Sherlock Holmes Sequel Threatened by "Homoerotic Subtext"

[littlerob]

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.

It's not? I mean, everyone above is posting about 'canon' and other issues of, well, certainly not legal right: no matter how accurate or not a film is, she can say yes or no to it. She can say 'yes' to a Sherlock Holmes played by Matt Damon with Ben Affleck as Watson where they have a detective agency in South Florida during the 80s and everyone's wearing pastel shirts under white sport coats with the sleeves shushed up to the elbows, and say 'no' to a perfectly canonical screenplay.

I mean, look at her quote: "I am [hostile] to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books." That's not about the legal right at all--there's no legal issue regarding the 'spirit' of the books.

Except people are saying that she has no right to say that she'll pull support, when she has more right than anyone currently living.

Also, for legal purposes, the issue in question is the spirit of the books, as that's what's used to seperate other franchises from derivative works.

 

[XJ-0461]

hmm...possibly homosexual? Must investigate further.

Spoiler: This guy was in the movie?

But seriously, she's over-reacting. It's a joke he made, nothing more.

And it's not even black humour. It's innuendo if anything.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Stupid Joke

Stupid overreaction

Stupid oversight that the films are already not in true to the books in any shape or form

Stupidity

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

Granting that to be true for the sake of argument, it's ridiculous.

Heaven forbid I'd lie...

How do you go from "tasteless and sensationalist" to "dodgy at best, and unreliable for unbiased reporting"? I've seen people fall into an ad hominem fallacy, but I've never seen someone do the equivalent of asking if they could move to Massachusetts and marry it like this.

You first thought that I had received this information second hand when you called this an ad hominen argument, which I may remind you does not have to be a fallacy and is also directed against an individual, and now that I state that it's because of a deep seated belief, you take the time to insult it.

I believe you've already shown your colours as a provocateur, in that your defending an argument far away from the OP, so I'll return to that if you don't mind.

 

[Bagaloo]

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

No, that would be Tropic Thunder.

Thats some epic win right there.

OT; I liked the movie. I agree with the guy somewhere above me who said that the relationship between Holmes and Watson was more 'guy love' than 'gay love' (a la JD and Turk from Scrubs).

"I'm all for Downey to kick back and have a laugh and joke about it but as soon as it goes against MY interpretation of the character and MY view on how the characters would act if they were that little bit different then I'm afraid I'll have to pull the plug on the project because I have to have my own way."


Did anyone else read it as that or is it just me being in a bit of a bad mood?

Also, I totally read it as this.
Silly woman.

 

[Arfreid]

I take Plunket's side with this one, and yet, it doesn't stop all of those fanfictions writters... I can only imagine them smiling with an evil grin on their faces...

 

[RelexCryo]

There goes my script.

Bwahaha! That made me laugh.

On Topic: I agree with her. It would be a complete change of the already fully established character(s).
It's not a slam against homosexuality, it's an attempt to keep things consistent.

This reminds me of an editorial I saw in the Toronto Star (I freaking hate that newspaper) when Lord of the Rings came out, saying how Frodo and Sam were gay, and so was Gandalf. A totally serious editorial. I was utterly outraged.
Not every two guys who are close friends have to be gay. Holmes and Watson certainly aren't gay, and to make them that way is just pandering needlessly to a minor demographic at the expense of any artistic dignity. It'd be reducing a modern-recreation of a classic character into a fan-service that crept from the dark corners of the internet.
No thanks.

Wow. That's basically my feelings on the subject.

 

[escapistraptor]

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.

Ah, forgive me. This news article just struck a bad cord with me so instead of my usual bemusement at the shocking amounts of homophobia in our modern society, I was instead just very pissed at this Plunket *****. Nothing wrong with some Graham Norton.

 

[Wayte]

1. It's Robert Downey Jr., he's a funny guy and his banter should be taken as nothing more serious than a joke.

2. Um...I"m pretty sure there were many liberties taken with the movie. Never read much of the books, but I"m pretty sure they weren't that. Not that that makes me think the movie is bad, it's just a bit hypocritical of the right's owner.

 

[wench]

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.

Whoah what an attitude, the only word i miss spelled is referring to child abuse, and i don't even want to know how its spelled, do you?

Holywood = Hollywood
whats = what's
pedofhilia = pedophilia

The fact that something is bad doesn't mean it should be spelled incorrectly. I promise, spelling it properly won't make you a pedophile.

And thanks to @dsmops2003 - that's what I hopped on here to mention. The spirit of the books was cash, period. He hated writing Holmes books.

I don't get people who say that putting in a homosexual subtext would just be pandering to the audience. Pretty much everything that goes into a blockbuster movie is pandering to the audience. It's how they make money. There are very few films that can make a good go of being obsessively true to the source material. Sometimes that sucks, sometimes it's great. It's just a question of who they want to pander to.

 

[scotth266]

I have to agree with the lady. I don't have anything against gay people: it's just that in the stories I've heard (not read, all the Holmes stories I purchased were cassette tapes of radio dramas) suggested that the relationship between the two characters was nothing more than brotherly affection. Heck, Watson had a wife, and Holmes was completely opposed to romance in the stories I encountered...

Admittedly adaptations can play a little loose with the notions of a universe at times, but there's a limit: see Transformers 2.

 

[Zant]

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.

In reading your reply, I see I've somewhat misjudged you; for that I apologise. The sole point I disagree with now is the not wanting to see a film because it's a romance thing. While I totally agree with everyone having genre preferences, I think it's a mistake to assume that if one did make Holmes and Watson gay, it would become a romance. Think of pretty much any non-romance film: the characters in it are straight, but there's no sign of romance. Actually, I tell a lie, it seems every film these days contains romance. But that's not what I was trying to say, I was saying that if you can have a romance-free film where the protagonists are straight, you can have one where they are gay.

Aside, then, from the "legal vs. moral rights" debate which Hope Chest above me has so eloquently argued, I agree with you about pretty much everything else.

I think it's a shame that we live in a society today where any mention of homosexuality can cause such hate and anger, on the parts of both those arguing homophobically and those arguing against the homophobes.

EDIT: Ms. Wench, I agree with you about the pandering to an audience point: anything made for any media is made with a certain audience in mind. And while I would find it more interesting to have a film where the tension inherent in homosexuality, especially in a society even more against it than this, is explored (like Brokeback Mountain), I'm not going to avoid a Sherlock Holmes sequel either way.

Oh, and I would have spelled it "paedophilia", but tomato-tomayto :]

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking it has anything to do with canon literary Sherlock Holmes and isn't instead the pop culture version of him.

Why does pop culture have to make me so sad?

 

[littlerob]

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.

In reading your reply, I see I've somewhat misjudged you; for that I apologise. The sole point I disagree with now is the not wanting to see a film because it's a romance thing. While I totally agree with everyone having genre preferences, I think it's a mistake to assume that if one did make Holmes and Watson gay, it would become a romance. Think of pretty much any non-romance film: the characters in it are straight, but there's no sign of romance. Actually, I tell a lie, it seems every film these days contains romance. But that's not what I was trying to say, I was saying that if you can have a romance-free film where the protagonists are straight, you can have one where they are gay.

Aside, then, from the "legal vs. moral rights" debate which Hope Chest above me has so eloquently argued, I agree with you about pretty much everything else.

I think it's a shame that we live in a society today where any mention of homosexuality can cause such hate and anger, on the parts of both those arguing homophobically and those arguing against the homophobes.

The thing is, I don't think homosexuality has made enough headway to be included in Hollywood as casually as herterosexuality is. It's very similar to an old article on here about the rising popularity of superhero movies - just as now we're having to spend less time explaining stuff and giving all the heroes plausible origins and more time watching lycra-clad acrobats punching scruffy people with mousatches, eventually it'll get to the point where two characters in a big-budget hollywood thriller can happen to be gay without it taking up the majority of the film. I just don't think we're there yet.

It's still controversial (as this topic alone has made abundantly clear), and if something's controversial then it can't just be dropped into a film; not in Hollywood, at any rate. Theoretically and objectively, it's pefectly fine. Practically, I think a little more groundwork needs to be done first.

EDIT: To clarify; I just don't think Hollywood and moviegoers in general are mature enough about the issue yet for two characters to just happen to be gay. It'd have to be a major plot point, and that's what turns a film into a romance.

 

[similar.squirrel]

There have been speculations and fanfic about this homosexual Holmesian business long before the internet..I think these people are ignoring the big, gay elephant in the room. Still, sexual tension is definitely not one of the prominet aspects of the stories, so there's little reason to play upon it in the film. Then again, from what I've heard, the film takes quite a lot of liberties.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Meh, I liked the movie, but I don't think that the feelings between the two were homoerotic. More like brotherly love, the kind most commonly attributed to soldiers, they have been though so much together.
And as for the pair getting jiggy with it in the sequel, I don't much suspect that. Especially since in the first movie
[spoilers]


several things happen to establish each characters heterosexuality. Watson is marrying the girl, and in the end, Holmes gives his consent by giving the pair an engagement ring. Holmes also loves (sorry forget her name) the girl working for M. To have either ditch the girls would require something drastic, cooties maybe, and would be a sales bomb. Not because of "homoerotic" but because it makes no sense.


[/spoilers]

 

[Riobux]

While I find the concept an interesting take upon the relationship between Watson and Sherlock (a bit like how it's interesting to view a relationship where the girl is a few inches taller than her boyfriend), but I think this is just too much deviation from the original source.

If they did put it in though, I would be tempted to take a look at, at least, the movie reviews just to see if it worked out.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

I like how much this woman continually flip flops. She issues a warning to Guy Ritchie and then says " I am not hostile to homosexuals!" All I can say is that is the biggest load of cock and bollocks rocketing towards the sky in a hat.