Copyright holder baulks at 'gay' Sherlock Holmes film

[ccharles000]

The US copyright holder of the Sherlock Holmes series has threatened to withdraw permission for a film sequel if producers develop a homoerotic storyline.

Sherlock Holmes was released in the UK on Boxing Day. It stars Robert Downey Jr as the famous detective and Jude Law as his sidekick, Dr Watson.

In interviews, Downey Jr has discussed the homoerotic tension between the two characters, who are shown wrestling and sharing a bed.

He recently told chatshow host David Letterman that he wondered whether Holmes was "a very butch homosexual".

However, the US copyright holder, Andrea, Plunkett, has threatened to withdraw permission for a sequel if Holmes and Watson become gayer.

She told Total Film: “I hope this is just an example of Mr Downey's black sense of humour. 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.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/04/copyright-holder-baulks-at-gay-sherlock-holmes-film/

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Homophobia rears its ugly head again.

It really isn't all that surprising though. Af fictional character might be a fictional fag/bi! THE HORRORS! :eyes:

Of course, there are those who will be in agreement with this haint, some may even lurk these very "halls."

[RumJungle]

2. It's not homophobia..

...if you hold a copyright to a character and someone changes that character you can object. If he doesn't want Holmes to be gay that is his choice. The character was not written as gay so why make him gay?

[Behind the Aegis]

3. It is homophobia.

Do learn the meaning. If you are opposed to changing his FICTIONAL sexuality then it is easy enough to see homophobia in action. It would be "racist" for the copyright holder to object to changing Wonder Woman's character to Black because it doesn't 'jive' with the traditional. (See "Smallville" and the "Martian Manhunter")

"The character was not written as gay so why make him gay?"

The character was not written as "straight," so poetic license could apply. Why would it matter? Sherlock Holmes is FICTIONAL!

[RumJungle]

5. Why is it not possible

that he just wants the character to be portrayed as it always has been? Even if that means not knowing either way? Is it ageist if he wanted the character to remain middle aged as written.

[omega minimo]

6. She

"....that he just wants the character to be portrayed as it always has been? "

[Behind the Aegis]

9. First, the person is a woman...SHE

"Even if that means not knowing either way?"

Well, you demonstrated what I was saying...does it matter either way? If the makers flirt with his possible homo/bisexuality how does it change the character? It only matters if it is seen as "insulting."

"Is it ageist if he wanted the character to remain middle aged as written."

Young Sherlock Holmes

Didn't hear any threats then, now did we!

[blondeatlast]

25. Have you ever read Sherlock Holmes? Gay isn't really much of a stretch. nt

[Bucky]

63. Ha! No, it only seems that way. He's just very very British.

The 1800s and early 1900s were the heyday of the foppish hero. Nowadays it's called being "metro" but no actual homosexuality was implied. That's just the reaction of the audiences of today, an era when men are so desperately insecure about their sexuality that they emotionally project homosexuality "attacks" on any male characters who bother to tie their shoes.

[Javaman]

26. Ahh the stupidity of what is covered under copy-write and what is not...

Strictly adhering to a writers intent is not part of copy-write law unless purposely specified.

Once a copy-writed material is purchased for use, it is then fair use and open to interpretation by the purchasers or leaser.

Unless, specified by contract that character rights are strictly guarded by the owner and therefore have to maintain certain parameters and qualifications regarding said characters, the owner of the character rights has no grounds to stand on.

Furthermore, if the contract spans any and all subsequent spin offs, sequels or other media related future occurrences, the owner of the characters are bound by law to obey the tenants of the contract unless a renegotiation is instituted based upon a defaming of character based on historical reference. aka Sherlock Holmes suddenly becomes a porn star in a Mongolian brothel. (although that does sound interesting LOL).

In the end, the people who own the character rights are morons. 1) they are homophobes 2) the have a very bad lawyer 3) the didn't read the details 4) they are bargaining for more money (my belief)

But more importantly, all of this was negotiated years ago and agreed upon by both parties. And usually, but not always, the owner of the character rights usually rereads the final script prior to shooting.

But at the end of the day, a script is always up to the interpretation of the producers and mainly the director.

They didn't like how it was portrayed? I suggest they take a number, there is a long line of writers and other creatives in Hollywood that are pissed off over how their characters have been portrayed.
(with that in mind, read up sometime on the original story for "Dirty dancing: Havana Nights". I will tell you this much, it was never supposed to be a movie about dancing).

[Toasterlad]

61. I Suspect You Don't Know Jack Shit About Sherlock Holmes.

[NMMNG]

66. Oh FFS

You're using the Appeal to Tradition fallacy for a fictional character? :banghead:

[omega minimo]

10. Only one possibility?

"If you are opposed to changing his FICTIONAL sexuality then it is easy enough to see homophobia in action."

How? Is that the only possible explanation? Automatically?

"It would be "racist" for the copyright holder to object to changing Wonder Woman's character to Black because it doesn't 'jive' with the traditional."

Are you hanging your argument on a direct correlation between sexuality and skin color?

"(See "Smallville" and the "Martian Manhunter")"

Are you saying this has already been an issue with characters there?

"The character was not written as "straight," so poetic license could apply."

How was the character written? Do you know what his sexuality was?

"Why would it matter? Sherlock Holmes is FICTIONAL!"

Apparently it matters to those who hold the copyright. Have you considered any possible reasons other than homophobia?

Which fictional Holmes do you prefer? I love the Jeremy Brett version. He seems to be in love with his pipe.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Jeremy Brett was the best ever he researched the Holmes and Doyle's character

After reading a lot of Doyle's Holmes series I have to say he captured Doyle's vision of him.


One of Brett's dearest possessions on the set was his 77-page "Baker Street File" on everything from Holmes' mannerisms to his eating and drinking habits. Brett once explained that "some actors are becomers - they try to become their characters. When it works, the actor is like a sponge, squeezing himself dry to remove his own personality then absorbing the characters like a liquid"


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle provided a vast amount of information about the character subtleties of Holmes & Watson spread out over 56 stories and four novels. What Michael Cox has done with "The Baker Street File," was to take seemingly trite details about these characters from each of Doyles' stories and listed them in sections. Some examples of these chapter lists include information on Holmes & Watsons' appearance, mannerisms, skills, comments on each other, personal philosophies, opinions on women, and even a detailed description of how Holmes' room should appear (especially if he's in one of his black moods).

If you've had the priviledge to see any of the Granada television series with Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and Edward Hardwicke as Watson, then you'll appreciate, as I do, their obsessive attention to detail and who frequently used this manual for their characterizations.

I'm especially interested in how actors prepare for their roles so I'm highly recommending this text for those who study acting and for anyone else who sees the value of being this particular when bringing an authors' work to the screen.

[omega minimo]

12. Interesting. It showed.

The attention to detail, mannerisms, Brett's gift as an actor. And yes, appreciate the understated work of Hardwicke more on repeated viewings.

[spoony]

14. Brett was truly special.

I wasn't even a Holmes fan when I started watching those adaptations, but now he's my mental picture when I read any of the stories.

[myrna minx]

27. I absolutely adore Jeremy Brett's Holmes.

FYI...they are available to "watch instantly" right now on Netflix.

[bridgit]

56. Jeremy is wonderful!

[Love Bug]

74. Thank you!

Yes, Brett was the BEST, for all the reasons you state.

I've seen the new movie and my first reaction was, "Who is that scruffy guy and why does he keep quoting Sherlock Holmes?"

Just kidding.

I did like the film for what it is: a steampunk version of Starsky and Hutch. I thought they wrote Watson very well and Jude Law ("Hotson") did an excellent job.

[el_bryanto]

22. Interesting. What if they took a gay character and made him a straight evangelical?

Northstar from the X-Men, since we are doing comic books, for example. Presumably you'd have no problem with that either? Or am I missing something?

Bryant

[hughee99]

28. I was thinking the same thing. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

32. They have done things like that before.

Gay characters who suddenly became straight or "it was a phase." Or, what they are more likely to do, with the complete acceptance of many here, is to write him with no sexuality at all.

[el_bryanto]

35. Ah - can you give some examples?

I know John Byrne has wanted to do that to Northstar but he's not been allowed near the character.

If Sherlock Holmes isn't portrayed as gay, the bigots have won. Is that a fair statement of your position?

Bryant

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Marginalization

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/07/02/gays-in-comics-from-northstar-to-shatterstar/

"If Sherlock Holmes isn't portrayed as gay, the bigots have won. Is that a fair statement of your position?"

No, that is known as a strawman.

[el_bryanto]

38. So what is your position?

Because you do seem to insinuate that it is marginalization for Holmes to be portrayed as Strait or as Asexual.]

Bryant

[Behind the Aegis]

39. I will make it VERY clear for you.

Throwing a hissy fit over the possibility that Holmes might be portrayed as gay or bisexual or extending homoerotic themes is, IMO, based on reactionist homophobia. That simple enough for you? Or do you have some more strawmen?

[omega minimo]

46. There's also the possibility that comics and fictional historical figures be portrayed with

as you put it "no sexuality."

[el_bryanto]

51. No that's very clear - I'll just note that the phrase "throwing a hissy fit"

is a bit sexist in it's own right - it's clearly a way to mock an argument by suggesting it's womanly.

Bryant

[Behind the Aegis]

77. History

Hissy fit
Meaning

A temperamental outburst; a tantrum.

Origin

The allusion in this expression may be to the hissing and spluttering of such an outburst, or it may simply be a contraction of 'hysterical'. The term originated in the USA in the mid 20th century and is first recorded in a 1934 edition of American Speech:

"Hissy is probably provincial slang. I have heard it for eight or ten years. He threw a hissy or He had a hissy means that a person in question was very disturbed and very angry."

'Hissy fit' was little used outside of the USA until the late 20th century. More recently, it has gained currency elsewhere, primarily due to its use in the media when describing the antics of various high-profile celebrity divas. For example, in September 2004, The Daily Mirror reported Sir Elton John's arrival at Taipei airport:

"Sir Elton, who arrived by private jet for the final concert of a Far East tour, clenched his teeth in fury when he saw a crowd waiting for him at the airport. Exploding in an extraordinary hissy fit, the 57-year-old star raved: "You're all rude, vile pigs!"

source

[el_bryanto]

81. Interesting that you used Elton John as your example of a hissy fit thrower n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Interesting you can't comprehend I didn't write the 'article.'

[el_bryanto]

93. Fair enough - but it doesn't exactly prove your point

It's the equivalent of jerks who use the phrase "That's Gay" to mean "That's Lame."

Bryant

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Not even close.

I showed it wasn't derived from an anti-female perspective, as a matter of fact, it's origin is largely unknown. So, there goes another of your stramen up in flames.

[el_bryanto]

96. Laughs - and Gay didn't originally mean homosexual. But it does now. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

105. Which has NOTHING to do with the point you think you are making.

There is nothing to prove "hissy fit" has anything to do with 'hysterical.' I have shown that in the above post, it is believed it originated because of the "hissing" sound one makes while in a state of fury. Though, it is possible, there is nothing definitive either way, so this is just one more strawman to add to your kindling, which I burned. You do know the word "history" has nothing to do "maleness," right? Your failed argument was shot down, so you have tried to create another one. Interesting, hiding homophobia behind accusations of sexism. Interesting and pathetic.

[omega minimo]

108. His Story has nothing to do with malieness

:rofl:

"You do know the word "history" has nothing to do "maleness," right? "

[Behind the Aegis]

110. Did this confuse you?

ETA: What is "malieness?"

[omega minimo]

113. It's like "truthiness"

where you use words and quotes and then just say whatever you want them to mean.

[Behind the Aegis]

115. Similar to what you are doing?

[omega minimo]

116. No

yours is completely delusional :hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

117. Perhaps you should look that word up and when you do, look up "history."

[omega minimo]

119. Okay, how's that spelled again? H-I-S S-T-O-R-Y!

:spray:

[Behind the Aegis]

121. A lesson for you:

History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation"<2>)

I hope you don't spit your liquor out again.

[omega minimo]

122. You don't even SEE your own proofs that you are disputing

:crazy:

[Behind the Aegis]

123. What I see is you making up things in your mind and expecting it to be reality.

[omega minimo]

125. You need to do your circular dance with someone else

:freak:

[Behind the Aegis]

128. You need to start posting more honestly.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Hmmm..odd double post.

[omega minimo]

107. No you didn't

You showed that you don't even understand your own reference to the origin

[Behind the Aegis]

109. Yes, I did.

I am sorry you are unable to comprehend the written word, but the origin is unclear and only one possibility indicates it could have "anti-female" undertones. Also, when one reads the numerous definitions of the word, it doesn't refer to women, but is considered gender neutral, as even exemplified in the link I provided.

[omega minimo]

112. No you didn't

[Behind the Aegis]

114. Do you understand what was actually written?

It would appear you do not. The origin is unclear, one has it as being gender neutral, the other not. It is not definitive either way. Though I didn't say it that clearly in the post to which you responded, it should have been clear.

[omega minimo]

118. Wrong

You made a definitive statement, claiming, "I showed it wasn't derived from an anti-female perspective," which you did not.

[Behind the Aegis]

120. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

""I showed it wasn't derived from an anti-female perspective," which you did not."

Perhaps I should have used the word "potentially" but I did not. However, it still disputes the other posters claim it was derived from an anti-female perspective.

[omega minimo]

124. aka "wrong"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7396658&mesg_id=7412448

[Behind the Aegis]

127. Not wrong, just not accurate.

Neither was proved. Given the examples, I followed the "hissing" definition. I was wrong in that I 'implied' there wasn't another possibility.

[Goblinmonger]

102. "Hysterical"

Surely you are aware of the sexist origins of that word.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. Surely you read what I wrote?

[omega minimo]

44. That's not at all exactly what he said:

"If you are opposed to changing his FICTIONAL sexuality then it is easy enough to see homophobia in action."

[el_bryanto]

52. That's a pretty fine line - in reality Holmes is intended as mass media entertainment

it's not likely that he will actually be portrayed as a homosexual.

Bryant

[omega minimo]

53. so in love with his work and his drugs -- he has time for dalliances?

[dmallind]

30. The character WAS written as straight

He is written as romantically attached to at least one and IIRC two women, and absolutely zero men. Not even an implicit romantic link with any men. Sharing beds, even amongst strangers, in inns and barracks etc, was assumed to be perfectly acceptable and innocent at the time (and ironically it's homophobia that has stopped this from being the case).

Why would it matter? To maintain fidelity to an important fictional creation. It would be like re-writing Tarzan as a black lesbian. Might be a perfectly valid fictional character in its own right, but would not be Tarzan.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. "It would be like re-writing Tarzan as a black lesbian."

Not even close, but it does show something.

[joeybee12]

85. Then there can't be all black versions of any Shakespeare plays

like there have been in recent years...gee, didn't know fiction was so off-limits.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. Well, apparently to some, that's exactly the point.

It would eliminate things like "The Whiz" as well. Of course, if people objected to that they would likely be branded racists.

[Goblinmonger]

103. But nobody holds the copyright on Shakespeare

If they did, they might want to put limits on how it is portrayed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

47. Which women was Sherlock Holmes written as attached to?

I'm talking about the original books, BTW.

I remember him *admiring* a woman, using women, but never really being *in love* with any.

[Bucky]

65. He romanced and even got engaged to a servant girl once as a scheme...

... to get closer to a household he was investigating. I read that one when I was ten or so and even then thought it was totally crass. In the story's dialog he said something to Watson like, "I dewn't seppose you eveh thowght of me as the marrying kind, did yew, Watson, ol sport?" then started bringing flowers to this poor sap. Dropped her the second he caught the murderer, of course.

Watson, by the way, was very happily married in the later stories.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

88. That's how I remembered it too.

Holmes admired Adler, he *used* women, but he never loved any.

[Love Bug]

75. Uh, no.

Arthur Conan Doyle did not write Sherlock Holmes as attached to any woman. Over the decades many have assumed he had an attachment to Irene Adler, but Watson even stated in the story (A Scandal in Bohemia) that "It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind."

Holmes' interest in Adler was in the fact she was the only woman to defeat him. That challenged his misogynistic tendencies.

The only person in the Sherlock Holmes Canon Holmes ever shows any affectionate regard for is Watson. The reader may interpret that any way he/she wishes. The subtext is vague enough to suggest Holmes was in love with Watson; the subtext could also be interpreted to suggest Holmes was asexual. But there is far more evidence in the subtext to "prove" Holmes was attached to Watson than to any woman at all.

If one takes the Canon at face value it is obvious Holmes loves Watson, even if only as a brother.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

87. So when does the line between the foundation of a fictional character and simply using the name end?

For example.......the shitty "Night Stalker" TV remake. Kolchak went from being a grumpy, rumpled, middle-aged cheap reporter to a young, rich, brooding and handsome reporter. Essentially the opposite of a character people knew and loved.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but yes, fictional characters do matter to people, especially if you are just using the name because they know it's a moneymaker. The thing about Sherlock being gay is minor, but there are instances where popular characters are totally perverted with no thought whatsoever other than to suck money from wallets.

[Ter]

133. It would not be racist to oppose a non-white WW

Just like it would not be racist to oppose a white Spawn, John Stewart (one of the Green Lanterns), or Storm. Some people just prefer the originals. I would oppose a WW movie if she was a blond as well. Nothing wrong with that.

[Touchdown]

43. Then you must really object to these movies, who were gay in the original works.

Their sexuality was sanitized for your protection.

[joeybee12]

70. Apparently you've never read Sherlock Holmes...lost of gay undertones...

...sorry that your flaming homophobia doesn't allow you to see that.

[JackRiddler]

40. Homophobia plus the braindead repression that passes for "copyright law"

A. Conan Doyle died in 1930.

NINETEENTHIRTY!

Who the fuck is "Andrea, Plunkett" and why does she get to dictate the terms of use (and profit from) a character who became a nearly universal cultural archetype about a century ago?

[dipsydoodle]

4. How the fuck

did someone get the copyright to Sherlock Holmes ?

Aside from that the answer would be to make the sequel in the UK and let Punkett go fuck himself.

[omega minimo]

7. Herself

"... sequel in the UK and let Punkett go fuck himself."

[dipsydoodle]

8. Oh !

Whatever.

[wryter2000]

24. She doesn't understand what copyright means, obviously

If she owns the copyright to Holmes stories, no one can make copies but her...ergo COPYright. In other words, they can't steal the material she owns.

What she means is trademark. If she owns the trademark to Holmes, other people can't change the character.

[TicketyBoo]

13. I'm not homophobic,

but I've read the entire Sherlock Holmes series. Twice. I would be seriously disappointed to have him portrayed as a homosexual because it would be untrue to the character as written. I wouldn't want to go see such a film. For the record, I wouldn't care about Holmes being portrayed in any kind of sexual manner. I don't think I've seen more than one or two Sherlock Holmes movies (and those ages ago, before Jeremy Brett's portrayal). The character simply didn't live up to the one in the books as he existed in my mind, so I gave up on the films. Maybe that's what the copyright holder is alluding to, keeping the character as true to the books as possible. I have no argument with that, although I will probably continue to keep my own version of Holmes in my mind and not watch the movie.

[JackRiddler]

42. The fictional Sherlock belongs to everyone, just like Mickey Mouse, Odysseus and Jehovah...

A. Conan Doyle died EIGHTY years ago. Whoever Andrea Plunkett is, she was presumably born long after Sherlock Holmes had entered the realm of universal myth.

Anyone can write what they like with this character, which was implanted in the minds of almost everyone from childhood forward. He belongs to our whole culture. That includes you.

Unfortunately, our present-day "Intellectual Property" order enforces the fiction that someone, anyone, can own Holmes and tell others what to do with him. I refuse to recognize this fiction.

As for your objection, write your own screenplay. Or read the books in your armchair, and enjoy the Sherlock Holmes you prefer to visualize for yourself. And in 2012 you will have the opportunity as a free person to avoid and even boycott the sequel, "SH2: Queer Holmes."

[Withywindle]

57. Thank you!

I've never understood why people get so upset about reinterpretations, different interpretations, fanfiction, film adaptations that change some things, etc. (well, except when they're really, really bad....don't get me started on how much I hated Neil LaBute's version of "Possession"....)

Nobody is going to go over to anyone else's house, grab their dogeared leatherbound editions of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, and draw erect penises all over the margins. The collective memory of these stories will not be altered. You will still be able to get the originals everywhere, and they will be exactly the same as they were a hundred years ago. Anyone who is not interested in gay!Holmes will be free to ignore it. No one will be held at gunpoint and forced to watch or read it. No one will be forced to recite a "we have always been at war with Eurasia and Holmes has always been banging Watson" mantra.

It's just a different type of Holmes story, that starts in the mind of its writer the same way all stories do: "What if?" "What if Holmes got hold of a time machine?" "What if Holmes worked in the same universe as Lovecraft's occultists and monsters?" "What if Holmes and Watson had a sexual relationship?" All 'what-ifs' have a right to live, IMO. Success or failure is determined by the writer's skill.

And yes, freaking out over the possibility of gay!Holmes when all the other myriad reinterpretations of the character that have been done over the years produced no outrage whatsoever--that's homophobic.

[dipsydoodle]

50. Thought you were going to say............

The Iliad was a good book. :)

He may not have been gay but he sure was a drug addict.

[onpatrol98]

60. Agreed

[Toasterlad]

62. When Someone Says "I'm Not Homophobic, But...", You Can Bet Your Ass They're a Big Old Homophobe.

[Bucky]

67. No, you can't. Don't be an idiot.

You might not have noticed, but there's really no shortage of loud and proud homophobes in this country.

[Toasterlad]

68. Oh, I've Fucking Noticed.

And I almost prefer them over the ones who truly think they're enlightened, but are actually homophobic to the core. They're the ones who find creative ways to justify their votes for Prop 8 or signing a petition to remove a gay teacher or a move out of a neighborhood with a gay couple in it.

The only thing the closeted homophobes have over the loud and proud homophobes is that the closet-cases rarely try to maim or kill us. Which is, admittedly, a big plus.

But in general, I prefer to know exactly who my enemies are, rather than be ambushed from behind by a supposed friend. See: Obama, Barack.

In other words, in case YOU haven't noticed, there are TONS more closeted homophobes than out and proud homophobes in this country.

[donheld]

94. +1

[TicketyBoo]

97. Oh, great.

I'm a big old "homophobe" because I don't care to have Sherlock Holmes sexualized in any manner.

I was pointing out that I am NOT homophobic simply because I am not, and it may be hard to tell that on a board without saying so, especially when you're espousing the point of view that you don't want to see a character depicted as such.

I simply prefer to think of Holmes in the classic sense. I don't care to have him depicted as lusting after anyone, Watson or anyone else, whatever gender.

So sue me.

People have pointed out that I don't have to see the movie, and I've already said that I don't intend to see it. Fine and dandy?

[Toasterlad]

98. I Seriously Doubt You'd Have Posted In This Thread If The Title Were "Sherlock Holmes Is Straight"

What exactly about Holmes being gay bothers you so much?

[TicketyBoo]

100. I would have posted in this thread

if it said, "Sherlock Holmes has a love affair in the next movie."

Gender isn't important in my mind in this. I just like Sherlock Holmes the way he was written. That's all.

Injecting overt sexuality (of any sort) involving the main character in a Sherlock Holmes movie takes away from the plot and compromises the character, in my opinion.

[Orsino]

15. An offhand remark by the star on Letterman...

...has become a tempest in a teapot.

I haven't read all of Holmes, but think the character comes off as very asexual. Since the current movie has already set up Holmes with a female love interest, I seriously doubt that the franchise will completely reboot that element of the character.

The haters should put away their knives. Turning the detective unambiguously OCD doesn't seem to have violated the alleged "spirit" of the character, whatever that means. Besides, the execrable Medved is right about this much: making Holmes significantly gay/bi would probably cut the franchise revenues. So would giving him wings or a robot sidekick, but reasonable people won't lose sleep over these possibilities.

[JVS]

21. Robot sidekick! Whoa! See you later, I have some fanfic to write.

[Lilith Velkor]

29. You shipping Holmes and Clank?

I admit, I've thought about it.

[Generic Other]

16. The book was written in 1887...isn't it in public domain?

Why does anyone hold a copyright?

[liberal_at_heart]

23. That's a good question

I can see how an author would have the right to deny creative licence with characters they created, but if the person objecting isn't the author they shouldn't have the right to deny creative license.

[WeDidIt]

73. Not yet. At the latest it runs out December 31, 2047

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930, so under copyright law, the copyright should have expired on July 7, 2000, however, under the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act, an additional 20 years could be added to the life of the copyright, so most likely the copyright expires on July 7, 2020.

[Angleae]

80. It's time from publishing, not death of author.

And they're expired.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[eShirl]

17. "Her claims to rights in the Sherlock Holmes stories have been repeatedly rejected in U.S. federal

"A recently created web site for "the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate" represents Andrea Plunket, the former wife of Sheldon Reynolds, producer of the 1954 television series starring Ronald Howard as Holmes. Reynolds controlled the copyrights in the 1950s. Plunket is proprietor of a guest house in Livingston Manor, New York. Her claims to rights in the Sherlock Holmes stories have been repeatedly rejected in U.S. federal court decisions (including Plunket v. Doyle, No. 99-11006, Southern District of New York, February 22, 2001; Pannonia Farms Inc. v. ReMax International and Jon Lellenberg, No. 01-1697, District of Columbia, March 21, 2005). She has also filed a claim to the name "Sherlock Holmes" as a United States trademark, and it too has been turned down."

http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. So... right-winger, homophobe, and copyright nazi. Perfect. -nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. Great. She can go pound sand.

[MetaTrope]

59. At this point, it's clear our "news" media will give free voice to any batshit conservative crackpot

to say whatever they like without fear of contradiction. Next thing you know, she'll be appearing in Politico with Dick Cheney.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Andrea Plunkett is not related to Conan Doyle

And her claims to being the copyright holder have been rejected by US courts in the past. I do not know the details of the current film deal, but Plunkett sure does not speak in a manner that one might expect from a person making tons of money from a project, toward a key employee who is paid millions. Not if that person had power.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. Years ago, I published a Sherlock Holmes novel

through a major publisher, Dodd, Mead. At that time, Conan Doyle's heirs were still alive, and they threatened to sue because they disapproved of a couple of plot elements (nothing to do with homoeroticism, in this case). Dodd, Mead laughed at them and told them they had no legal rights in the U.S. That was the end of that.

Years later, I can't imagine that someone has such legal rights now.

[Withywindle]

34. There are an awful lot of Sherlock Holmes stories still being written, aren't there?

Laurie R. King gave him a Mary Sue, er, I mean, love interest....they got MARRIED, IIRC. That's kind of shocking. (The Beekeeper's Apprentice and its sequels)

Neil Gaiman made him a sort of rogue resistance fighter in a world that's totally taken over by the H.P. Lovecraft Old Ones from the Cthulhu Mythos....("A Study in Emerald," which was first published, IIRC in Shadows Over Baker Street, which is a whole anthology of Holmes/Cthulhu crossovers.)

And haven't all sorts of entertaining things been done with the character in Star Trek and Doctor Who?

Compared to interpretations like that, a pinch of homoeroticism is pretty mild and old-school. Holmes/Watson as a popular fanfiction pairing is far, far older than, say, Kirk/Spock--lots and lots of people see and like the subtext, and that's a perfectly workable (and fun! Enjoyable! I love it!) interpretation. The "death of the author" is quite literal in this case - it's not like anyone can ask Sir Conan Doyle what he thinks.

And yeah - public domain. I can't understand why this woman thinks she has any rights.

[DavidDvorkin]

36. Lots of them. It may never end.

Well, eventually, of course it will end. Maybe in a couple of hundred years. :)

A lot of the earlier pastiches were similar to the Conan Doyle stories but were new adventures. Nowadays, it's common to add major twists or crossovers. Mine (Time for Sherlock Holmes) involved the time machine from the H. G. Wells novel as well as space travel; it might have been one of the first crossovers.

[Withywindle]

49. Yours sounds really interesting!

I'd like to read that!

[DavidDvorkin]

55. Used copies are probably available online

Maybe even some new ones.

More info about the book here: http://www.dvorkin.com/sh/

[Withywindle]

58. Sweet! I agree, the second cover is much better.

And the woman who tried to sue you? Fail.

As a fanfiction writer, I know very well that when lots of people are writing in the same genre about the SAME CHARACTERS, very frequently the same themes and ideas will pop up independently in a lot of different minds. Partly the inspiration of the source material, and partly the collective unconscious, which I am convinced by experience is in some sense real.

And no, I don't think Conan Doyle would have been offended by the very idea of Holmes and time travel either.

[BreweryYardRat]

45. Hell, a huge honkin' anthology just hit shelves a month or two ago.

Broad-spectrum Holmes -- everything from character studies (Naomi Novik wrote a nice piece about Holmes and Irene Adler), to some stuff that apparently missed the deadline to be included in "Shadows over Baker Street."

[Withywindle]

48. Oooo, I've gotta get that!

I love Naomi Novik!

[MilesColtrane]

31. Except she's not the U.S. copyright holder.

Bad reporting.

[bridgit]

54. It is just that it is unnecessary, my husband scoffed out loud with Robert as Holmes...

chained with fluffy cuffs to a otherwise stately bed pillow staged just-so with all requiring great assistance from a chamber maid to alleviate - if anyone knows Holmes they understand with a quickness rather how improbable that moment truly is. Though if these are to be the trajectories of fallen away pieces of Lit like leper chunks then why not: Holmes & Watson do Christmas with Paula Dean, or: Holmes & Watson do Siegfried & Roy, or: Holmes & Watson do Thelma & Louise, or: Holmes & Watson do Dallas :blush:, or: William Burroughs reading from the great beyond - the collected musings of John Yoo

[Toasterlad]

64. Reading Your Post Was LIke Being Beaten With Weightless Dumbells.

[bridgit]

76. Ah! A most ready, willing & able *recipient* of: The New Holmes

:spray:





edit <&6*2 b@)!(7hvU&6$bd&*0(--2 :bounce:

[Bucky]

69. Well this thread has been fun. What should we argue about next?

Tastes great, you asshole!

      Less filling, you Hitler!

[Toasterlad]

71. Yeah, Homphobia's Not a Legitimate Concern At All.

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

72. I support Intellectual Property Rights

The Holmes character is her intellectual property.

She has every right to control how that character is portrayed.

When the copyright runs out, then anybody can do anything they want with the characters from the stories.

For further examples of how this can work, see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

[BolivarianHero]

79. Who gives a fuck...

Doyle is dead...She did nothing to create Holmes and he belongs in common culture.

You ---> www.freerepublic.com

[eShirl]

82. U.S. courts disagree

"The Holmes character is her intellectual property."

[WeDidIt]

89. Sorry, took the story as reporting truth

Didn't know she did not hold the copyright.

So the movie company is free to do whatever the fuck they want with the character and nobody has any right to say otherwise.

[BolivarianHero]

78. It's funny...

She hates queers and yet she's a two-bit copyright whore. People like her are the reason piracy is a good thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. A comment on Andrea Blunkett:

She got a (disputed) claim to copyright because she was once married to the producer of a 50s US TV Holmes series.

Some twenty-odd years ago, when Andrea Plunket was still married to the film producer Sheldon Reynolds, I had dinner with her. Yes, I know, it's a very modest distinction, but some of us have to clutch at straws. Anyway, I found Andrea to be a perfectly amiable person, but that was not a universal view.

After Andrea and Sheldon were divorced (I don't know who did what to whom), she went off and became the close companion of Claus von Bulow. Yes, that very same Claus von Bulow who was accused of murdering his wife Sunny with a lethal injection of insulin, and who was, in due course, acquitted by a jury. His story was turned into a film, Reversal of Fortune, starring Jeremy Irons (who won an Oscar in the process).

At one point in all these shenanigans, Sheldon Reynolds was asked what he thought of his ex-wife going around with a man who had been accused of murder.

Sheldon gave it a bit of thought. 'Well,' he said, 'let's put it this way. If Claus marries Andrea, he'll wish he'd been found guilty.'

http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2005/08/detective-work-on-sherlock-copyright.html

[meegbear]

84. Oh noes! Teh gays want to homo a fictional character!

Would somebody PLEASE think of the children!

[Blasphemer]

86. She's being ridiculous. As all art, literature is subject to interpretation

There's nothing new about exploring homoerotic themes in literature & film featuring two ostensibly straight male characters. The existence of Rachel McAdams's "Irene Adler" in the film should be a clear indication that they are not planning on creating a *gasp* homosexual storyline, so she can cease with the pearl clutching.

[omega minimo]

126. "Pearl clutching."

[Libertas1776]

90. I guess she wouldn't like it if

Robert Downey Jr.s Sherlock Holmes shot up some cocaine in his arm during the film either...oh, wait, that was actually in the original Sherlock Holmes. Quick, better sanitize it up for the American mass market. :eyes:

[Toasterlad]

99. So Easy To Spot the Homophobes.

"I don't want to see Sherlock Holmes lusting after ANYONE!"

Yeah, because a gay Sherlock Holmes is all about LUSTING.

Things about me which have nothing to do with sex:

Like action movies
Love to read
Go to work every weekday
Drive a car
Listen to music
Take a daily shower
Watch football
Enjoy board games
Like beer
Love to bake
Go to the movies
Brush my teeth
Occasionally clean my house
Visit my family
Learn VBA
Hate clothes shopping
Enjoy fantasy football
Like dogs AND cats
Have strong opinions about healthcare
Quit smoking
File my taxes yearly
Hate talking on the phone
Get sentimental around the anniversary of my mom's death
Enjoy warm weather
Like the color blue
Love visitin my alma mater (Go Penn State!)
Dislike a few coworkers
Don't watch a lot of TV
Have sleep apnea
Enjoy Herr's hot cheese curls
Miss Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly
Need to throw out a bunch of old clothes
Lazy about getting a hair cut
Just bought a Wii
Like to drive, but hate sharing the road

etc., etc.

There is more to a gay person than fucking LUST. And if you won't watch a movie with a male character who kisses a man at the end instead of a woman, when you've spent your entire life watching movies end with a man kissing a woman, YOU'RE A FUCKING HOMOPHOBE.

[TicketyBoo]

101. Exactly my point.

Sherlock Holmes is not about lusting, either. And he shouldn't be made to be about lusting (about anyone), at least, not in my opinion.

"The game is afoot, Watson," shouldn't be a comment made about THAT sort of game, regardless of gender, ha-ha.

[Toasterlad]

106. The Point Is, You Heard "Gay" And You Thought "Lusting"

When you hear "straight", you don't think "lusting".

That's what we call homophobia.

[TicketyBoo]

129. But I would have thought

"lusting" if they were making him obviously straight, too.

I mean, how are you going to tell gay/straight if "lusting" of some sort isn't injected into the story?

Holmes, as written, very well could be gay or straight because there is NO reference to his sexuality (at least, none that I can remember).

I was just noting my personal preference of keeping it that way. I don't want to know. Some things are better left a mystery.

[Toasterlad]

130. You're Being Disingenous

I doubt you'll find a single person who believes that you'd have had a problem with a Sherlock Holmes movie containing a romantic sub-plot with a woman...which, coincidentally, is what's available now.

Care to point out the thread in which you posted that you didn't want to see Sherlock Holmes romancing Rachel McAdams? No? Seems it was just the "gay" speculation that suddenly had you pining for a neutered Holmes. Interesting.

[TicketyBoo]

131. Look,

I haven't SEEN the movie, and if there is a "romancing" going on (of either gender), I don't WANT to see it.

Here, I will post it, specifically: I don't want to see Sherlock Holmes romancing Rachel McAdams. Or anyone else. Get it? Got it? Good.

I want my Sherlock Holmes concentrating on solving mysteries. Period. I want him to be too brilliantly and single-mindedly scientifically inclined to be concerned with the mundaneness of sex.

So, don't believe it. I don't care. It's the truth.

[Toasterlad]

132. You Might Be Telling the Truth. I'm Only Saying It Wouldn't Be As Big An Issue For You

if Holmes is straight.

So, thanks for the permission, because, no, I DON'T believe you care as little about heterosexuality as you do about homosexuality.

But then, you're hardly alone in that.

[TicketyBoo]

134. Let's put it this way.

I have a cousin who is gay, and I'm a lot more okay with it than he is. He's tried to commit suicide at least three times (that I know of).

I have a friend I met online who lives hundreds of miles away. He's gay, and he came to visit and spend the night in my home, and it matters not one whit to me to whom he is attracted sexually. He's my friend.

It is my belief that homosexuality is a congenital condition, not a "lifestyle choice."

I believe that anybody should be able to marry the love of their life.

It is not an issue for me whether Holmes is gay or straight. He is simply asexual in my eyes, and I prefer to keep it that way. I first read the Holmes stories as a kid before I even knew about sex. I read them again as an adult, and I just prefer to think of him with the pure joy I knew in the stories when I first read them as a child. That's the whole story.

P.S. If you look for prejudice at every turn, you're bound to find it.

[haele]

135. Who knows - or cares? Doyle wasn't interested in sexuality as a character trait in men -

In the Victorian era, it only mattered in upper class women as an aspect of their "reputations". Men could pretty much be whatever they wanted to be as long as they were "discrete" about it. It was considered perfectly normal for men to share lodgings or to hang out exclusively with each other for fellowship, because women were considered "sensitive, fragile creatures", who's little intellect was to be protected. Men tended to only hang out with women when they were looking for mates or they were protecting their "property" if they were married or had daughters/sisters.

There were plenty of men during that era that were at least bi-sexual, as intellectual stimulus can be as erotic as physical stimulus to many people. If the only people you feel intellectually comfortable with are those of your own gender, homosexuality - or same sex attraction without a primary homosexual orientation - is a predictable outcome.
Of course, the Victorians called it "brotherly love". And that would be as far as it would be considered in "polite society". One basically had to be caught in flagrante delicto to be considered homosexual.

Haele