Are we ready for a gay James Bond scene?
—Posted by David Kiefaber |
|
December 4, 2006 in James Bond, Kiefaber | Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d83505b9db69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are we ready for a gay James Bond scene? :
» Buy ambien online no prescription. from Ambien online.
Cheap ambien online order ambien now with discount. Ambien online no prescription overnight delivery. Buy ambien online cod. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2009 8:28:27 PM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
wonder what types of gadgets Q might offer a gay james bond.
Posted by: HighJive | Dec 4, 2006 11:02:15 AM
i don't give a flip whether a character is gay, but to force gayness upon an established character with a 30+ year hetero storyline is just silly. maybe he could have a little tryst with rocky balboa.
Posted by: td | Dec 4, 2006 12:53:46 PM
Did he sleep with Grace Jones in View to a Kill? Cause I think that might count.
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Dec 4, 2006 2:04:03 PM
I read about this on another blog today and the name "Willy Morecock" was suggested.
Posted by: Michael Rebain | Dec 4, 2006 2:25:08 PM
Meh. Anyone who's read Fleming's books knows that Bond was really a closest gay anyway.
Posted by: Blowfeld | Dec 5, 2006 1:26:53 PM
I think it's a great idea, not just because I want to see Daniel Craig in the altogether, but in the scope of super-spy fiction, it's not all that hard to believe that once in a while a double-0 agent has to seduce the GUY instead of (or as well as) the GIRL. It doesn't make Bond gay, just very good at his job, and after all those years of hearing "Oh, James!" at least we know that he's well-equipped for the task.
Posted by: urban bohemian | Dec 5, 2006 2:39:26 PM
Ugh! It's just stupid. The gay population is 1% maybe 2 % total. It'll kill the franchise (except for the perverts eho go to see it).
Posted by: Rickie | Dec 6, 2006 1:08:33 PM
Whatever, Rickie. The gay population is 10% and we deserved to be entertained by Hollywood as well. And that does not mean woman on woman kisses!
Posted by: Bobby | Dec 6, 2006 2:56:41 PM
He can pee on my lap all day if he wants.
That doesn't make me gay, does it?!
Posted by: Mall Santa | Dec 6, 2006 3:57:25 PM
Ok Bobby. You are claiming that 1 out of every 10 male children born in this world ends up being a homosexual. You need a brain check my good friend... That would mean that about 300,000,000 men are gay.
Posted by: Sam | Dec 6, 2006 5:06:36 PM
10% is probably a bit of an exageration, recent studies suggest that it's around 6%, including bisexuals.
Posted by: Justin | Dec 6, 2006 6:49:14 PM
Whatever Sam, you obviously don't believe in minority marketing.
Posted by: Bobby | Dec 7, 2006 11:47:08 AM
No problem with gay movie characters. I'd have a problem with a gay Bond, however, simply because A) it doesn't seem to fit with the established character and B) it would at best be a gimmick. Bond makes enough money with the gimmicks it already has.
Posted by: Jesse | Dec 8, 2006 12:37:10 AM
Well, the established character is getting boring. Casino Royale SUCKED big time.
So I'm up for anything that can spice up this predictable franchise. Personally, I don't see Bond movies for the beautiful women. If I wanted to watch that, I can buy a porn video thank you very much.
I'm interested in seeing violence, death and destruction. And please, the action should be more realistic. It is one thing to suspend one's imagination like one does with Spiderman, it is something else to believe James Bond can save himself from a heart attack by using a defribilator and giving himself shock treeatments. What's next? Bond removes an inflamated appendix?
Frankly, Bond seducing a male to get information is much more realistic than 99% of the crap he does.
Posted by: Bobby | Dec 8, 2006 10:16:03 AM
Come on force it at us why don't you!
Women joining "mens only" clubs, etc.
Give it a break.
Not James Bond! Leave it alone.
What some people won't do for attention,
and to stir up controversy.
I liked the new 2006 James Bond movie,
however if Daniel Craig thinks like that,
it was a big mistake to use him.
Hope you Broccoli people in charge of
the future of Bond can be smart about
this.
Signed:
Mr.James Bond Fan,
from 1964 to 2005 (end)
Posted by: madhgts | Dec 16, 2006 7:03:58 AM
I think we need to think outside the box and not be so narrow minded. It is 2007 soon ! It is not unrealistic to think that Bond would have to seduce a gay man to obtain information, as he has with women all these years. For all you homophobes out there. It doesn't mean he is gay. There are a lot more gay men out there then one would think. If I had a nickel for everyman I met who was married with children who is in fact more gay then I am I would be very rich.
Posted by: John | Dec 28, 2006 1:29:55 PM
The gay Bond scene, however the scriptwriters would want to justify it, would be like one of those Eminem joke songs that were a great novelty when they came out, but embarrassingly passe six months later.
My gay friends are all flustered, hot and bothered by it, but they admit that it doesn't make sense for the character. This won't add a twist to the "failing" Bond franchise... didn't Casino Royale already do that? It was the most successful Bond movie since Goldeneye, wasn't it?
This would only incite hatred from the majority, and be a passing fancy for the minority, leaving the story and character with nowhere to run.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 6, 2007 9:42:26 PM
Let's look at this objectively. Regardless of what day and age we live in James Bond is a Character who was always portrayed in all the books as a ruthless, intelligent, sauve, MANLY, hit man. He is a gentleman with women but cannot be tied down to one due to his profession.
Read all the books. James Bond cannot be gay, and cannot have a gay enocounter. To do this would destroy the character. Although, Mr. Craig did a great job in Casino Royale playing the role of James Bond fighting against terrorism instead of communism, his desire to do a homosexual scene shows his lack of knowledge about the character of James Bond.
Think about it, James Bond would not subject himself to that which is repugnant to a heterosexual. Because of his intelligence, and his ability to improvise in any given situation, he would not denegrate himself sexually with the same sex.
Mr. Craig should read all the books and make an objective conclusion. If he really wants to know the general opinion of James Bond fans, he should set up a website specifically for these fans to express their opinions. he would probably discover that there is an overwhelming percetnage of James Bond fans who would not accept this and would simply dismiss him as a shining star who suddenly fizzled out. James Bond fans would simply wait for the next male actor to play the part as it was meant to be played.
In closing I think Mr. Craig should consider giving up the role of James Bond. He could probably play the part of a famous gay guy.
Joseph Simmons
Las Vegas
Posted by: JOSEPH SIMMONS | Jul 20, 2007 9:27:45 AM
Joseph,
I think its pretty funny how your argument against Bond not having an affair with anotehr man is somehow related to the character of Bond having to be "MANLY". FYI, MANLY does not equal heterosexual. And mind you, not every heterosexual person things that gay sex is "repugnant".
Posted by: John | Aug 19, 2007 12:28:01 AM
