Sherlock Holmes Sequel Threatened by "Homoerotic Subtext"

[Treblaine]

Homoerotic undertones =/= "they're both gay"

It's just shit that happens when two guys become emotionally dependant on each other, of course it will only ever remain an undertone precisely because they AREN'T gay but it would be foolish to ignore it.

I has all become too complex and the entire debate has been muddied by gay and anti-gay activism that has polarised camps and made the general public take absolutist views about human sexuality when in fact it is WAY WAY[/u] more complicated than most people want to approach it.

Everyone is just pigeon-holed into "Straight" "Gay" and "Closeted gay" or "bisexual" categories which is fine only absolute attributes are affixed to these categories that do not stand up in the real world.

I can totally understand why Holmes could be 100% straight yet have "homo-erotic undertones" due to his Asperger's syndrome like genius prevents him forming meaningful relationships with ANYONE, it's like he's stuck on a desert island with him in terms of ability to communicate.

But it would only ever be an instinct of desperation, the thing is being "straight" he still has an overwhelming preference for women but it's a bit like a bunch of guys in prison or in the Navy.

I hope that the person who owns Sherlock Holmes's estate can realise that and doesn't think that anyone is trying to turn SH into Brokeback Mountain which is a completely different kind of thing.

 

[Treblaine]

For example I have seen English made Sherlock Holmes movies where Holmes is a cocaine addict.

Well, funny you should say that, in the original books Holmes did take a lot of what are now considered highly dangerous and illegal drugs completely casually. You do realise that the name "Heroin" is a real brand name for use as a recreational drug, it's true, from 1880's to around the First World War this was the "golden age of dugs" where crack cocaine, heroin, amyl nitrate, nitrous oxide and dozens of other drugs were sold commercially to the upper classes.

Hell, you could go into Fortnum Masons in 1914 and send a hamper full of heroine and cocaine to soldiers fighting in the Tranches of Europe!

So it was not unusual at all in 1890's for Holmes to casually consume these drugs as back then they were perfectly legal and sold in reputable stores. In many ways Holmes's estate could not object to Holmes as a drug addict because in the books he WAS!

Sherlock Holmes movies and TV series usually de-emphasise this aspect due to modern sensibilities but everyone should realise that the very drugs we oppose so vehemently in our "War on Drugs" we used to sell and tax in the west. It's a part of our recent history we seem all to willing to brush away.

I think the ONLY reason Holmes was not shown explicitly as a drug addict in this latest film is the ratings. There is no way you will get a PG-13 or 12-A rating if drug use is shown, ESPECIALLY if by the protagonist without SEVERE negative consequences.

Which is one reason why I didn't like this latest film, beyond the drugs far too much of this movie was dumbed down for a wider audience.

 

[Dumbfish1]

black sense of humor

Really? I always thought of homosexuality as quite light hearted and, well, camp. Like Graham Norton or Barrowman.(shakes fist)

I'm more concerned about classifying it as black sense of humor because black humor is by definition a sinister/disturbing topic treated lightly, which implies that Plunket thinks homosexuality is a sinister/disturbing topic.

That's the point I'm (obviously quite badly) trying to make.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

http://www.slate.com/id/2239230/

Given slates back catalog of puerile trash, I'd be more likely to trust Maddox than them. Last thing I heard about them were when they were slagging off D&D for being Gygax's lovechild, one week after the old guy passed on.

I read the article by Eric Sofge.
I laughed when he got tasered.

I consider the printing of that article to be tasteless and sensationalist (and it wasn't the first) and thus I have deemed their editorial process, like others, to be dodgy at best, and unreliable for unbiased reporting.

I would link to more of their articles that prove that point, but, quite frankly, they don't deserve the traffic.

 

[jamesworkshop]

wait a min im sure the original works did involve holmes pretending him and watson were gay lovers and watson wasn't happy because he was a bit of a ladies man

 

[brunothepig]

I actually just saw that movie, and really enjoyed it. It's not like the books at all (I haven't read any, but I do know a little) but it's still awesome. Also, the point is that it was back when they were young, so it's supposed to be different.

On Topic: I actually agree, as long as it isn't just because she's homophobic. It would wreck the story, especially since they both have love interests in that movie lol.

 

[knight steel]

In keeping with the spirit of the Great Detective, I suspect that this warning is nothing of the kind. No, it is sly subterfuge engineered with the sole purpose of creating controversy where there would be none, increasing interest in the inevitable sequel many fold.

After the estate 'acquiesces', the film will be chock full of homo-erotic sub-text,text and super-text and as such will be hailed as progressive, fresh take on the stuffy old character, pulling in money from both homosexual film goers who would be practically obligated to watch it at least twice and heterosexual women who, while not obligated, will feel more than priviledged to watch it four times minimum. The same goes for any man who wishes not to be labeled a homphobe or given grief by his significant other who will definitely be in attendance.

It's diabolically clever, I'd say. They'd do Moriarty proud!

[As an added bonus for the filmmakers,it will mean finding less awkward excuses for Holmes or Watson to have shirtless scenes!]

Brilliant deduction of the highest magnitude,now come we must find out who jack the ripper was ^_^.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

"I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey's black sense of humor," she said.

No, that would be Tropic Thunder.

AHAHZHHAHAHAHAHA, SHAZAM, BIZNITCHES!



Sorry.


I just thought that was amazing.


OT: Its her right to do it.


I wouldn't, but then again, I wouldn't see the movie.

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

hmm...possibly homosexual? Must investigate further.

 

[Phokal]

"I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey's black sense of humor," she said.

No, that would be Tropic Thunder.

I want to re-quote this to give more people a chance to see it.

But, yea, she doesn't seem to know what black humor is, or equates homosexual jokes with it; either she's stupid or homophobic. Or both.

 

[Zant]

Mr. littlerob, I have a few comments to make about your post.

- She's overseeing a bunch of artsy-fartsy actor types making a film of this IP

Actors do not make films. Screenwriters do, with input from directors and producers.

- Suddenly, homophobes, thousands of them!

Bringing memes here does not make you look cool.

Goddamn. All buzzwords (as in, pretty much anything ending in 'ist' or 'ism', for a start) should be banned, just to make people think about what they're saying, if only through forcing them to take longer to say it.

Actually, I rather agree with this point. But it is important not to forget in the irritation of political correctness that there are reasons for the oppression of minorities to be looked down on.

Holmes and Watson are not gay in any of the earlier material (at least not in any confirmable fashion) and the only reason to make them so in the new films would be to pander to demographics.

Firstly, I'm sorry, but you appear to have totally missed the point of remakes. The idea is to bring a fresh new spin on an old idea to revitalise it. This is a point many nerds miss and then rage at. Secondly, of course Sir ACD would not make it obvious that his characters were gay, even if he intended them to be, because homosexuality was a crime. I agree that it's most likely that he didn't intend them to be, but see point one.

(because homophobia)

I see two kinds of people who would make this statement: homophobes and Daily Mail readers. Which are you?

Plunket is basically doing the same. She's 'word of god'ing that Holmes and Watson are not gay, to stop people messing around with official stuff (like the films), and she has every right to do that as the IP holder.

She has no goddamn right whatsoever! She is not related to Sir ACD by blood at all, and only has the rights through marriage to someone who bought them. If anything she should have less say about the film than its makers.

Finally, I'm not going to quote your last point because I've quoted too much already, but I definitely agree.

I hate what holywood does to good books, European mythology and stories, only exception is LotR. I mean whats next, including pedofhilia in wizard of Oz?!

Please, please, please sort out your spelling. You literally made me shudder.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Is it wrong to not want to watch this movie because it doesn't actually seem to be Sherlock Holmes? Not to me.

Seriously, the film is called Sherlock Holmes. Why the hell does he look like he enjoys life? I thought Holmes was supposed to be a rather abrasive man, not a happy-go-lucky, passion of an Italian, punch-'em-upper.

Is there an actual mystery? Is it solved via classic Holmes deducement? And why does Watson in that picture look like he's about to burst into song?

 

[littlerob]

- She's overseeing a bunch of artsy-fartsy actor types making a film of this IP

Actors do not make films. Screenwriters do, with input from directors and producers.

I know, I was being flippant. My fault for the misinterpretation, given the tone of the rest of my post and the inadequacies of simple text.

- Suddenly, homophobes, thousands of them!

Bringing memes here does not make you look cool.

Relax, it was a joke. I don't care if I look cool or not, this is the internet.

Goddamn. All buzzwords (as in, pretty much anything ending in 'ist' or 'ism', for a start) should be banned, just to make people think about what they're saying, if only through forcing them to take longer to say it.

Actually, I rather agree with this point. But it is important not to forget in the irritation of political correctness that there are reasons for the oppression of minorities to be looked down on.

Oh, I'm not advocating getting rid of political correctness (which is, in itself, another of those buzzwords), but just taking away the media-hyped words that people cry out with in reaction to things, without actually thinking of a reply of their own. It's far easier, for example, to cry 'homophobe!' than it is to actually examine why something may or may not be homophobic.

Holmes and Watson are not gay in any of the earlier material (at least not in any confirmable fashion) and the only reason to make them so in the new films would be to pander to demographics.

Firstly, I'm sorry, but you appear to have totally missed the point of remakes. The idea is to bring a fresh new spin on an old idea to revitalise it. This is a point many nerds miss and then rage at. Secondly, of course Sir ACD would not make it obvious that his characters were gay, even if he intended them to be, because homosexuality was a crime. I agree that it's most likely that he didn't intend them to be, but see point one.

I'll concede this one, but I will note that there is a limit as to what you can do with a 'faithful' remaike such as this. Things like the Romeo and Juliet adaptation set in modern times are good, but they didn't try to pass it off as an honest telling of the story as-written. The Sherlock Holmes movies do, so they can't stray too far from the source.

(because homophobia)

I see two kinds of people who would make this statement: homophobes and Daily Mail readers. Which are you?

Now this really proves my point. Buzzwords like that lead to accusations like that, and encourage categorising people.

For the record, I'm not homophobic, or try not to be as much as possible, and wouldn't dream of not seeing a film just because the main characters are gay. However, I would not see a film because it's a romance and I wanted to see an action/thriller. This is part of the problem here; including gay characters brings the whole homophobia thing into the arena, and that never ends well because neither side is willing to compromise.

Plunket is basically doing the same. She's 'word of god'ing that Holmes and Watson are not gay, to stop people messing around with official stuff (like the films), and she has every right to do that as the IP holder.

She has no goddamn right whatsoever! She is not related to Sir ACD by blood at all, and only has the rights through marriage to someone who bought them. If anything she should have less say about the film than its makers.

Legally (which this is about) she has every right. She may not have the moral right, but that isn't the issue here. They are paying her to let them make a film based on a frnachise that she owns part of, and that gives her the right to withdraw that franchise if she doesn't like where the film is going.

 

[fenrirvii]

idk guys, i actually agree with her.

Robert Downy Jr was obviously just trying to garnish some attention, and that's understandable, if a bit underhanded.

Now, she is not stating that the previous movie was wrong, but she states that IF they continue to make the characters into this repressed homosexuality, then she'll pull the rights.

I agree that her wording (particularly "black humor") could have been much better, and also that she may not have any more right to a decision like that than any of us, except for having a lot of money; but at the same time, the original material does not indicate homosexuality, in my opinion. Holmes and Watson continually expressed something of an admiration or brotherly love for each other, but it was understandable from both sides, and I never read any homosexual connotations into it.

And I can also agree that characters and settings can change to reflect the current audience, but does that mean every character should suddenly turn gay or something else that would have been very much looked down upon at the time? I don't think so. Holmes is the most iconic detective, and one of the more iconic literary characters in history, and as such I personally would prefer that they leave his character alone, mainly.

And apparently (haven't seen the movie yet), they hollywoodized the movie by adding much more action, making Holmes more lighthearted, making the plot a bit easier to follow, etc etc. I don't personally like these (and they're pretty much the reason I haven't seen it quite yet), but I can understand the changes so that the movie will appeal to a greater audience. These changes are not drastic character changes, though. Holmes did show moments of humor and light, so th lighthearted thing doesn't strike me as THAT odd, and the addition of action, well there was some in the books, but you can only expect that from a movie.

Overall, I guess I just don't understand what the big tiff is that she came out and said that, other than her wording. She doesn't want Holmes to be gay because the source material doesn't seem to show that. Of course homosexuality was an even bigger issue then, so the source material would not have shown that, but still, there is a very clear image of Holmes, and the addition of homosexuality, in my opinion, would just be a media ploy, and there is no reason to drastically change the character like that.