I'm bored enough to contribute to this, and I'd say that as Craig's appeal to the ladies is his trump card, then his being gay were it the case would count considerably against him, though should it be much more than if fans were to find out that Connery wore a 'piece all those years ago? It's that feeling you've been conned.
It might matter less with a guy like John Barrowmore (sp?) the very goodlooking Torchwood star, as his appeal is more broad, it lies in his handsome looks and genuine wit and sense of fun. Craig, to rerun an old theme, doesn't have that. That said, I could go along with a gay star in such a role if they didn't really flog the isn't he a headturner thing all the time, say more just a ruthless assassin like Fox in The Day of the Jackel with no ostensible eye for the ladies.
Of course you can argue it's unfair, as it's perfectly okay to have straight guys play gay characters, I've just seen the Derek Jarman Edward II and the two lovers are straight actors - though one might contentiously argue this plays into the gay man's supposed fantasy that any straight guy can be 'turned'.
And who exactly cares if Craig is gay? Whether I like him or not as straight (And I don't) it wouldn't change my opinion one bit if he was gay. I don't like him as Bond, whether he's gay or not doesn't change his portrayal of Bond one bit for me. I love Matthew Bomer (from White Collar) and Henry Cavill. And I'd love them as Bond. If either were gay, it wouldn't change my opinion of them as Bond in the slightest. Same applies to Craig.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I dont understand. I thought Craig was gay. Is this not the case? That changes everything. I can't abide straight people. It's disgusting the things they get up to. As long as they do it it the privacy of their own homes and dont frighten the horses fair enough but don't let them take over the film industry for God's sake. We'll end up with bad fashion, bad hair styles, bad sets, bad writing, bad music and ugly men. Who wants that?
Seriously though, Moneypenny and M said it best: "Don't ask." "Don't tell."
T'ain't nobody's business what a person does in bed and has no bearing on their professional abilities (unless they happen to be a gigolo).
Of course you can argue it's unfair, as it's perfectly okay to have straight guys play gay characters, I've just seen the Derek Jarman Edward II and the two lovers are straight actors - though one might contentiously argue this plays into the gay man's supposed fantasy that any straight guy can be 'turned'.
Supposed fantasy because it's really not true at all. While I wouldn't doubt that some gay men fantasize about getting some one-time action from a straight guy, we generally don't think we can turn anyone (sort of goes against what most of us believe regarding genetics, methinks).
Anyhow, these discussions all remind me of a friend of a friend that recently asked if all the actresses on the "L Word" are really lesbians. Of course, the answer is yes -- they are lesbians, Hugh Laurie is a brilliant doctor and Tony Stark is a billionaire superhero.
Well, that's interesting because oddly not everyonet thinks gayness is to do with genetics. And I'm not talking about the Born Again set. Peter Tatchell (did I get that right, he's the one who tried to arrest Mugabi) doesn't think it's to do with genes but nuture and all that, which I find strange. Personally I thought it was, but others resent the 'gay gene' argument. Ah well.
Well, that's interesting because oddly not everyonet thinks gayness is to do with genetics. And I'm not talking about the Born Again set. Peter Tatchell (did I get that right, he's the one who tried to arrest Mugabi) doesn't think it's to do with genes but nuture and all that, which I find strange. Personally I thought it was, but others resent the 'gay gene' argument. Ah well.
There are certainly gays that don't think they were born that way, but I'd say the opposite is the majority view. Personally, I think perhaps we're born with predispositions to certain things (whether they are related to sexual orientation or general interests), and then nurture maybe flips a particular switch to the "on" position. Similar to one of Chomsky's theory on learning language -- we are hardwired for language. Then as we're learning our native tongue, certain "switches" get flipped on particular to that specific language (say, "-ed = past tense" "-s = plural" in English). Once the switch is activated, those conventions become second nature.
hey all, being gay isn't genetic - i know identical twins, therefore genetically identical, and 1 is straight the other one is gay.
so going back to the original question, would you watch the film if Craig is gay - i suggest that if you would not, then you are homophobic and if you don't like gay people, it must be difficult to watch alot of films and tv, listen to music, visit art galleries, read books etc.....
hey all, being gay isn't genetic - i know identical twins, therefore genetically identical, and 1 is straight the other one is gay.
If genetics were that simple, this wouldn't even be a question on people's minds. Your premise is false. Certain types of cancer may run in their family, but one may get it and the other may not. This does not suggest that there are not genetic factors at play, it simply suggests that environmental factors ALSO play a part.
To back this up, did you know that in studies it has shown that if one of a set of identical twins is gay, the other twin is more likely to be gay than in cases of fraternal twins? As I said, this suggests a genetic and environmental component.
Unfortunately, your anecdotal "proof" is not proof at all.
so Sir Miles, my comment is not meant to be anecdotal proof - merely commenting that i know identical twins, 1 straight, the other gay.
Genetics may play a part, maybe i should have said "being gay isn't only gentic" but there are also many other factors, there are no hard and fast rules - but obviously you are more of an expert than me.
Comments
I'm bored enough to contribute to this, and I'd say that as Craig's appeal to the ladies is his trump card, then his being gay were it the case would count considerably against him, though should it be much more than if fans were to find out that Connery wore a 'piece all those years ago? It's that feeling you've been conned.
It might matter less with a guy like John Barrowmore (sp?) the very goodlooking Torchwood star, as his appeal is more broad, it lies in his handsome looks and genuine wit and sense of fun. Craig, to rerun an old theme, doesn't have that. That said, I could go along with a gay star in such a role if they didn't really flog the isn't he a headturner thing all the time, say more just a ruthless assassin like Fox in The Day of the Jackel with no ostensible eye for the ladies.
Of course you can argue it's unfair, as it's perfectly okay to have straight guys play gay characters, I've just seen the Derek Jarman Edward II and the two lovers are straight actors - though one might contentiously argue this plays into the gay man's supposed fantasy that any straight guy can be 'turned'.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Chuckle, chuckle. Chortle, chortle.
Supposed fantasy because it's really not true at all. While I wouldn't doubt that some gay men fantasize about getting some one-time action from a straight guy, we generally don't think we can turn anyone (sort of goes against what most of us believe regarding genetics, methinks).
Anyhow, these discussions all remind me of a friend of a friend that recently asked if all the actresses on the "L Word" are really lesbians. Of course, the answer is yes -- they are lesbians, Hugh Laurie is a brilliant doctor and Tony Stark is a billionaire superhero.
It's all pretend, folks.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
There are certainly gays that don't think they were born that way, but I'd say the opposite is the majority view. Personally, I think perhaps we're born with predispositions to certain things (whether they are related to sexual orientation or general interests), and then nurture maybe flips a particular switch to the "on" position. Similar to one of Chomsky's theory on learning language -- we are hardwired for language. Then as we're learning our native tongue, certain "switches" get flipped on particular to that specific language (say, "-ed = past tense" "-s = plural" in English). Once the switch is activated, those conventions become second nature.
so going back to the original question, would you watch the film if Craig is gay - i suggest that if you would not, then you are homophobic and if you don't like gay people, it must be difficult to watch alot of films and tv, listen to music, visit art galleries, read books etc.....
If genetics were that simple, this wouldn't even be a question on people's minds. Your premise is false. Certain types of cancer may run in their family, but one may get it and the other may not. This does not suggest that there are not genetic factors at play, it simply suggests that environmental factors ALSO play a part.
To back this up, did you know that in studies it has shown that if one of a set of identical twins is gay, the other twin is more likely to be gay than in cases of fraternal twins? As I said, this suggests a genetic and environmental component.
Unfortunately, your anecdotal "proof" is not proof at all.
so Sir Miles, my comment is not meant to be anecdotal proof - merely commenting that i know identical twins, 1 straight, the other gay.
Genetics may play a part, maybe i should have said "being gay isn't only gentic" but there are also many other factors, there are no hard and fast rules - but obviously you are more of an expert than me.
Anyhow, now that you have revised your claim, I take no issue with it.