chee wrote:Yeah, same. I'm watching it for Lucy as well. This would be interesting to see how they change it with a woman in the role, like would they still be roommates?

They bloody should be, but as you know... Friends. :modesty:

I am not a fan of this.
Not at all.

m4st4 wrote:

chee wrote:Yeah, same. I'm watching it for Lucy as well. This would be interesting to see how they change it with a woman in the role, like would they still be roommates?

They bloody should be, but as you know... Friends. :modesty:

That would just make me hate the show more, cause then it would be obvious they changed his sex/gender so Sherlock can get some pussy. Maybe case of the not-gays.

chee wrote:

m4st4 wrote:
They bloody should be, but as you know... Friends. :modesty:

That would just make me hate the show more, cause then it would be obvious they changed his sex/gender so Sherlock can get some pussy. Maybe case of the not-gays.

Oh, please. Just because they changed Watson to a female character doesn't mean they did it explicitly to make it less gay.

The whole joke of relationships like Holmes/Watson, House/Wilson, etc. isn't that they are actually gay. It's that close male friends are pretty much one step away from a dick in the mouth.

And House/Wilson pretty much has the market cornered on well-written "bromances" on television. Given, it was based on Sherlock Holmes and the show is ending, but American audiences would probably be comparing a US televised Holmes/Watson "bromance" to House/Wilson. And with the Sherlock Holmes story, it has gotten to a point where turning Watson female is actually a fresh idea.

And in the end, TV and film writers can't win anyway. If Watson remained male, all of the interwebs feminists would be bitching about a lack of female main characters and too much focus on "bromance".

No, I think its pretty obvious that CBS saw the obvious gayness between the two and were like "LOL NOPE. CAN'T HAVE GAYS ON TV. PUT A VAG ON WATSON."

chee wrote:No, I think its pretty obvious that CBS saw the obvious gayness between the two and were like "LOL NOPE. CAN'T HAVE GAYS ON TV. PUT A VAG ON WATSON."

I dunno, I don't think that's actually the case. I think they're just dumb and they think this is a clever twist on the whole Sherlock Holmes universe. They're just really uncreative and unoriginal.

TeddyBlass wrote:

chee wrote:No, I think its pretty obvious that CBS saw the obvious gayness between the two and were like "LOL NOPE. CAN'T HAVE GAYS ON TV. PUT A VAG ON WATSON."

I dunno, I don't think that's actually the case. I think they're just dumb and they think this is a clever twist on the whole Sherlock Holmes universe. They're just really uncreative and unoriginal.

Either way, I have a feeling this show is gonna suck.

chee wrote:No, I think its pretty obvious that CBS saw the obvious gayness between the two and were like "LOL NOPE. CAN'T HAVE GAYS ON TV. PUT A VAG ON WATSON."

That simply isn't the case. Because again, the whole joke behind those characters is that they aren't gay. It's pointing out how unintentionally gay a close male friendship is. How two really close dudes are essentially a married couple except for they don't fuck. If you actually make them gay it kills the joke and therefore kills much of what makes that relationship what is.

It's funny how the internet loves "just friends" depictions of a guy and a gal, and they jump down the creator's throat if he decides to have them fuck, but if it's two dudes who are close friends, then the internet is chomping at the bit for the creator to get them to fuck. Because the internet doesn't give a shit about shit making sense. They just want their characters to be fodder for porn, so long as that porn is generally not straight. Because when straight characters do it it's objectification, but when gay characters do it it's progressive and beautiful. This distinction allows the internet to feel good about itself when it is chronically fapping to fictional characters. Because it ain't the sex that made them randy, it's the sociopolitical implications of not-straight characters fucking on pop TV. Totally. Yeah!

Yeah, what if Sherlock actually is gay, but there are hetero-erotic undertones between him and Joan?

Not counting on it - just saying.

Nelson wrote:

chee wrote:No, I think its pretty obvious that CBS saw the obvious gayness between the two and were like "LOL NOPE. CAN'T HAVE GAYS ON TV. PUT A VAG ON WATSON."

That simply isn't the case. Because again, the whole joke behind those characters is that they aren't gay. It's pointing out how unintentionally gay a close male friendship is. How two really close dudes are essentially a married couple except for they don't fuck. If you actually make them gay it kills the joke and therefore kills much of what makes that relationship what is.

It's funny how the internet loves "just friends" depictions of a guy and a gal, and they jump down the creator's throat if he decides to have them fuck, but if it's two dudes who are close friends, then the internet is chomping at the bit for the creator to get them to fuck. Because the internet doesn't give a shit about shit making sense. They just want their characters to be fodder for porn, so long as that porn is generally not straight. Because when straight characters do it it's objectification, but when gay characters do it it's progressive and beautiful. This distinction allows the internet to feel good about itself when it is chronically fapping to fictional characters. Because it ain't the sex that made them randy, it's the sociopolitical implications of not-straight characters fucking on pop TV. Totally. Yeah!

I want you in a gay way.