#mofatiss

BBC’s Sherlock has experienced many tonal shifts and changes to character arcs over the last four seasons. Some have been welcomed, though others have been met with negative reactions. The correlation between critical responses and these tonal changes has become more obvious throughout season four. This is that the more involved Inspector Lestrade is, the better the season is received, and the lack of this character may have caused peculiar plot lines.

Before they became internet celebrities, Sherlock and John solved cases for Lestrade’s division under the radar of the media. Lestrade was heavily involved in finding or solving the mysteries. Cases often had complexity within the group of people they dealt with, however, there were few links to characters outside of the case, excluding Moriarty’s arc. This means that the case had its own bubble of characters which didn’t pressure a link to an overarching plot. Moriarty was also used sparingly during these cases. Additionally, Sherlock and John had little or no ties to the criminals or clients.

The dynamic began to change when John’s blog began to pick up steam. This lead to more exclusive or bizarre cases as clients would directly seek the assistance of Sherlock and John rather than going to the police like they did previously. Lestrade’s involvement became limited which detached Sherlock from Scotland Yard. Lestrade in many ways grounded the story because he was one of the people who was constantly astonished by Sherlock but also close to him. This brought a relatable element to the show, which is otherwise unapproachable for the average viewer. When cases came directly to 221B Bakers Street rather than through Scotland Yard, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson became a private detective duo rather than consulting detectives. Around this point in the series, there were more negatively received changes which involved unrealistic scenarios that were not approachable for the fan base anymore.

It can be concluded from the is that Greg Lestrade is a staple to the survival of Sherlock, maybe even more so than Molly, Mrs. Hudson, or Mycroft and that his absence may be the cause of increasing number of weird and outlandish plots that have filled the last few episodes.

TL;DR

Lestrade is the glue that holds the BBC’s Sherlock together

Because in the video it’s said that Johnlockers have a bad reputation, they talk about that incident with AA and the death threat (which was appaling really) and also about how some fans disturbed a play Martin was in by screaming and catcalling (which was untrue, Martin said so himself).

And then I remembered this post made by @thecutteralicia which made an impact on me, I can’t believe it doesn’t have more notes.

In the post they talk about a skit of The League of the Gentleman, Mark Gatiss is in it and it’s about a gay couple and their friend Tish who is a “fag hag” (or flame dame), which is a term referring to straight women who are sexually attracted to gay men.

The two characters, Robert and Russell, are going through the very real and emotional event of ending their relationship. Neither the gay characters nor the situation they’re going through are played for laughs. Then Tish enters, their straight female friend, and she is the OTT ridiculous one. We laugh at her, and her behavior, but what gets me is that the audience also grows angry at her. That’s because Russell (Mark Gatiss) is still in the scene, and we see him genuinely heartbroken and crying (Mark does a brilliant job BTW). All the while, Tish just blissfully ignores her supposed friend and what he’s going through. Furthermore, she makes stupid, stereotypical comments like how jealous she is of gay guys who “get to have sex with no consequences” even though, right in front of her, Russell is devastated at losing his boyfriend. She doesn’t think anything of tossing off the comment that a friend of hers slept with Robert and doesn’t consider how that would impact Russell.

(…)

Tish makes no connection with her gay friends: even when their emotions are right in front of her face, she ignores them and their situation. They’re like pets to her, there for her own amusement, to listen to her, talk about fashion and cute guys (and probably also to make her feel so progressive) but not to have real feelings (her reaction to him crying: “Ew, what are you doing?”). At the end of the scene, when Russell finally screams at her, it’s cathartic because he’s demanding to be acknowledged and sick of being treated as less of a person by her.

Now when I watched the skit I didn’t laugh because I kept thinking is this how mofatiss see us? They called us silly and accused us of trivializing an important matter and only wanting to see two men at it.

And to top it all of I remembered this interview with Steven Moffat that he says “they’re mostly projecting onto the show themselves, but I don’t blame them for that. I think I probably watched charlie’s angels much the same way. It was much more fun that way”

You can call me crazy but that would explain why they were so abrasive and insulting to us. They just don’t know that we find it as important as they do, they don’t know that we are a bunch of queer people who want to see representation on TV as much as they do.

Now I’m not here to defend them, shame on them for not realizing how incridible we all are. I’m just trying to understand why because they could have denied johnlock in so many other ways but they chose to be abnoxious.