Previous Debate: Are the current team paving the way for a gay Bond?

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

but if you're a celebrity, and you're also playing one of the world's most iconic male sex symbols in the history of civilization, going into a gay bar called Roosterfish in Southern California, dancing with a guy, French kissing a guy, and letting another guy rub your leg isn't what I'd consider private behavior, and it certainly isn't going to do much to help convince people you are 100% straight.

Well, if it was French kissing, then, yes, that would seem to suggest that someone shops on both sides of the street.... but, honestly, how reliable are these reports? Not very, I'd imagine.

I tried a coffee/latte mixture back in '96 or '97, as the coffee shops were just hitting the peak of their popularity. Had never drank coffee before, though I loved the smell of it, like the fresh scent of a countryside the morning after a rainstorm. But even though everyone around me was drinking coffee, I just couldn't handle it, no matter how much whipped cream or nutmeg was put on the top. It was too bitter. It just wasn't me. Does that make me a coffee drinker? No, I don't think so. I experimented. I tried it once, didn't care for it and went on with my life (and the coffee is NOT a metaphor in this example; it's literal). The idea of being a coffee drinker is better than actually drinking the coffee. Where am I going with this? I don't know.

Oh yeah, now I remember. Maybe Craig was just curious that evening. Maybe he experimented. Maybe he didn't care for it all that much and that's why he's now married, allegedly, to Rachel Weisz. Just because he went to a gay bar, French kissed a man, rubbed thighs against the man, danced with the man, and maybe their uglies bumped into each other once or twice, doesn't mean he's gay...or even bisexual.

There have been gay actors past and present that I think would make a great James Bond, but the character of Bond must always remain rigidly straight. After 5 decades of staunch heterosexuality, a gay James Bond would just be too much for me to swallow.

Bond will never be gay for one reason alone: it would alienate a large portion of the key Bond demographic, which is young males, and the gay demographic is too small to compensate.

Interesting topic...I really don't know on this one...maybe a gay actor playing Bond but Bond himself? No I don't think so...I realize that Babs et al are trying to stay current and "relevant" but there some formulas you don't tamper with and this is one.
White, heterosexual (in the film) and misogynistic (but I see that side of the character falling ever so slightly by the kerb)

Look what happened to Coke and Pepsi when they were fiddled with..


and no they weren't the back up dancers for Wham..

danslittlefinger wrote:

Interesting topic...I really don't know on this one...maybe a gay actor playing Bond but Bond himself? No I don't think so...I realize that Babs et al are trying to stay current and "relevant" but there some formulas you don't tamper with and this is one.
White, heterosexual (in the film) and misogynistic (but I see that side of the character falling ever so slightly by the kerb)

But you could admit that Babs and Dan are trying to bring at least a "gay sensibility" to the series, no? Maybe Barbara doesn't make Bond full-on gay, but the day is coming when Bond is going to have some sort of kiss or romantic scene with another male. Dan has said he wants it and, just think, did anybody believe 20 years ago that it would be conceivable that a producer of the Bond series would put their actor in a dress and let him get talked down to like a petulant school child by the head mistress? There's a lot of things happening today that 25 years ago would have seemed unthinkable, but they happen.

Quote :

Look what happened to Coke and Pepsi when they were fiddled with..


and no they weren't the back up dancers for Wham..

Which one was Pepsi and which one was Shirlie? And why would anybody name themselves after a delicious soft drink beverage? Nonetheless, I *DO* remember them for the one hit song they had in the U.S. back in 1987/88 called "Alright Now":



And since you can remember them, DLF, I am fully confident in suggesting that you have to be in your mid 30's at the youngest.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And since you can remember them, DLF, I am fully confident in suggesting that you have to be in your mid 30's at the youngest.

My dear Gravity, Wham had their first hit in the UK in 1982 with Young Guns (Go for It) before they filtered over to the US. I was well old enough to not want to look at Top of the Pops with George Michael and the shuttlecock down his trousers.

As for what Babs et al are trying to do, I am clueless to their agenda...when Craig said this, are we sure he really did? Maybe he was using sarcasm as he's prone to do...

danslittlefinger wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And since you can remember them, DLF, I am fully confident in suggesting that you have to be in your mid 30's at the youngest.

My dear Gravity, Wham had their first hit in the UK in 1982 with Young Guns (Go for It) before they filtered over to the US. I was well old enough to not want to look at Top of the Pops with George Michael and the shuttlecock down his trousers.

As for what Babs et al are trying to do, I am clueless to their agenda...when Craig said this, are we sure he really did? Maybe he was using sarcasm as he's prone to do...

By "them" I meant Pepsi and Shirlie...unless they are or were extremely popular over in England, they're a very, very minor footnote in musical history here in the U.S. If it hadn't been for their remake of Alright Now, I'd never had heard of them.

As for whether Craig is serious or not, all I can say is that he seems to have an activist streak in him that, at the time, I did not know existed in Barbra Broccoli when Barbra hired him. Now it seems like a natural fit that she would have been enamored of him and wanted him to be the next Bond. If I ever thought he was joking about doing nude scenes (to even the playing field for women who were always being objectified) or letting Bond have a male romance/fling, his willingness to put on a dress and allow the character of James Bond to be humiliated in front of the entire world for International Womyn's Day removed all doubts. Imagine what Barbara must have felt when she saw Daniel say he wants to do full frontal male nudity because women these days are expected to take it off, but not men? I'm sure her chest swelled up with pride.

Bond was not created to do social messaging work. He's not a welfare officer. He's a killer. And somehow the world continued turning and billions of fans were created in the 60's and 70's and 80's when Bond was a killer and we as an audience weren't wondering whether he enjoyed killing or felt any remorse about it, and we didn't need Bond pouring out his feelings to us. But it's 2011 now, and that's what we've got. And I think the trend line is pointing in the direction of Bond being further "humanized" at the expense of a good ol' fashioned spy/action thriller.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Maybe Barbara doesn't make Bond full-on gay, but the day is coming when Bond is going to have some sort of kiss or romantic scene with another male.

Doubt it. Again, alienation factor is at play here. Do that in a film and you're going to seriously lose a large portion of the male audience, and that's why this sort of thing will never happen in an actual feature.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Dan has said he wants it and, just think, did anybody believe 20 years ago that it would be conceivable that a producer of the Bond series would put their actor in a dress and let him get talked down to like a petulant school child by the head mistress?

No, but that didn't actually happen in the franchise. It was a commercial.

Harmsway wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Dan has said he wants it and, just think, did anybody believe 20 years ago that it would be conceivable that a producer of the Bond series would put their actor in a dress and let him get talked down to like a petulant school child by the head mistress?

No, but that didn't actually happen in the franchise. It was a commercial.

You see I didn't have a problem with it really, first it was shocking then it was...well ok...not too sure that that was the best way to put across the point but I can seperate that commercial from the Bond films. I think that's where the issue lies with many which I can appreciate but for me, not a problem.

The commercial was horrid, IMO. I don't intend to defend it in any way.

Harmsway wrote:

The commercial was horrid, IMO. I don't intend to defend it in any way.

Well after bringing back up the chewing gum I swallowed on inital shock viewing, I did more laughing/sniggering at it than listening to the 'facts' that Ms Dench "M" was sprouting...the point could have been presented in a different way...
Babs, Ms Dench, Craig and Sam Taylor-Wood had their vision and there you have it.

I still haven't seen that thing. Don't intend to either, I suppose it wasn't aimed at me or it would long since have met me. So I feel quite indifferent about it, as most likely the majority of mankind does.

Harmsway wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Maybe Barbara doesn't make Bond full-on gay, but the day is coming when Bond is going to have some sort of kiss or romantic scene with another male.

Doubt it. Again, alienation factor is at play here. Do that in a film and you're going to seriously lose a large portion of the male audience, and that's why this sort of thing will never happen in an actual feature.

Unless the transformation was so subtle that no one really noticed it, or audiences were softened up and conditioned to expect it to come, so that when it actually did it was no big surprise.

Quote :

No, but that didn't actually happen in the franchise. It was a commercial.

And that's our best defense for the commercial? I realize it's not official or cannon, but really, you have a star and a producer playing with the image of 007 to advance a political agenda. The video could not have possibly been any more offensive had Daniel Craig been in a wet t-shirt, soaping himself up and down in a frothy lather with a garden hose, while washing his Bentley and eating a hamburger from Carl's Jr. *THAT* Carl's Jr. ad was on par with what Barbara Broccoli did to this series. :oops:

Every time this subject comes up, even if I bring it up, it feels like a band aid being ripped off my skin. I will never forgive Barbra Broccoli, and I will boycott the EON films from here until the end of time...or November 9th, 2012. Whichever comes first.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Unless the transformation was so subtle that no one really noticed it, or audiences were softened up and conditioned to expect it to come, so that when it actually did it was no big surprise.

Still wouldn't work. Our culture may become more tolerant and accepting of homosexual behavior on the whole, but most heterosexual males are still going to find homosexual behavior a major turn-off in a fantasy figure like James Bond. It's just the way it is. Maybe in twenty or so years things could be different. But Craig's only around for one or two more films in all likelihood, and I doubt Babs and Michael are going to carry on with the franchise forever, too.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And that's our best defense for the commercial?

It's not a defense. The commercial is horrid. I just don't think we can use it as a window into what the future holds for the character inside the actual franchise.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Bond was not created to do social messaging work. He's not a welfare officer. He's a killer. And somehow the world continued turning and billions of fans were created in the 60's and 70's and 80's when Bond was a killer and we as an audience weren't wondering whether he enjoyed killing or felt any remorse about it, and we didn't need Bond pouring out his feelings to us. But it's 2011 now, and that's what we've got. And I think the trend line is pointing in the direction of Bond being further "humanized" at the expense of a good ol' fashioned spy/action thriller.

poppycock, he's a secret agent who sometimes has to kill in the line of duty

very few of James Bond missions involve Bond being directly sent out to assassinate anyone, it's just that those foolish villains will insist on trying to resist arrest, and so he is forced to kill them out of self preservation

in fact IMO Craig Bond has to date been one of the Bonds who most seems to enjoy killing, rather than being the PC meterosexual you suggest, remorse about killing has not been a subject I recall him pouring his heart out about

arguably QOS had less room for character development and "humanizing" in it's script than any Bond script since Moore's time, being all about quick cutting shaky cam action with very little exposition or emoting from the lead character

please illustrate your assertions with some specific examples
:suspect:

Santa wrote:

Loomis wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Yep, the Bond and Felix at the bar scene was pretty gay. Babs was definitely pushing the evelope there, and with Craig's tacit approval. The subtext wasn't even subtle.

I'm afraid it went completely over my head. I presume you're referring to the bar encounter in QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Well, what on earth is gay about that scene? Serious question. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced, but I honestly have no idea what you mean. Is it that two guys chatting a bar is automatically gay?

Same here. I'm clearly more innocent than I realised because any gay subtext in that scene went straight over my head.

Watch the way Dan stares right at Felix and then says, "Well that doesn't give us much time then does it"
The subtext is obvious.

If you don't see it. Don't worry about it. Just means your pc radar isn't quite in focus yet. The progressives are very sneaky, the way they get their little messages in. They want you to catch it subliminally in the subtext, as opposed to consciously in the maintext. Innocence is bliss. Enjoy it while it lasts.
====The problem with the Equals commercial is that it's blatant feminist propaganda. Dan should know better, but he doesn't. He's caught under the progressive spell. Trying to be tolerant of everything to the point where he doesn't know up from down anymore.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Oh, one other thing....you're assuming that the "money-men" themselves won't be interested in changing Bond's nature. It's a fair conclusion to draw, but I think you're underestimating the pull of progressives and liberals in Hollywood.

Don't worry I don't underestimate their pull, however I don't underestimate the conservative nature of bankers either. Bond is a proven money maker. Return on investment knows no politics.

As long as business people are financing the films, they will protect their investment. If the government however were bankrolling the film, the progressives could go nuts. Government would happily go along with giving the people, what it thinks they should want and if the film flops, so what, at least the correct agenda was pursued. Just have to do it better next time, would be a typical response.

Business people on the other hand who demand ROI, will insist on actually giving the people what they want, in order to get their money.

Babs and her progressive ilk in the meantime, are left to sneaking in their messages. They can only preside over a slow stealth erosion of the franchise, if they want to keep the money taps flowing. She will continue to push the envelope but the investors will only let her push it so far.



@ Lazenby. Maybe its time to dig out that old post of yours, demonstrating how the entire QoS film is rife with gay subtext. That was a classic.

tiffanywint wrote:

Santa wrote:

Loomis wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Yep, the Bond and Felix at the bar scene was pretty gay. Babs was definitely pushing the evelope there, and with Craig's tacit approval. The subtext wasn't even subtle.

I'm afraid it went completely over my head. I presume you're referring to the bar encounter in QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Well, what on earth is gay about that scene? Serious question. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced, but I honestly have no idea what you mean. Is it that two guys chatting a bar is automatically gay?

Same here. I'm clearly more innocent than I realised because any gay subtext in that scene went straight over my head.

Watch the way Dan stares right at Felix and then says, "Well that doesn't give us much time then does it"
The subtext is obvious.

If you don't see it. Don't worry about it. Just means your pc radar isn't quite in focus yet.

Or could it - just possibly - mean that there's nothing to "get"?

I mean, there is that exchange - how does it go? BOND: That's the trouble with you Americans, you'll lie down with anyone. LEITER: Even you, brother, even you. (It goes something like that, anyway.) So how are we supposed to read this? Wait, I've got it! It's two guys talking about lying down with each other! Which could mean, like, shagging, hur hur hur! They're obviously so gay! Hey, Beavis, he said "lie down with anyone", hrm hrm!

Nah.

B&B - Bond & Beyond, or Beavis & Butthead? Hard to say.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Maybe Barbara doesn't make Bond full-on gay, but the day is coming when Bond is going to have some sort of kiss or romantic scene with another male.

Doubt it. Again, alienation factor is at play here. Do that in a film and you're going to seriously lose a large portion of the male audience, and that's why this sort of thing will never happen in an actual feature.

Unless the transformation was so subtle that no one really noticed it, or audiences were softened up and conditioned to expect it to come, so that when it actually did it was no big surprise.

And how would that happen, exactly? How do you make Bond progressively gayer over the next few films so that when he's finally seen bedding a bloke no one'll bat an eyelid and at worst viewers will mutter "Oh, well, I kinda suspected he liked men all along"?

I mean, do you have Bond buying a Judy Garland CD box set in BOND 23, then have him accompanying an openly gay friend on a Gay Pride parade (purely in the spirit of friendship and tolerance, you understand) in BOND 24, and so by the time of BOND 25 or 26, when the franchise's first "Bond boy" swoons into the sack with him after some dreadful Moore-ish pun, it's merely going to seem like just another cookie-cutter Bond series moment?

Can't really see it happening, any more than Bond will ever be rebooted as a homeless heroin addict or a Hindu. Because there's zero audience call for such a transformation and - rightly or wrongly - it would piss off a lot of paying customers.

Grav, it's obvious that you don't like Craig's performance as Bond (which is fine, obviously), so I'm curious as to who'd be playing Bond right now if you had your druthers. Cavill? Brosnan? Who?

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"

There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk...time was money, wasted time meant wasted lives and all that..
I mean this with all honesty..maybe overthinking is not the way to go..

Loomis wrote:

Or could it - just possibly - mean that there's nothing to "get"?

I mean, there is that exchange - how does it go? BOND: That's the trouble with you Americans, you'll lie down with anyone. LEITER: Even you, brother, even you. (It goes something like that, anyway.) So how are we supposed to read this? Wait, I've got it! It's two guys talking about lying down with each other! Which could mean, like, shagging, hur hur hur! They're obviously so gay! Hey, Beavis, he said "lie down with anyone", hrm hrm!

Nah.

:lol!: Before reading this post, I was sure that the exchange at the bar was simple and contained no sexual subtext at all...and dang Loomis if your post didn't actually convince me that the people claiming that there was a double-meaning...a hint or suggestion of something else...were right!!! You've just done the devil's work, Loomis.

Loomis wrote:

I mean, there is that exchange - how does it go? BOND: That's the trouble with you Americans, you'll lie down with anyone. LEITER: Even you, brother, even you. (It goes something like that, anyway.) So how are we supposed to read this? Wait, I've got it! It's two guys talking about lying down with each other! Which could mean, like, shagging, hur hur hur! They're obviously so gay! Hey, Beavis, he said "lie down with anyone", hrm hrm!
Nah.

Like I said, innocense is bliss. You can read these movies any way you want.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Unless the transformation was so subtle that no one really noticed it, or audiences were softened up and conditioned to expect it to come, so that when it actually did it was no big surprise.

And how would that happen, exactly? How do you make Bond progressively gayer over the next few films so that when he's finally seen bedding a bloke no one'll bat an eyelid and at worst viewers will mutter "Oh, well, I kinda suspected he liked men all along"?

I mean, do you have Bond buying a Judy Garland CD box set in BOND 23, then have him accompanying an openly gay friend on a Gay Pride parade (purely in the spirit of friendship and tolerance, you understand) in BOND 24, and so by the time of BOND 25 or 26, when the franchise's first "Bond boy" swoons into the sack with him after some dreadful Moore-ish pun, it's merely going to seem like just another cookie-cutter Bond series moment?

Not what I had in mind. When I suggested that audiences may have been softened up or conditioned to accept such a change, I wasn't necessarily meaning that EON would have laid the groundwork specifically, but that cinema in general would have changed over the course of several generations and that inevitably in another generation or two the young demographic (18-35; remember, Michael Wilson said in the Summer '89 issue of BONDAGE that people over 35 aren't counted as statistically significant by the studio) will not care whether the character is gay or straight.

I liken it to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It absolutely got the country to the point where a majority of Americans didn't see any problem with having an "openly" gay or lesbian serve in the military, and now Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially over next month, I believe. It took 18 years to get to this point where gays and lesbians won't be thrown out of military service; it didn't happen overnight. You could not have gotten from where the country was on this issue back in 1993 to the place where the country is now in 2011 without having gone through and employed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The same thing *could* happen with Bond.

Quote :

Grav, it's obvious that you don't like Craig's performance as Bond (which is fine, obviously), so I'm curious as to who'd be playing Bond right now if you had your druthers. Cavill? Brosnan? Who?

Not at all. I don't feel like we've seen enough of Craig to make a judgement yet. I think CR was overrated but good, and QOS was a bit artsy-fartsy in places, but a decent film. His third film will be his defining film, as it was for Connery, Moore and Brosnan.

I do resent, however, putting Bond in a wig and dress ( I blame that on Babs Broccoli mostly), and I do resent some of the subtle political statements the films have attempted to make with Paul Haggis as writer.

danslittlefinger wrote:

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"
There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk..

You are right of course. But that's the difference between maintext and subtext. Subtext suggests another underlying message. In this case its aimed at gay viewers. You're not likely to catch it though, at least not consciously,unless you are receptive to such messaging or take notice of such things.

tiffanywint wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"
There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk..

You are right of course. But that's the difference between maintext and subtext. Subtext suggests another underlying message. In this case its aimed at gay viewers. You're not likely to catch it though, at least not consciously,unless you are receptive to such messaging or take notice of such things.

:cheers: Gotta admit, TiffanyWint has NAILED this argument.

Perfectly put TW.

Seve wrote:

please illustrate your assertions with some specific examples
:suspect:

Call it whatever you want...a hunch, a sixth-sense...a woman's intuition; there's just something dirty about the way Barbra is producing this series. Her taint is all over the Craig films, even though I can't specifically put my finger on it.