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?
[Source]
I would be upset if the movies did more than just allude to the possibilities that Sherlock and Watson were gay only because I hate it when movies do that.
I hate it when things happen in movies that did not happen in the books.
I feel like they do this in movies because:
a) they think the audience is too stupid to figure out what’s going on so they add stuff in just to clearly spell it out for the dummies.
or
b) the producers know that changing things from it’s original context like this will create a big scandal and more people will go to the movie (even if they didn’t plan on going in the first place) because they want to know what all the fuss is about. This makes the producers loads of cash and I’m sure again they are laughing at us dummies for falling for such a trick.
I hate that we (people) are so easy to manipulate in this manner.
WALKED OUT AFTER A HALF HOUR.
THIS MOVIE WAS SOOOOOO BORING, BYE BYE
If Madonna’s brother Christopher Ciccone is to be believed regarding Guy Ritchie’s alleged homophobia, then this loud-mouth Plunket bitch probably doesn’t have anything to worry about in terms of Ritchie spending time on a “gay” portrayal of anything in a movie with his name on it.
P.S. Run-on sentences are my resolution for 2010.
I’m sorry, but I thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created “Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson & NOT the executors of his literary estate…
-
Seriously, the woman speaking certainly doesn’t seem to get that homosexuality has been around for centuries & certainly in Doyle’s lifetime. I too read the books & saw homoerotic overtones between Holmes & Watson (long-time bachelors basically living together…) but that wasn’t my first thought or obsession… It was THE CASE & Sherlock Holmes solving it to Watson’s confusion; falling asleep to, “Elementary, my dear Watson.”
-
Granted, early movies like those featuring (my fave) Basil Rathbone, were heavily censored because of morality rules or whatever, but hey, lady it’s the 21st Century NOT the 19th. Grow up & get your head out of your a^& – Hell, even PBS wasn’t so… pompous & ignorant git as to NOT show “Sherlock Holmes” when played by the late Jeremy Brett. He managed to make Holmes complicated, flawed, arrogant, proud, sad & highly intelligent & determined to bring the guilty to justice – Whatever his sexuality may or may not have been because in the long run none of that mattered. It was nobody’s business but that he ALWAYS solved the case.
-
For a fictional character created by a masterful writer, I really wish he’d been real.
the appeal of the film was the……slashness…hahaha if watson was a chick this would be a bond movie har2
Ridiculous. I have not seen the movie but I’m pretty sure this lady is just trying to drum up controversy.
As a book lover, it bothers me *immensley* when a film is made that differs greatly from the books — and having an openly gay scene between the two main characters, as alluded by Robert D.J. would be that. And if I owned rights to a book, I would probably defend the book as written as well.
This does not make me homophobic, it means I love the book, love the characters as written, and will defend them as the author is no longer around to do so – and as the rights reside with me, it is also my duty to do so.
Lighten up, loving a book, and loving characters – doesn’t make you a homophobe. It makes you a biblio-lover (made that up) :-D
@Kat — I don’t think anyone ever talked about adding an “openly gay scene” to the movie, that is completely wrong. RDJ was joking about the closeness between the characters.
I loved “Sherlock Holmes,” but it could have used a tad more gay!
I wish they were gay. I was always rooting for them to get together. Holmes was lost when Watson got married, and Watson was lost when he thought Holmes was dead… They’re like two guinea pigs who pine and can’t cope without each other.
My favorite scenes were in the ones I guess people are perceiving as ‘gay.’ For me, the banter between Holmes and Watson made the movie! Especially the scene where Watson invites Holmes to dinner with Mary. RDJ and Jude Law have great, natural chemistry. Sherlock Holmes was, as a whole, a fun and very entertaining movie. I would love to see it again and will definitely be in line for the sequel.
give me a break, lady. they’re called friends! and co-dependent. go home, lock your doors and watch your beloved Jeremy Brett reruns on A&E.
Friendships could of been different in the 1800′s then to day standrads.
I try to live by the motto, “never critisize something you don’t understand.” If you’ve never personally been through it, then you don’t fully understand. If you wrote a book, wanted the characters portrayed a certain way, and then later had them somewhat skewed in a movie, how would you react to it? Not that this lady wrote the book, but I can understand where she is coming from. Besides, I think we all need to learn what the word “phobia” means. It means having a fear of something. This woman wanting the characters portrayed as they should be is not being fearful of gays. LOL..come on guys..get real.
As a person who hasn’t seen the movie or read the books, I’m curious if there was a gay undertone between them in the books. If so, do whatever you want. If not, don’t change anything major like a characters sexuality. I guess I just need to learn a little about this subject to have an opinion.
My uncle is gay and he is obsessed with Sherlock Holmes (not just the movie)
Ever notice that the only time people go out of their way to say that they aren’t specifically against something is when what they’re saying is particularly offensive? How does such a horrible woman get he hands on the rights to such an amazing franchise?
As someone who has seen the latest movie (more than once), I’m inclined to trust Mr. Richie and the rest of the creative staff to the end. The first movie was spectacular, and I expect nothing less from any future endeavors, Andrea Plunket’s opinion notwithstanding. You can’t go around changing the formula because some awful woman says jump.
WOW, shes a homophobic.
There were no gay hints at all throughout the movie,
they had amazing chemistry but, so what?!
That makes a movie a GOOD and entertaining movie.
I really hope they do make a sequel.
Im really annoyed that someone would say that, everyone had fun making the movie so who gives a f*ck.
The real problem here is that the lady is concerned not because of what happen in the movie, but because of what RDJ and Guy say as jokes on TVshows!
Anyone who knows Robert knows that he likes joking around and we shouldn’t take him so seriously (let me also remind you that he’s not even the one who started it!) and I think the same goes with Guy.
Now, I have seen the movie and even if you are looking for it, you will not find any concrete proof of gayness in this movie. There is love, but honestly, most will agree that it’s platonic. End of discussion.
So, the lady doesn’t have to worry about her dear characters (which aren’t even really hers). They are safe and sound. I mean come on, who is actually expecting Guy to make a lusting romance between Sherlock and Watson in the sequel?
I would LOVE for there to be a little romance between these two! Why NOT? They’re HOT together—LOL! Seeing RDJ & Jude Law in a romance isn’t the worst thing I can think of. I would actually look forward to it…
-
As far as it being true to the books, there has always been discussions as to the relationship between Holmes and Watson as possibly having homosexual overtones. Sure, it’s possible for them to have a great love for one another, be it friendship or otherwise, but for people to get so offended by the mere idea of it is ridiculous. RDJ jokes a LOT–about everything. That’s his nature. But it’s not as if he’s the one who was the first to bring up the subject; it’s been a topic of conversation for years among lovers of the Sherlock Holmes tales. Why it bothers the woman who allegedly is in charge of the literature itself is beyond me.
-
Even many who have loved these books before the movie came out don’t rule out a romantic relationship between them. So what? Either way, it’s beautiful the way their friendship is portrayed in this movie, be it a bromance or a real romance. The bond between them undeniable and is actually quite touching. No matter what the status is of their relationship, they genuinely care about each other, and that’s what the whole point of the movie is about. Why is this wrong? Lighten up, everyone, and just enjoy it. :)
-