I am probably the only person on these forums (unless some members actually appeared in it !) who knows all the ins and outs of the 'Sherlock Holmes' confusion that you are referring to, Splat. This is as a combination of my own interest in Holmes, some personal connections, and some investigations into the curiosity of what is going on! Essentially, lots of different productions are getting mixed up here, so it's worth setting the record straight.
1. There are two (I believe) new Hollywood 'blockbuster' versions of the Holmes story that are coming to our screens soon. The first, which I saw being advertised yesterday, stars Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law, and is directed by the 'cockney supremo' himself, Guy Ritchie, who, I assume, was peddling the publicity on 'Top Gear', as you say, Splat. I imagine it has cost him vast amounts of money. There is also (supposedly) a version of the story in the works that would be a more comedic 'big screen' take on the Holmes stories, and would star Sacha Baron Cohen and Will Ferrell, but not much has been heard about it since July of this year, so I'm not sure if it has gone into production. Both, make no mistake, are big budget Hollywood productions.
2. The 'Sherlock Holmes' piece that was advertised on this site is not either of these productions. It was, in fact, a much lower budget feature, being shot in Wales, and made for the straight to DVD market. The reason I know this is because a TV star with whom I was working on another piece mentioned to me at one stage that his next project was to be a 'Sherlock Holmes' adaptation that immediately put me in mind of the CCP advert - once I traced this production, I put two and two together and concluded they were the same. Initially a little confused as to why a smaller scale company was attempting to make a Holmes movie at the same time that massive blockbusters were about to hit the marketplace, a little educated research on my part turned up the fact that this was quite deliberate on the part of the production company - a reputable enough outfit with good production values and original scripts, they nonetheless specialise in what are 'homages' to the most popular blockbusters of the moment - aiming to capitalise on the popularity of the themes and characters which are biggest at the multiplexes and shift more units as a result. So, whilst I believe that this 'Sherlock Holmes' story is totally original, and in no way a 'rip off', it *is* intended to capitalise on the market for the blockbusters.
3. As to the roles that were being advertised on CCP - clearly, these had been part negotiated by a specific agency (working on behalf of the production company) with whom (as some will remember) there was a 'heated' correspondence over the rates at the time. The agency were working as mediators for the production company, and I believe it was the agency who posted the casting call to these forums. They have also published other casting breakdowns previously, but these were negotiated in conjunction with other orgainsations, rather than defined by the agency, which is why the rates have varied. Most CCPers were agreed that the rates offered here were extremely poor, given that they neither qualified for Equity minimum, and were just on the cusp of standard NMW. Ultimately, the responsibility for setting these rates was, we must assume, the production company's, who were looking to hire actors 'on the cheap', no doubt, and may well have spent expensively in securing their stars. All of this is reprehensible, and many questioned at the time whether an agency should be allowing rates so cheap to stand, but, given that *some* pay was offered, and that it may (just) have managed to make NMW (I cannot, in truth, remember the rates precisely), the set-up was presumably quite legal. None of this should be confused with e.g. Guy Ritchie's work, which has nothing to do with any of these issues!
