No Holmes 2 for Ritchie?

Doyle estate threatens repeal of movie rights

 

Guy Ritchie’s reimagining of Sherlock Holmes may be doing well at the box office both sides of the Atlantic, snapping from the number two spot at Avatar’s stripy tail.

But a sequel could be strictly off limits if the creative team behind this new version decide to take the lead character into even more homoerotic territory.

In a recent interview with David Letterman, Robert Downey Jr played up the possibilities of a rather more literal bromance between Holmes and Jude Law’s Watson, pondering aloud whether or not Holmes is a “very butch homosexual”.

But his comments didn't amuse Andrea Plunket, who holds the US copyright to the literary Holmes saga.

“I hope this is just an example of Mr Downey's black sense of humour," she says. "It would be drastic, but I would withdraw permission for more films to be made if they feel that is a theme they wish to bring out in the future.

"I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.”

Bovvered? Comments below...

Comments

    • Buried At Sea

      Jan 4th 2010, 9:36

      meh, don't really care. was a poor film anyway. Unimaginative, predictable and a rubbish turn by downey jnr.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChristoLaurent

      Jan 4th 2010, 10:30

      It would have been quite amusing to Basil Rathbone getting his bum on.

      Alert a moderator

    • blindfold11

      Jan 4th 2010, 11:20

      Saying she isn't against Homosexuals isn't going to help her argument as it is clearly that which she is afraid of showing. Anyone that has studied English literature are familiar with reading a variety of subtexts, homoeroticism being one of the most prominent. But just cause you can read something in that way, doesn't make it so, just makes it plausible. And I don't think having that hinted at is going to harm the film. Having Holmes and Watson actually getting it on might, but implications on a variety of topics can only strengthen a text.

      Alert a moderator

    • niannah

      Jan 4th 2010, 12:24

      I read elsewhere that this Andrea Plunket does not actually own any rights that could jeopardise the movie. Holmes is in the public domain now, is it not? In which case, she can't stop anyone making anything.

      Alert a moderator

    • Darksilvercat

      Jan 4th 2010, 12:33

      It's funny how often the statement "I am not against [minority group X]" is almost always accompanied by an attitude of discrimination. The homoeroticism in Sherlock Holmes has been a popular subject many years before this film was released; indeed, the topic of homoerotic subtext is one that can be explored in virtually every film or television series ever made and every book ever written. For Sherlock Holmes it will never be explicitly stated, but fans should be entitled to interpret the film in any way they choose without fear that talk of homosexuality could threaten the future of the franchise. I should think it's a moot point though, since I sincerely doubt Hollywood is ready for that kind of move. And even if they were, they'd have to start with Kirk and Spock surely?

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Jan 4th 2010, 15:26

      It's just Downy having a laugh.

      Alert a moderator

    • mikey2127

      Jan 4th 2010, 15:47

      some people just need to get a sense of humour

      Alert a moderator

    • tenstrings

      Jan 4th 2010, 16:01

      If the producers want to create a gay crimefighting duo set in turn of the 20th Century London, go ahead and create your own. If, however, you want to create a Sherlock Holmes film at least have the courtesy of being faithful to the source material, where Holmes and Watson's tastes were squarely for the opposite sex. I find it incredibly sad that many people's perception is so hypersexualised that they must translate any close fraternal relationship into a sexual one. In fact it shows an immense streak of immaturity.

      Alert a moderator

    • yosarian25

      Jan 4th 2010, 18:24

      I was enjoying the film until I realized Holmes and Watson weren't going to bum. Ruined it. Ritchie could have at least put in a scene where they finger each other. And speaking of subtext, isn't the hound of the baskervilles an extended metaphor for dogging on the moors?

      Alert a moderator

    • acuteringsting

      Jan 5th 2010, 2:15

      ...So, "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Satan's Alley" is a goer, then?. Marvellous! And ChristoLaurent, 'Basil Rathbone getting his bum on' is the funniest thing I've read all day.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular