The producers of the big screen adaptation of Sherlock Holmes have come under fire by Andrea Plunket, the person who controls the US copyrights to the character Sherlock Holmes, because she feels that the movie presents the master sleuth and his able cohort Dr. John Watson a little bit too gay for her taste. Plunket has threatened to deny the rights to any future movies made by Guy Ritchie that star Robert Downey, Jr. (as Holmes) and Jude Law (as Watson) if they continue to allude to a homosexual relationship between the characters:
Plan to make “Sherlock Holmes” sequel has been put under fire due to homosexual hints. According to several sites, the executors of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s literary estate have threatened to withdraw Guy Ritchie’s rights to the Sherlock Holmes story if the director suggests that there is romantic relationship between the lead characters in his upcoming movie. Recently, Robert Downey Jr. appeared in “Late Show with David Letterman” and hinted at a homo erotic subtext in the relationship between his detective character and Jude Law’s Dr. Watson. During the interview, the 44-year-old let the audience to determine whether Holmes is “a very butch homosexual.” Infuriated by Downey Jr.’s statement, Andrea Plunket who controls the remaining U.S. copyrights to the Holmes story responded, “I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey’s black sense of humor. 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.” She then added, “I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.” “Sherlock Holmes” [was released] in theaters across the U.S. on December 25. A month before it was released, Robert Downey Jr. has revealed that storyline for two sequels have been planned, saying “Between Guy [Ritchie] and me, the missus [producer Susan Levin] and Joel Silver [producer], we definitely know what we would like to do for the next two sequels.”
LOL. Now, not only are people being attacked for their sexual orientation but fictional characters are now being targeted because of their alluded to sexual orientations (which don’t even exist because they are fictional characters). I’m sorry, but I personally feel that Ms. Plunket sounds like a complete idiot with these comments. It sounds like she fears that the popularity of a literary character like Sherlock Holmes might be “marred” if he is perceived as gay. Does she really have so little faith in the popularity of such a giant literary character, one that has existed for many many decades? My guess is that the producers of a Holmes sequel will do whatever they can to placate the ridiculous fears of this person and will still present the very same characters they offered in the first film. Is this not the most ludicrous thing you’ve ever heard?