better. (Peter Handke)
Are you 15 years old? You truly have no idea what you are talking about.
shareAnyway, no guy would help a woman that much if he did not find her at least attractive.
Based on what he wrote...
No guy ever think like that. Ask any guy, well, not your supposed "friend", they will all say that.
Now can't you see the answer?
Then again women always fell uncomfortable their boyfriends or husbands (if they are good looking) to socialize with other women, why would they feel uncomfortable if they really think that?(The italics are mine, but I left "fell" for "feel" alone.)
Yes, but it has sort of gone to the point that having them involved with other people, romantically, seems pointless.
They seem fine enough just hanging out with each other and what special would other possible love interests have to offer, really? The only way would be not to have them romantically involved at all or have them end up together.
They have already lived together for years and know (some) things about each other that probably no one else does, among other things. They have lived through some of the incredibly painful things together, but they have pulled through and here they are (together!). I haven't witnessed any real life man/woman friends behave that way, but to each his own.
I find it kind of baffling that the logic some posters mainly use is "they shouldn't/can't end up together because man and woman can be only friends". Why does that matter, and why should Sherlock and Joan represent that?
Why does that matter, and why should Sherlock and Joan represent that?
It is not about being nice. It is about which development would fit the characters.
shareI'm going to weigh in on this even though I haven't read every post.
Realistically, single women and men can't be best friends without there being some sort of attraction between. Whether its a physical or mental attraction, it's there. Someone always gets attached or tries to go there. If rejected, the friendship ends. It only continues until one or both are in a serious relationship.
In this show, (I haven't watched passed season 4 I think. It's been awhile) when Watson was with someone, their friendship was lacking and they were drifting apart. This is exactly what happens when people are in relationships. It's hard to keep a male as a friend when you're a female and its hard to keep a female as a friend when you are a male.
It's nice to see on a show that a female and male can just be friends, but the attraction is there between Watson and Sherlock. So when the people who made this show possible said they have no intention of getting these characters together in a romance (even the actors said they didn't want that for the show) I stopped watching. Not because I was watching it to see it happen, but because I liked the possibility that it COULD happen and if it doesn't that's fine. But being told by those that run the show that it wasn't going to ever happen, just killed the mystery and the suspense of these two characters. The cases they got bored me and I just lost interest. I liked never knowing whether they were going to get together or were never going to. It made their banter and interactions awesome to me.
I don't know why they chose to outright say that a romance wasn't going to happen, but I think a lot of people like me, were turned off by it. I think they should have kept that to themselves. If they were tired of being asked that, they should have sucked it up. But that's just me :D
You're right, and it was refreshing to read this. The idea that an unmarried man and woman can be friends for a sustained, indefinite amount of time without falling in love (and then falling out and breaking up) is juvenile and unrealistic. The notion seemed to take hold in the 90's, the most pretentious decade and arguably juvenile in the history of mankind. Unless an unmarried man and woman who are together nearly 24/7 are both mentally ill, their relationship will become sexual (i.e., romantic). To think otherwise is pompous.
Because Jamie
shareSuch interesting responses!
It seems the complaint is that it happens way too often on shows? Idk I see it in real life all the time.
For example, I have friends getting married soon who a year ago wouldn't have dated each other (for various reasons they both will admit). They were friends who knew each other a couple of years and had friends in common and they had a common interest that they participated in together for several months and then wham bam they realized they loved each other. When they announced their engagement many of their friends said they didn't even know they were dating!
I have a niece who had a male friend she described as being very close friends with and he apparently said the same thing. Then one day she ended up at my house in tears because he was being transferred for work out of state and she realized she loved him. He apparently had the same realization but wasn't willing to give up his promotion. They are still trying to work it out. For several years they insisted they were just friends.
As far as single male and single female friendship so desired to be portrayed on tv I haven't had the experience of seeing that work out too well in real life. The rare times it has it usually came after a realization by one that the other person had no interest in a romantic relationship for whatever reason. Or often once a romantic relationship occurs with one and a third party the original friendship suffered or disappeared. I know a woman who appeared to have lots of male friends that she did stuff with until she found "the one" then those male friendships withered and died.
It's nice to know the belief in romance isn't dead but interesting the context others see it occurring or not. :)
Love is like a friendship caught on fire.-Jeremy Taylor
Love is like a friendship caught on fire.-Jeremy Taylor
It seems the complaint is that it happens way too often on shows? Idk I see it in real life all the time.
i would like to see them have a baby to. babies always make shows better
sharei would like to see them have a baby to. babies always make shows better
If you want to see shows with romances and babies then maybe soap operas and sitcoms are more suitable than drama and crime series.
People who want to see sexual graphic scenes might have more luck while watching cable shows or shows created by Internet streaming providers. On a broadcast network you probably won't see much more than some movement under the bed sheets.
Where does this obsession stem from to immediately put two people who get along very well into a love relationship? Can a woman and a men not just be platonic friends? Why do they automatically have to share the bed, too?
I hope that the Elementary show runner stays strong and doesn't cave in to the pressure of some fans who want that Joan and Sherlock become a love couple.
For example, I wish that the show runners of NCIS and House MD would never have listened to a few very vocal viewers and started to go the Tiva and Huddy route because it only lead to character assassination and a drop in the average IQ level of the entire show. The Dr. Gregory House who turned himself into knots in order to please the ungrateful and hard to please Cuddy mistress wasn't the Dr. Gregory House and show anymore with who and which I fell in love with back then during season 1. I am 99,99% sure that we would have gotten a ninth season if the creators of House MD never ever made Cuddy to House's love interest and vice versa. After seeing in what a disaster it ended, even some of the formerly die-hard Huddy-shippers now wish that House and Cuddy in a love relationship never would have happened and realize that shipping Huddy (House/Cuddy) was wrong. So, be careful what you wish for if you want that Joan and Sherlock become a couple and get lots of babies. Never ever try to fix what isn't broken. I think the show Elementary is perfect the way it is.
House to Wilson about Cuddy: She is not some floozy in a bar. She is the floozy I work for.
Because some fans feel that both Sherlock and Joan want love and that they could truly find it in each other? Β Β
And because in real life, or the TV shows that don't "go there", man and woman who are just friends and get along great don't also live and work together for years, among other things?
And why would they "immediately" share a bed? This isn't season one anymore LOL
And I don't think love is nothing more than a soap opera cliche, not even in crime/mystery shows. Love was, albeit in a twisted way, pretty much the drive behind Sherlock/Moriarty arc in season one (and that season, together with that arc, seems to be regarded as the best in the series by the majority of fans).
Though, yes, it is likely that no romance will ever happen between Sherlock and Joan. It's a shame though.
As for NCIS, The Big Bang Theory (mentioned by a different poster) etc., those shows started going downhill way before the relationship/babies were introduced. Β The only exception is, probably, "House M.D.". But falling in love doesn't go against Sherlock's character. When the writing is otherwise bad, tacky topics such as romance will be badly executed and therefore the worst part. But the writing in Elementary is still pretty good. Not as good as in the first three seasons, but pretty good.
I personally find the introduction of the new characters and story arcs centered around them (a) Fiona, b) Thomas' girlfriend) to be more soap operish than Sherlock and Joan possibly ending up together.
I personally find the introduction of the new characters and story arcs centered around them (a) Fiona, b) Thomas' girlfriend) to be more soap operish than Sherlock and Joan possibly ending up together.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/why-watson-and-sherlock-wont-fall-in-love_n_4063056.html
http://nypost.com/2016/01/28/elementary-star-miller-sherlock-and-watson-wont-hook-up/
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/should-elementarys-sexy-stars-hook-up/news-story/abbbb187ee9fad626b48f887fbfec10e
House to Wilson about Cuddy: She is not some floozy in a bar. She is the floozy I work for.
^ And this specifically is what killed the show for me. I watched it because I like the attraction I thought I saw between those two. If they didn't or did get together, it wouldn't have mattered. However, it's because there was that whole mystery and kind of just thinking it COULD be possible that kept me watching. It made their cases better to watch and it made the entire show just better to watch.
But when they started putting articles out like this? They should have kept that to themselves. I feel like if they had, people like me would still be watching. And when I mean people like me, I mean people who don't care about whether or not someone gets together but like that there is something there that can be assumed even if it won't happen.
The fact that they had to tell me nothing was going to happen, just made me very uninterested and killed their dynamic.