Hasn't this been a debated topic forever?

And hasn't the copyright expired on Sherlock Holmes yet?

And we can't let the "good taste" jab slide either, subby. The movie wasn't bad at all. I haven't seen much hate for the movie, and rightly so.

Lionel Mandrake: It might be an entertaining movie, and I'll probably see it one day, but I do have a problem when things are changed that radically. Just make a new protagonist "inspired in part" by Holmes.

The previews are designed to get the mouth breathers in the door. It's nowhere near as bad as you might fear.

cmunic8r99: if you can pick out which one applies, here's a link (pops) to the various copyright terms, as of Jan 2009:

I always thought that that was stupid. Why should anyone at all be allowed to benefit from an authors work after the author dies? Sure, let the kids inherit his estate, but the works should be public domain from that point on. And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

I agree, I liked the new Sherlock Holmes movie but the cum shot scene was over the top.

Alacritous: Hasn't this been a debated topic forever?

And hasn't the copyright expired on Sherlock Holmes yet?

Copyright will never expire in the United States. Nothing will enter the public domain ever again.

Alacritous: And hasn't the copyright expired on Sherlock Holmes yet?

On about half of the stories, but not all of them. Thank The Mouse for that one.

Ok, I've seen the movie twice now (long story), and I really enjoyed it both times. I'll admit I haven't read the entirety of the Sherlock Holmes stories (though I'm working on it) but I've read several and I don't really see what the fuss is about.

First off, I can't say that I really detected much in the way of gay innuendo - I'd say anything they have in there is pretty subtle. I do think that they do a lot in the film to establish the close friendship and bond that Holmes and Watson have, but there isn't anything blatantly homosexual about it. But I suppose this isn't the first movie featuring such a relationship that the more homophobic people in the audience have found a way to interpret as gay. Is it there? Maybe. Is it in any way overt or does it detract from the rest of the movie? No.

And while Ritchie certainly does takes some liberties with the source material, it's hardly like previous adaptations of Holmes haven't. How many have cleaned the character up, totally leaving out any trace of the fitful, eccentric, often high on cocaine Sherlock Holmes (when between cases) that Doyle portrays in his stories? While any explicit reference to drugs is omitted, I think Ritchie did a very good job capturing that side of the character.

Certainly I think that Ritchie injected some more humor and action into the story than Holmes traditionalists were used to, but ultimately he made a solid movie that captured much of the spirit of Doyle's stories, featured excellent performances from Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, and was one of the most entertaining movies I saw in 2009.

/So there

Alacritous: And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. It was pushed through a few years ago after hard lobbying by a Disney in danger of losing its copyright to Mickey Mouse, Snow White, and other early Disney works.

texdent
Don't they realize that Holmes and Watson were just early version of House and Wilson?

That's how I explained the movie to a friend... 19th century House that's an alcoholic instead of vicodin addict that uses his cane to kick ass instead of prop himself up.

skitzo: I agree, I liked the new Sherlock Holmes movie but the cum shot scene was over the top.

This. I knew to expect a happy ending, but wtf?

both characters have heterosexual relationships in the movie, so this would be Biroticism and A-OK

Abstruse: Alacritous: And hasn't the copyright expired on Sherlock Holmes yet?

On about half of the stories, but not all of them. Thank The Mouse for that one.



Bye bye, Basil

Mugato: Do a couple guys who live together and suck each other off whilst shooting coke have to be gay? Can't they just be British?

I lol'd

I really dislike sandy-vag source purists.

"If it's not 100% identical to the books, right down to the details that even the author wouldn't notice, then it's bad."

Bollocks. Holmes was a farking fun film, and it was one of the very few 2009 releases that I actually liked.

/Threadjack? Probably.
//Back to your regularly scheduled homophobia.

Lionel Mandrake: The estate of Sherlock Holmes? He was a real guy?

lol


Alacritous: cmunic8r99: if you can pick out which one applies, here's a link (pops) to the various copyright terms, as of Jan 2009:

I always thought that that was stupid. Why should anyone at all be allowed to benefit from an authors work after the author dies? Sure, let the kids inherit his estate, but the works should be public domain from that point on. And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

This. I understand the idea a writer, musician, etc. should get the benefits of his work. I even understand the family, for instance if the creator wasn't famous until late in life or postumously - they should get at least some years worth of revenue. But I have a problem with corporations buying up and aggregating copywrites, leading to certain stories/movies/remixes never being legally possible because a mishmash of companies own them.

Well, just play up Holmes shooting cocaine like a fiend instead.

Fluorescent Testicle: I really dislike sandy-vag source purists.

"If it's not 100% identical to the books, right down to the details that even the author wouldn't notice, then it's bad."

Bollocks. Holmes was a farking fun film, and it was one of the very few 2009 releases that I actually liked.

/Threadjack? Probably.
//Back to your regularly scheduled homophobia.

No kidding. I haven't seen the movie yet but it's always like this. "OMG Holmes always carried a SCARLETT handkerchief and this one is clearly mauve!!!! Quit raping my childhood!!"

Maybe Conan-Doyle's estate should go back and watch Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970). Homosexuality was a running joke and it was the first movie to blatantly mention Holmes' cocaine use. Synopsis

Lionel Mandrake: The estate of Sherlock Holmes? He was a real guy?

I wondered the same thing.

Abstruse: Thank The Mouse for that one.

Wasn't it Sonny Bono? Disney might have drove a dump truck full of money up to his new mansion though but he was the lame wad to introduce it.

Sonny wanted to make copyright indefinite. He hit that tree to late in life if you ask me.

Thoguh: Meh, some people are incapable of seeing any kind of male intamacy or close friendship without seeing gay. Not saying that isn't what Guy Richie was going for in this case, but seriously, not everybody with a close friend of the same sex is gay.

"Some people" like Robert Downey Jr? I think the whole gay angle is contrived to generate free publicity for the movie and its sequel. How much of the media discussion about the movie's supposed gay theme is actually about the movie? It seems to revolve around what the actors say in their candid and totally not PR-managed interviews.

Fano: Lionel Mandrake: The estate of Sherlock Holmes? He was a real guy?

lol


Alacritous: cmunic8r99: if you can pick out which one applies, here's a link (pops) to the various copyright terms, as of Jan 2009:

I always thought that that was stupid. Why should anyone at all be allowed to benefit from an authors work after the author dies? Sure, let the kids inherit his estate, but the works should be public domain from that point on. And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

This. I understand the idea a writer, musician, etc. should get the benefits of his work. I even understand the family, for instance if the creator wasn't famous until late in life or postumously - they should get at least some years worth of revenue. But I have a problem with corporations buying up and aggregating copywrites, leading to certain stories/movies/remixes never being legally possible because a mishmash of companies own them.

I disagree. Corporations should be able to legally retain copyrights as long as theyre being used by said corporation for the benefit of said corporation. Once an author dies they're not making money off of a character or copyright anymore so let it be public domain.

As long as someone is legally utilizing a copyright then no one else should be allowed to. Someone sitting on a copyright should have it stripped and entered into the public domain though.

lolmadillo: both characters have heterosexual relationships in the movie, so this would be Biroticism and A-OK



Ewwwwww!

arenaninja: skitzo: I agree, I liked the new Sherlock Holmes movie but the cum shot scene was over the top.

This. I knew to expect a happy ending, but wtf?

Personally, I found it in poor taste. Seeing Watson get drenched in hot, steamy, Sherlock sperm belongs in a cheesy porno rip off...not my Christmas action movie!

/I went there, took a picture, and CAME back.
//HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
///slashies!

Homosexual subtext in Sherlock Holmes is nothing new. I remember seeing The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes maybe a year ago on Hulu, and the first 20 minutes or so was a farce about Holmes pretending to be Watson's lover.


coco ebert: Homoeroticism is the lynchpin of Western civilization or something like that.

I think that's just the Royal Navy.

/Rum, lash, and sodomy.

TheOriginalEd: Corporations should be able to legally retain copyrights as long as theyre being used by said corporation for the benefit of said corporation. Once an author dies they're not making money off of a character or copyright anymore so let it be public domain.

I agree. I'll even go so far as to say that the Disney Corporation should not have to lift a finger to keep the rights to IP that they created as long as the corporation exists. They should never have to go to court to maintain the rights to Steamboat Willie or any film they produced. When it comes to things like "Snow White," the corporation can only keep the elements unique to their version of the story (names of the dwarves and the actual film and audio recording that was produced).

If the literary estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle keeps going (I don't think the Sherlock Holmes books will ever stop being published) then they keep the copyright. However, if this was licensed by Guy Ritchie for "X" number of movies, and the estate did not include that stipulation in the contract, then I think they should be more careful in future contract negotiations and be forced to let it happen.

Arkanaut: I think that's just the Royal Navy.

/Rum, lash, and sodomy.

True enough, though on the other hand cannibalism is now more of a chief problem for the Royal Air Force.

What do you think the Argyles ate in Aden? Arabs?!

Plunket cites being hostile towards departing from the "spirit of the books" (and not being hostile towards homosexuals) as her reason for threatening to withdraw Ritchie's rights. This is a total joke considering the movie had nothing to with the spirit of the books at all. Including characters with names like Adler and Moriarty when the emphasis on investigation in the books is thrown out the window and replaced with action sequences (and a really weak "how he did it" scene as an afterthought) does not a Sherlock Holmes movie make.

TheOriginalEd: Fano: Lionel Mandrake: The estate of Sherlock Holmes? He was a real guy?

lol


Alacritous: cmunic8r99: if you can pick out which one applies, here's a link (pops) to the various copyright terms, as of Jan 2009:

I always thought that that was stupid. Why should anyone at all be allowed to benefit from an authors work after the author dies? Sure, let the kids inherit his estate, but the works should be public domain from that point on. And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

This. I understand the idea a writer, musician, etc. should get the benefits of his work. I even understand the family, for instance if the creator wasn't famous until late in life or postumously - they should get at least some years worth of revenue. But I have a problem with corporations buying up and aggregating copywrites, leading to certain stories/movies/remixes never being legally possible because a mishmash of companies own them.

I disagree. Corporations should be able to legally retain copyrights as long as theyre being used by said corporation for the benefit of said corporation. Once an author dies they're not making money off of a character or copyright anymore so let it be public domain.

As long as someone is legally utilizing a copyright then no one else should be allowed to. Someone sitting on a copyright should have it stripped and entered into the public domain though.

Well, I think you have a good point too. I guess I'm thinking of getting rights and not exercising them - or exercising them poorly on purpose. I'm thinking of the long sad tale of Captain Marvel. (new window)

The other problem I suppose I have with a corporation is that it is immortal. Disney has a vested interest in owning its characters in perpetuity. Much as I don't care to see knock-off Mickey stuff, they can be sure to retain the rights they are "sitting on" be rereleasing old stuff right on whatever schedule you may ask for.

:( There's a reason so many tv shows/movies constantly remake public domain characters. Wouldn't the world at large be poorer if Robin Hood or Ebenezer Scrooge or any Shakespeare character had been retained by someone in perpetuity? I realize I'm going full slippery slope here, but still...

OTOH, it was a good thing Alan Moore couldn't get the Charlton characters to use for Watchmen.

I'm simply shocked that a fictional character's estate could be threating anyone in the real world.

This story is self-serving hype, created and 'leaked' by the studio to make more people go see the film.

Alacritous: cmunic8r99: if you can pick out which one applies, here's a link (pops) to the various copyright terms, as of Jan 2009:

I always thought that that was stupid. Why should anyone at all be allowed to benefit from an authors work after the author dies? Sure, let the kids inherit his estate, but the works should be public domain from that point on. And I'm pretty sure we can thank the Disney corporation for the retarded extensions on copyrights.

In this case, I don't know who's smoking what because the books are in the public domain. Maybe "withdrawing rights" is too strong a phrase, perhaps they really mean "withdrawing endorsement".

HarlequinGuy: This story is self-serving hype, created and 'leaked' by the studio to make more people go see the film.

Probably.

rynthetyn: while there's almost no chemistry between Downey and Rachel McAdams

I happen to agree with this. Evidently Downey is responsible for convincing Ritchie to cast McAdams in the film, which makes this more than a little ironic.

In terms of the female leads, Keilly Reilly (Mary Marston in the film, Watsons fiancee) stole every scene she was in. Evidently she is a much better actress.

How strange - wasn't Guy's supposed homophobia a factor in his failed marriage?

Or does he have one foot apiece in hating gays and embracing them?

Can't he understand you can't have it both ways?