Homoerotic Subtext Threatens SHERLOCK HOLMES Sequel?

Bromantic comedy is under scrutiny, not everybody seems to think it’s a fun concept after all, certainly not the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which according to WENN has threatened to withdraw the screen rights to SHERLOCK HOLMES from director Guy Ritchie if Ritchie insists on keeping the hints at a homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson for the sequel…

Robert Downey, Jr., who plays SHERLOCK HOLMES went on David Letterman last week and suggested that Holmes and Watson in this movie are homos and that didn’t sit well with Andrea Plunket, who controls the remaining U.S. copyrights to the Holmes story

“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. I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.”

I personally don’t see Ritchie’s approach as a problem, I just think it could be handled differently, I’d rather have the focus shifted more toward the investigation so that the so-called bromance between the two leads could be just an entertaining filler. On the other hand, I understand Plunket’s anger, nothing more upsetting than to have your beloved characters altered by some filmmaker, which is why I was furious at Peter Jackson‘s weak adaptation of The Lovely Bones.
Would SHERLOCK HOLMES be just as fun if it were about Holmes and his sidekick Watson with nothing more to it? Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that the movie is an action comedy, not a dark, gritty, psychological thriller like the Hughes Bros.’ From Hell
Downey’s comment on Letterman was a bit strong and misleading in my opinion because although there is a considerable amount of fondness, if you will, in the movie between Holmes and Watson, that stems from having collaborated together for months, it’s hardly homos. What do you think about all this?