tzikeh

New York Post Says "Gay" Holmes May Backfire.

Okay, here's the thing.

We know that the homosocial/sexual subtext is there for us in Sherlock Holmes whether or not the director (or author) intends it to be. And we know that Downey is a goofball who's totally fine with it, and will say pretty much anything that comes into his great big brain. And we know (or, let's say, many of us agree) that Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are two attractive men who, if the behind-the-scenes photos and interviews are anything to go by, get on like a house (or crotch) on fire. (RDJ's crotch caught on fire during filming, he apparently leapt out of his seat shouting, basically, "My crotch is on fire!" and JL quick-thinkingly grabbed a nearby vase of flowers and threw it at his crotch, putting out the fire. No lie. Good thing whoever the set dresser was had actually put *water* in the vase.)

So, when Michael Medved goes all BRAINLESS STUPIDHEAD HOMOPHOBIC SCHMUCKFACE on us, writing "Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don't think it would be appealing to women," the only thing to do is comment on the column about how he's a brainless, stupidheaded, homophobic schmuckface who has no idea what would be appealing to women.

As many, many people have done over at the NY Post site.

I AM SO AMUSED. And I only see like, one name I recognize as a slash fan (though others mention it as a phenomenon Medved might want to look up on The Google.)

(NB: I am purposefully ignoring the part where the reviewer(s) read "they want to make the movie about Holmes's and Watson's relationship" and RDJ's larking about and immediately assume TEH GHEY IS GETTIN' ALL OVER SHERLOCK HOLMES. I am too tired to do anything involving rage against our society today. I'm not worried about missing the boat, though; I'm sure all the things to rage at will still be around when I've recovered.)