Sherlock Holmes Sequel Threatened by "Homoerotic Subtext"

[The_Splatterer]

Guy love... i mean how is it 'Black Humor'? One: he was just playing about with a possible perspective that can be taken and Two: Who are you to say that perspective is wrong? Films are about interpretation, that's why something as old as Sherlock Holmes can be re-made like this, the film is COMPLETELY different to the standard Holmes we normally see in pop culture and such, but we are crossing the line when we talk about a 'homoerotic subtext'? Why?

 

[IanBrazen]

I think goofy and the captain express my opinion.

Why in this day and age can we not show two men having a close brother-like relationship without someone saying "they must be gay!"
Is our society so shallow and homophobic that we cannot show two men being friends unless it is accompanied with Grunts and shows of manliness.
First it Frodo and Sam, now its Holmes and Watson.
GROW UP!

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Turk and JD aren't gay. House and Wilson aren't gay. Thus Holmes and Watson aren't gay.

Edit: Though sometimes I'm on the rails about House and Wilson.

 

[IanBrazen]

Turk and JD aren't gay. House and Wilson aren't gay. Thus Holmes and Watson aren't gay.

Edit: Though sometimes I'm on the rails about House and Wilson.

Turk and JD would be gay...if they weren't straight.

 

[RagnorakTres]

Seriously? I'm a huge fan of the books and won't see this movie because it looks to treat them pretty lightly. So it's okay that Downey can make Holmes a brawler when in canon he was a pacifist, but inserting gay subtext (some of which might already be there if you talk to some literary scholars) crosses the line?

*facepalm*

Agreed, sir, and said far more eloquently than I could manage without hours of contemplation.

 

[Standby]

...
whats wrong with homosexuality?

if someone answers taboo, i will facepalm. Its not taboo, its a way of life that some people choose to live. im sure pro-gay activists (such as myself) are getting pissed over this.

Nothing wrong, it's just a total non-sequator for the character. What if they had a black Holmes? People wouldn't cry foul because they hate blacks, they'd cry foul because Holmes just isn't.

The better question here is why make him gay? If you're changing a character that much just make a new one.

Isn't the new Karate Kid remake starring a black kid? Or does it not matter because the original was a film and not a book?

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

Ye F this! Leave Sherlock the F alone! Changing some lil things about the character is ok. After all it is cinema but his whole personality thats going too far. If he was gay in ithe book sure. . . . althou i wonder if the series would have been a success back in the day should he n watson kiss from time to time

 

[Ancientgamer]

...
whats wrong with homosexuality?

if someone answers taboo, i will facepalm. Its not taboo, its a way of life that some people choose to live. im sure pro-gay activists (such as myself) are getting pissed over this.

Nothing wrong, it's just a total non-sequator for the character. What if they had a black Holmes? People wouldn't cry foul because they hate blacks, they'd cry foul because Holmes just isn't.

The better question here is why make him gay? If you're changing a character that much just make a new one.

Isn't the new Karate Kid remake starring a black kid? Or does it not matter because the original was a film and not a book?

It's a completely different continuity. The only thing relating to the old karate kid is the thematic elements and Mr. Miyagi.

 

[Worsle]

And how does not wanting your favorite detective tale characters to be completely different in the movie compared to how they were in the book make you a homophobic person?

How is changing the sexual preference of a character making them completely different? Holmes is not defined by his sexual preference, it might make for a fun subject to talk about but it is not what defines him. So yes there is some thing homophobic because you seem to assume that what gender you prefer is some sort of all defining change that would leave the character nothing like the books.

Patrick Stewart played a white Othello trying to integrate into a black society.

Just sayin'.



Also dammit, Holmes-on-Watson slash? That's what the INTERNET is for!

Rewriting old stories with a contemporary twist has a long, long history but that version sounds like it could have been interesting. Also should there not be some sort of name for the paring like Holmson or Wolmes? I don't really want to look it up though as I am sure what ever immages that come with it will haunt my dreams.

 

[mrhappyface]

Really? I thought that there would be more of a problem concerning cocaine than homosexuality.

 

[SpaceSpork]

Seriously? I'm a huge fan of the books and won't see this movie because it looks to treat them pretty lightly. So it's okay that Downey can make Holmes a brawler when in canon he was a passifist, but inserting gay subtext (some of which might already be there if you talk to some literary scholars) crosses the line?

*facepalm*

This. Although, I was okay with the brawlin' part.
Obviously, this Plunket is a homophobe.

 

[Heathrow]

Seriously? I'm a huge fan of the books and won't see this movie because it looks to treat them pretty lightly. So it's okay that Downey can make Holmes a brawler when in canon he was a passifist, but inserting gay subtext (some of which might already be there if you talk to some literary scholars) crosses the line?

*facepalm*

I'm amused by the popular misconceptions about Holmes, it makes me wonder if anyone who claims to have read the books has actually read them. Not only is he not a pacifist - he killed Moriarty at Reichenbach falls at least, but he is also an avid fighter and a trained boxer.

Edit: More OT, as for Holmes's sexuality he's only ever shown a lasting interest in Irene Adler making him most likely Irene-sexual, homosexual undertones do exist although I doubt they were intended by Sir ACD. However, since a modern writer would most certainly explore that subtext (cough House/Wilson cough) I think that Ms. Plunket may be nipping something interesting in the bud for the sake of preserving something old.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

ohh Puleaze. Watson was set to get married to a gorgeous girl at the end of the first one. And I highly doubt we've seen the last of Irene Adler in Holmes life. And if anything thiers abit of a bromance feel to the movie and a definite tight bond between Holmes and Watson that undoubtuble formed after all the years of working cases together and living in the same place

 

[EchetusXe]

meh, people moaned when Dumbledore "came out" and it was the damn author that "outed him". The tragedy in this case is that this idiot woman has control over the character due to accident of birth. Hopefully she will die before the movie goes into production.

I haven't read the original books, but if he was clearly heterosexual in them and the movie would portray him as clearly homosexual then she has a point. If it is merely homoerotic subtext then she does not have a point. If there is no evidence of Holmes being straight in the books then even if Holmes was to be played by Kenneth Williams she wouldn't have a leg to stand on. OK well... she would have a point if she complained that a corpse couldn't properly portray the original character but that is a different argument.

 

[Red Rum]

How would people react if a creator threatened to kill a project if there weren't any gay characters or any controversial materials of any kind?

 

[NewfieKeir]

I could care less if Holmes was gay, straight, black, white, or some sort of half fish half human creature, so long as it kept me entertained for the duration of the movie. Besides, just slap a non-canon sticker on there and the fanboys should quiet down.