Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location: Fans would accept a gay James Bond
Discussion: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Watch
 alexberg |
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 12:22 PM EDT What do you think? Could Bond endure after a gay tryst? What about a legit love interest? I have a feeling I know what BigGayBondFan will say. I expect him online shortly. ; ) 1 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
 moore4ever |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 2:53 PM EDT That move would totally kill the series. Do you find this valuable? |
 mkfreeberg |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 4:01 PM EDT "That move would totally kill the series."I agree. And I'd bat an eyelid. And furthermore, until I see a video, I doubt he said it. And furthermore, if someone can prove it, I still say it's a pub stunt. And furthermore...eh...I should probably stop here. Hey, why not bring on Al Pacino to play a gay villain whose boyfriend is Sean Connery? Do you find this valuable? |
 Cedric(006) |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 5:27 PM EDT "That move would totally kill the series."Yes it would......kill it in many young ones eyes...... >>>>GSTQ<<<< Do you find this valuable? |
|
Cedric(006) |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 5:28 PM EDT "Yes it would......kill it in many young ones eyes......In my cousins eyes i should say Do you find this valuable? |
 AdmlC. |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 7:34 PM EDT Sorry....no way!!!!.....that would destroy everythng......and he could'nt have been serous !! Do you find this valuable? |
|
mkfreeberg |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 8:08 PM EDT "Sorry....no way!!!!.....that would destroy everythng......and he could'nt have been serous !! "Well, when you think about history, it's remains a bunch of nonsense but you see it was only a matter of time before someone tossed this out...and if he was kidding, it's only a matter of time before someone says the same thing in a more serious tone. I mean, retreat in just one step from the brink of complete lunacy...and where are you standing now? A female James Bond, with her own successful franchise spun off from classic 007. That's been not only tried, but thoroughly exhausted. There was Triple-X, then there was Melina Havelock with her crossbow. All ready to be spun-off, even though no serious plans existed for this (so far as I know). Pam Bouvier, Wai Lin, Jinx. If you think the message has been sent "James Bond is not a launching pad for others, stop trying"...you have an excellent chance of being correct...but that just makes it all the more assured that the gay angle is going to be tried next. What else can they do, other than leaving the sexual theme stationary? And that would be fine with me. But somehow the message has settled in, that if James Bond's sexual theme is at a standstill, this is indicative of men oppressing women...and so the sexual theme must always be in motion. Don't ask me to explain it. Seems to me the ladies are just as satisfied with 007 rermaining who he is, as the gentlemen are. If not moreso. Do you find this valuable? |
 Matt_Bohlmann |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 8:58 PM EDT Yeah, Bond as a character is pretty firmly established -- even the differences between the various Bond actors have really just been small nuances within set boundaries. The series has proven very pliable over the years, in terms of what they have done with villains, plots, locations, twists. (In 1962, could you have envisioned Connery's Bond being tortured for months in a North Korean prison camp? Could you even have imagined a villain like May Day? Or Blofeld in drag?) Expanding the boundaries and perspective of the Bond universe has been a tradition (and challenge) through the series' run. But Bond himself, in the center, remains largely unchanged. And probably must. He gets older, he gets younger. He get funnier, he gets more serious. He stops smoking, he takes it up again. All minor augmentations over time. The important question always is: are these changes made for the betterment of the story, or are they just change for the sake of change? Homoerotic subtext is not new to the Bond franchise. And it certainly falls within Daniel Craig's purview to explore, widen, deepen the character. But these are still questions of nuance -- the core character of Bond should always remain intact. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Matt_Bohlmann |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 11 2008, 10:41 PM EDT "Homoerotic subtext is not new to the Bond franchise."Ha. OK, that observation seems a lot less insightful alongside my avatar of Putter Smith beaming over his giant meringue. Do you find this valuable? |
 biggaybondfan |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 12 2008, 1:12 PM EDT Well click my heels and call me Dorothy. This is the best news I've heard since Cher's 3rd farewell tour. I think dear, dear, Danny boy has the 'range' for this role. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
AdmlC. |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 12 2008, 3:00 PM EDT Range or not...21st century or not......NOT see'ng that! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
mkfreeberg |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 12 2008, 7:17 PM EDT "Well click my heels and call me Dorothy. This is the best news I've heard since Cher's 3rd farewell tour. I think dear, dear, Danny boy has the 'range' for this role."I think it should be pointed out he's gone here before: http://mkfreeberg.webloggin.com/et-tu-daniel 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 JustinAtheropinion |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 13 2008, 7:44 PM EDT Well, without getting too flaming about it... Rupert Everett has famously complained that the Bond producers haven't considered him for the role because of his sexual preference. There was talk about a "gay secret agent" series being started with everett some years back. nothing materialized. As far as the producers are concerned, they nixed a "Prince Charles" spoof for "The Living Daylights" when it was revealed the actor chosen for the part was gay. To smooth things over and replace those headlines with others, the producers invited PC and Princess Di for a set-visit, and the picture of her crowning Charles with a sugar-glass bottle has been printed world-wide. At least one of the Bond directors (Peter Hunt--an invaluable member of the original Bond team and director of OHMSS) was/is/has been gay. No one bitched when Sean Connery was winking at the Korean guard in "Goldfinger" 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 joshiorio |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 14 2008, 11:45 AM EDT if in fact craig did say this, it's troubling for me because while i'm sure good intentioned (showing support for the gay community), it shows that he really doesn't have a very good grasp on the fundamental character of bond. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 FionaVolpe |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Apr 14 2008, 12:28 PM EDT I am not homophobic but I want my James Bond Hetero. What's a Bond Movie without Bond Girls and him seducing them? Homosexuality has been addressed in Bond Movies, Lesbian Rosa Krebb in "From Russia With Love" as well as "Diamonds are Forever", the henchmen of Wynt and Kidd were also gay and that had a "creepy" feel to it. So, add various characters as Homosexual as in the real world but please keep James straight. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
 boothroyd |
RE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...
May 14 2008, 3:14 PM EDT I concur with the majority here. A "gay" Bond would be the death knell for the franchise, at least among most American audiences. All the older Bond fans like me who grew up with Bond, and eventually took our own sons to see Bond, would be appalled at the prospect. Do you find this valuable? |