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

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

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.

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.

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?

It's just Downy having a laugh.

some people just need to get a sense of humour

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.

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?

...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.