the movie was great--craig doesnt have the look IMO, but i can deal with it, -- the moment Bond becomes PC and jumps on the everybodys gay bandwagon, is the moment i walk away from the series.
I hate it when people can't take comments in context these days. People don't want to see a gay James Bond just like they don't want to see a female Bond. I am going to be really non PC and controversial here and say "I don't agree with homosexual relationships", but then again I don't think I should be prevented from expressing that opinion and don't think it should be taken as an insult. What is this world coming to! /me out.
What if the above post had read:
"I hate it when people can't take comments in context these days. People don't want to see a black James Bond just like they don't want to see a female Bond. I am going to be really non PC and controversial here and say "I don't like black people", but then again I don't think I should be prevented from expressing that opinion and don't think it should be taken as an insult. What is this world coming to! /me out."
Now, is that acceptable ?:) ? And all the usual things, its not my personal viewpoint, just illustrating the point etc. I am interested as to whether or not people would be expected to tolerate a comment such as the amended one.
I am not a militant/banner waving gay person but am always open and honest when people ask me. I understand that a lot of people would turn away from the JB franchise if he was to be portrayed as a gay man. (Incidentally I don't think this will EVER happen)
I have been thinking about a follow up on this thread and I want to first say I didn't want to spark a big debate... I was wondering if the news article had any truth in it...
I also know that what the Bond actor WANTS and what HAPPENS are two different things (Brosnan kept pushing for some female nudity and stuff, as I understand it from some of his interviews, but it never happened)
I was concerned because the character of Bond is a very testosterone driven man, who in the Goldfinger novel, saw Tilly Masterson and "one of those girls who's hormones were all mixed up" or something like that. The literary Bond wouldn't even entertain the idea of another man as a love interest... but since the film series has been rebooted, who knows what is in the works? BUT
I don't think EON wants to tamper too much with Bond (look at the blonde hair thing and what a stire it caused) and alienate their core audience.
I hate it when people can't take comments in context these days. People don't want to see a gay James Bond just like they don't want to see a female Bond. I am going to be really non PC and controversial here and say "I don't agree with homosexual relationships", but then again I don't think I should be prevented from expressing that opinion and don't think it should be taken as an insult. What is this world coming to! /me out.
What if the above post had read:
"I hate it when people can't take comments in context these days. People don't want to see a black James Bond just like they don't want to see a female Bond. I am going to be really non PC and controversial here and say "I don't like black people", but then again I don't think I should be prevented from expressing that opinion and don't think it should be taken as an insult. What is this world coming to! /me out."
Now, is that acceptable ?:) ? And all the usual things, its not my personal viewpoint, just illustrating the point etc. I am interested as to whether or not people would be expected to tolerate a comment such as the amended one.
I am not a militant/banner waving gay person but am always open and honest when people ask me. I understand that a lot of people would turn away from the JB franchise if he was to be portrayed as a gay man. (Incidentally I don't think this will EVER happen)
I think that is even more unacceptable in peoples view these days. But people can think what they want. Personally I wouldn't be that bothered if a black man was cast as bond. So I suppose I would accept a gay actor. But I wouldn't want the character to be gay.
Anyway there is absolutely no chance that bond will be portrayed as gay anyway. So this debate is pointless.
Fleming's portrayal of gay characters in his novels is far less homophobic than EON's in its Bond movies - the characters of Kidd and Wynt being the main case in point. Fleming's world is far more sexually diverse and relaxed than that portrayed in the films and with far less judgement. Unfortunately movies and television in the 60s and 70s were still obsessed with a cowboys and indians "us and them" approach and it has taken until the 1990s with shows like Queer as Folk for gay/lesbian experience to be viewed on its own terms. The gay character, just like the female, black. hispanic and asian characters have had to fight for their status is something more than "other" in the film world. All I want is for gay characters to be treated like anyone else in Bond films instead of being treated like freaks.
Fleming's portrayal of gay characters in his novels is far less homophobic than EON's in its Bond movies - the characters of Kidd and Wynt being the main case in point. Fleming's world is far more sexually diverse and relaxed than that portrayed in the films and with far less judgement.
I absolutely agree with you that gay characters, should they appear in the Bond world, should appear as characters and not as some nebulous "other". I have to disagree with your statement that Fleming's world is far less homophobic.
Fleming was resolutely heterosexual; there was a string of women across the 40s and 50s who could attest to that. But he was very good friends with Noel Coward (his best man), Stephen Spender, William Plomer, and other homosexual lights of the London literary scene. It seems that Fleming was very comfortable in the company of men who liked men - he certainly seems to have preferred their company to women, who were there for sex and little else. The latter trait carried over into the Bond novels.
Yet the gay characters within the novels are unsympathetic and pitied or despised by Bond (the reader's viewpoint on the characters). Wint and Kidd are far more unpleasant than their cinematic equivalents. They are violent, pansified thugs; Wint has a wart on his hand that he continually sucks, and is terrified by flying. Kidd is, according to Felix, "a pretty boy" - after all, "some of these homos make the worst killers". Unlike their filmic counterparts, Wint and Kidd are sadistic and base. They give Bond the infamous Brooklyn Stomping without any vestige of humanity, and they slap Tiffany about in the finale.
Next up we have Tilly Masterson, who is introduced as a Bond Girl, but there's something lacking. What could it be? Perhaps her stand-offishness, her refusal to succumb. Perhaps her lack of make-up, and her disregard for her own appearance. Nope, Bond realises what's strange about her on page 269 (sensitive readers may want to look away):
Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterson was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and "sex equality". As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits - barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men wanting to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but had no time for them.
Why of course; Tilly is a Lesbian (note the capitalisation), and she is unpleasant, rude and ungrateful for the rest of the novel. When she is killed - her neck broken by Oddjob - Bond's epitaph for her is truly touching: "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men." Such empathy!
And finally, notoriously, famously, we have Pussy Galore, a Lesbian gang leader whose Abrocats are almost as good as the male gangsters. Ms Galore looks like a man (Rupert Brooke good looks?), acts like a man, takes what she wants like a man. She presents "the sexual challenge all beautiful Lesbians have for men" i.e she just needs a bit of man action to get her head right. You don't need to be a Freudian to get the significance of her name.
Pussy is there to supply "nurses" for the robbery. But of course it all goes wrong, and Goldfinger lets her live because she's a woman, and she can pretend to be a stewardess. Pussy has been converted by Bond's manly charms though; it turns out that she was only a Lesbian because her uncle raped her when she was young.
That doesn't count though. When she's purring with Bond in her fisherman's sweater, no longer speaking "in a gangster's voice, or a Lesbian's, but in a girl's voice", he says, "They told me you only liked women."
Her answer is so breathtakingly outrageous, so completely offensive, that frankly it makes me love Fleming even more, because he clearly misunderstood the whole concept and emotion and being of a homosexual human being. Pussy says, and I quote, "I never met a man before." After all, that's what these Lezzers want - a good bit of man action will sort them out. I feel a bit sorry for William Plomer; I have visions of Fleming continually taking him to strip joints so he can meet the right girl.
Those are the most obvious examples - I haven't even mentioned the whole Scaramanga/whistling theory, which boggles the mind, or the mention that "homosexuals present the worst security risk", and so on - but I don't want to take it too far off topic. The gay characters in Fleming's world are freaks who deserve to die; Bond is dismissive of their fate and views them with distaste. I'm not blaming Fleming so much, any more than I blame him for LALD; he is resolutely a product of his era and we should view him as a historical item. However, we should not, ever, paint him as some sort of Stonewall pioneer.
I'll come back to: Eon have presented a grand total of three homosexual characters in the whole series - Rosa Klebb and Wint & Kidd. Klebb's sexual preference is hinted at, subtly, and the film moves on - certainly a lot more discreetly than the grotesque of the novel. Pussy Galore is no longer a lesbian in the film of GF, and she is a much better character as a result. And as I have mentioned above, Wint and Kidd are actually pretty good homosexuals for 1971 - and they are certainly a lot better than the novel.
As I said above, I would be happy to see a tastefully presented, integral to the plot homosexual character in a Bond film - and actually, I quite liked Verity in DAD for that reason; it was placed on the table that she fancied the hell out of Miranda, and she didn't die, and Bond didn't spit on her. It was discreet and subtle and contextual. But I'm more interested in seeing a good Bond film than "representation".
Eon have presented a grand total of three homosexual characters in the whole series - Rosa Klebb and Wint & Kidd.
To these, I would add Sir Hilary Bray. I can't remember if his sexuality is ever hinted at in the novel, but Bond's impersonation of him in the film certainly includes homosexuality as an element. Well, at least until Ruby's lipstick ploy gets a rise out of him, and he can control himself no longer.
Thanks for your comprehensive reply jetsetwilly. I have not read the Bond novels as closely as you have. From my single reading of them the overall impression that I got was that gay characters were not being given any favouritism which is part of my point. The criminal underworld is full of freaks of all sexual persuasions - I think I will have to revisit the novels but for some reason I found the portrayal of the gay villains in the novels far less jugemental than in the films. I think what really bothers me is the satirisation of the gay characters in the films - Kidd and Wynt, Sir Hilary Bray in particular. These characters are being made fun of by the fim makers and that bothers me a lot more than the way they are handled in Fleming's novels. The movies make fun of homosexuality which I find more hurtful and despicable than seeing gay characters as twisted and violent.
The Sir Hilary Bray thing is new to me--I always thought that he was supposed to be a stodgy and eccentric geneologist who's so interested in his profession that he really can't see anything (or anyone) else. So I guess brass wasn't the only thing he was going to rub in Brittany!
I also wonder how serious Craig was being--he could have just been joking around, and, as usual, the tabloid media are turning it into something bigger than it is.
When the bloke brings the briefcase for bond and vesper to put in the account details and password. Anyone else think he is gay? (The bloke who brings the briefcase that is) If not that laugh is terrible.
I only ocassionally read CnB so I'm not really in a position to comment; however, there were quite a number of CnB contributors at the L.A. opening several of whom were gay (or at least their same-sex partners were!) and those who weren't had no apparent issue with those who were. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with what goes on at CnB, but first hand knowledge suggests you're making a gross exaggeration.
Eon have presented a grand total of three homosexual characters in the whole series - Rosa Klebb and Wint & Kidd.
I take issue with this only because I believe you've omitted two: Jacoba Brink (Bibi's trainer in FYEO) and the hotelier in MR. Brink is far more overt than Klebb and I think actually intended by EON as a sort of mea culpa for "sandbagging" characters like Klebb or heterosexist jokes like Wynt and Kidd and the concierge ... the last, I think, representing EON's final entry in cringe-inducing stereotypes (if you ignore Stacey, that is).
I only ocassionally read CnB so I'm not really in a position to comment; however, there were quite a number of CnB contributors at the L.A. opening several of whom were gay (or at least their same-sex partners were!) and those who weren't had no apparent issue with those who were. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with what goes on at CnB, but first hand knowledge suggests you're making a gross exaggeration.
Before we get into any confusion here:
CnB = Craig Not Bond (or whatever name it goes by these days)
CBn = CommanderBond.net
I doubt that CnB people were at the opening (unless they were hurling insults at anyone daring to cross their "picket line".
I'm sure a number of commanderbond.net people were there and jsw isn't calling them homophobic.
I am not going to rise to the anti-gay comments, I just ignore them as I think they are unecessary. They are little do do with JB being gay and more to do with personal prejudice.
Whilst I don't thing we'll ever see a gay Bond (considering the direction this thread is taking) it might be interesting to see a gay villain who would push the boundaries a little, just to change the dynamics of the villians motivations (and although I would be fine with that I know a lot of gay folks would see it as a bad thing).
As I've said before, I don't really think that Bond films need full frontal, I am not convinced that there is anything it would bring to the film unless they are going to release a 15 rated film or a directors cut 18 rated DVD edition.
I agree with lavabubble, being that, and please forgive my ignorance, I don't even know what CnB is, the URL, and have no knowledge of them, but I think that the twisting of homosexuality is a falsification on tabloid intervention. I would rather ignore it, however, I do think that after not 21 films, and as bad as this sounds, a woman never being shown nude, why in the H*ll would they show a man on man nude scene? Even after seeing realistic soy films such as Day of the Jackal, where the Jackal was shown involved in sexual intercourse with a man in his shower, that was a stretch back in the 70's, I think that the notion of a full frontal would be crude, immoral, and only a pleasrue of the flesh, with no indicative intentions other than for women and gays to get off.
Think about it, possible, though highly improbable, women are pictured nude in film more than men, and that is statistically proven, neglecting pornographic natured films. THey would be smarter to show a woman nude, or a woman and Craig nude, than just Craig alone, or even worse, with a man.
A poster recently put up, "This is the biggest piece of ******** I've ever heard", something to that effect. ALl I can say is that, without exception, I concur.
I'll admit to not having known a lot about this site before, but I believe that the ContactMusic website--one of the main promoters of the "Craig wants a gay Bond" story--is nothing more than tabloid rubbish that has a distinctive anti-Craig bias. Behold their latest revelation:
Accordingly, Daniel Craig is scared to make Bond 22 because CR has been too much of a success. I've seen these Craig quotes before, and I've never found even a hint of fear in them. Heck, the CM article itself doesn't show where Craig says he's scared. As I wrote earlier, I think Craig's "gay" comments were a joke, or perhaps an "up yours" to his detractors, that the media exploited; this ContactMusic article shows that the media are indeed interested in little more than stirring the pot.
I only ocassionally read CnB so I'm not really in a position to comment; however, there were quite a number of CnB contributors at the L.A. opening several of whom were gay (or at least their same-sex partners were!) and those who weren't had no apparent issue with those who were. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with what goes on at CnB, but first hand knowledge suggests you're making a gross exaggeration.
Before we get into any confusion here:
CnB = Craig Not Bond (or whatever name it goes by these days)
CBn = CommanderBond.net
I doubt that CnB people were at the opening (unless they were hurling insults at anyone daring to cross their "picket line".
I'm sure a number of commanderbond.net people were there and jsw isn't calling them homophobic.
Absolutely; I totally meant CraigNotBond, not CommanderBond.net. Some of my best friends use CBN. Well, maybe not best friends - let's not give them too much promotion But CBN is a great, unbelievably thorough site, and it's their misfortune to be tarred with similar initials to The Other Place. If there are gay users of CraigNotBond, then I can only say good luck to them.
If I can return to PoorMansJB's other point about Jacoba Brink and the effete hotel man, and also the suggestion about Sir Hilary; Klebb and Wint & Kidd are the only overt homosexual representatives in the series. Brink's devotion to Bibi certainly has sapphic undertones, but no more than Irma Bunt and her girls. The overriding idea is that she wants the best for Bibi as a pupil (wouldn't you disapprove of a teenage girl hurling herself at a man old enough to be her grandfather?) I've always perceived Sir Hilary to be bookish and mannered, the kind of man you often find loitering around the darker recesses of the library in the university with ink on his fingers and sticky tape on his glasses. There's no hint of campery in George Baker's performance.
The concierge, yes; a Queen par excellence. No idea what he's doing there (particularly with that cut glass English accent; in Rio? Really?). Purely a cheap laugh. But Bond makes no reference to his sexuality - nor did he say anything about Wint & Kidd's. Unlike many films and tv shows of the sixties and seventies, it's pretty clear that Bond isn't being cruel to The Gay because he is The Gay. There is no "Fetch my shoes" moment for the homosexual characters. That's different, and interesting. And it means they haven't dated quite as badly as some of their contemporaries.
Pussy Galore is no longer a lesbian in the film of GF, and she is a much better character as a result.
JSW, I loved your post, but I have to take issue with this. IMO the cinematic Pussy was very much a lesbian (until the roll in the hay with Bond) due to her clothes, her being with women, her aggressiveness and her attitude towards Bond. She wasn't as overt as Wint + Kidd (and I may be the only person here who has this opinion) but I believe that she was a lesbian who was 'converted' by Bond; thus proving that Bond is capable of literally changing a woman's sexual orientation.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
What if the above post had read:
"I hate it when people can't take comments in context these days. People don't want to see a black James Bond just like they don't want to see a female Bond. I am going to be really non PC and controversial here and say "I don't like black people", but then again I don't think I should be prevented from expressing that opinion and don't think it should be taken as an insult. What is this world coming to! /me out."
Now, is that acceptable ?:) ? And all the usual things, its not my personal viewpoint, just illustrating the point etc. I am interested as to whether or not people would be expected to tolerate a comment such as the amended one.
I am not a militant/banner waving gay person but am always open and honest when people ask me. I understand that a lot of people would turn away from the JB franchise if he was to be portrayed as a gay man. (Incidentally I don't think this will EVER happen)
I also know that what the Bond actor WANTS and what HAPPENS are two different things (Brosnan kept pushing for some female nudity and stuff, as I understand it from some of his interviews, but it never happened)
I was concerned because the character of Bond is a very testosterone driven man, who in the Goldfinger novel, saw Tilly Masterson and "one of those girls who's hormones were all mixed up" or something like that. The literary Bond wouldn't even entertain the idea of another man as a love interest... but since the film series has been rebooted, who knows what is in the works? BUT
I don't think EON wants to tamper too much with Bond (look at the blonde hair thing and what a stire it caused) and alienate their core audience.
I think that is even more unacceptable in peoples view these days. But people can think what they want. Personally I wouldn't be that bothered if a black man was cast as bond. So I suppose I would accept a gay actor. But I wouldn't want the character to be gay.
Anyway there is absolutely no chance that bond will be portrayed as gay anyway. So this debate is pointless.
Beard.
@merseytart
{[]
I absolutely agree with you that gay characters, should they appear in the Bond world, should appear as characters and not as some nebulous "other". I have to disagree with your statement that Fleming's world is far less homophobic.
Fleming was resolutely heterosexual; there was a string of women across the 40s and 50s who could attest to that. But he was very good friends with Noel Coward (his best man), Stephen Spender, William Plomer, and other homosexual lights of the London literary scene. It seems that Fleming was very comfortable in the company of men who liked men - he certainly seems to have preferred their company to women, who were there for sex and little else. The latter trait carried over into the Bond novels.
Yet the gay characters within the novels are unsympathetic and pitied or despised by Bond (the reader's viewpoint on the characters). Wint and Kidd are far more unpleasant than their cinematic equivalents. They are violent, pansified thugs; Wint has a wart on his hand that he continually sucks, and is terrified by flying. Kidd is, according to Felix, "a pretty boy" - after all, "some of these homos make the worst killers". Unlike their filmic counterparts, Wint and Kidd are sadistic and base. They give Bond the infamous Brooklyn Stomping without any vestige of humanity, and they slap Tiffany about in the finale.
Next up we have Tilly Masterson, who is introduced as a Bond Girl, but there's something lacking. What could it be? Perhaps her stand-offishness, her refusal to succumb. Perhaps her lack of make-up, and her disregard for her own appearance. Nope, Bond realises what's strange about her on page 269 (sensitive readers may want to look away):
Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterson was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and "sex equality". As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits - barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men wanting to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but had no time for them.
Why of course; Tilly is a Lesbian (note the capitalisation), and she is unpleasant, rude and ungrateful for the rest of the novel. When she is killed - her neck broken by Oddjob - Bond's epitaph for her is truly touching: "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men." Such empathy!
And finally, notoriously, famously, we have Pussy Galore, a Lesbian gang leader whose Abrocats are almost as good as the male gangsters. Ms Galore looks like a man (Rupert Brooke good looks?), acts like a man, takes what she wants like a man. She presents "the sexual challenge all beautiful Lesbians have for men" i.e she just needs a bit of man action to get her head right. You don't need to be a Freudian to get the significance of her name.
Pussy is there to supply "nurses" for the robbery. But of course it all goes wrong, and Goldfinger lets her live because she's a woman, and she can pretend to be a stewardess. Pussy has been converted by Bond's manly charms though; it turns out that she was only a Lesbian because her uncle raped her when she was young.
That doesn't count though. When she's purring with Bond in her fisherman's sweater, no longer speaking "in a gangster's voice, or a Lesbian's, but in a girl's voice", he says, "They told me you only liked women."
Her answer is so breathtakingly outrageous, so completely offensive, that frankly it makes me love Fleming even more, because he clearly misunderstood the whole concept and emotion and being of a homosexual human being. Pussy says, and I quote, "I never met a man before." After all, that's what these Lezzers want - a good bit of man action will sort them out. I feel a bit sorry for William Plomer; I have visions of Fleming continually taking him to strip joints so he can meet the right girl.
Those are the most obvious examples - I haven't even mentioned the whole Scaramanga/whistling theory, which boggles the mind, or the mention that "homosexuals present the worst security risk", and so on - but I don't want to take it too far off topic. The gay characters in Fleming's world are freaks who deserve to die; Bond is dismissive of their fate and views them with distaste. I'm not blaming Fleming so much, any more than I blame him for LALD; he is resolutely a product of his era and we should view him as a historical item. However, we should not, ever, paint him as some sort of Stonewall pioneer.
I'll come back to: Eon have presented a grand total of three homosexual characters in the whole series - Rosa Klebb and Wint & Kidd. Klebb's sexual preference is hinted at, subtly, and the film moves on - certainly a lot more discreetly than the grotesque of the novel. Pussy Galore is no longer a lesbian in the film of GF, and she is a much better character as a result. And as I have mentioned above, Wint and Kidd are actually pretty good homosexuals for 1971 - and they are certainly a lot better than the novel.
As I said above, I would be happy to see a tastefully presented, integral to the plot homosexual character in a Bond film - and actually, I quite liked Verity in DAD for that reason; it was placed on the table that she fancied the hell out of Miranda, and she didn't die, and Bond didn't spit on her. It was discreet and subtle and contextual. But I'm more interested in seeing a good Bond film than "representation".
@merseytart
I thought that was Dame Judi's job!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
this seller must have been on the CnB site and thought he would jump on the bandwagon
I think we should send this to the CnB site just to remind them of what most people think of their opinions
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DANIEL-CRAIG-TOILET-SEAT-COVER_W0QQitemZ230058729799QQihZ013QQcategoryZ90736QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
How do people think of these things eh ?:)???
I know
I only ocassionally read CnB so I'm not really in a position to comment; however, there were quite a number of CnB contributors at the L.A. opening several of whom were gay (or at least their same-sex partners were!) and those who weren't had no apparent issue with those who were. Again, I'm not terribly familiar with what goes on at CnB, but first hand knowledge suggests you're making a gross exaggeration.
I take issue with this only because I believe you've omitted two: Jacoba Brink (Bibi's trainer in FYEO) and the hotelier in MR. Brink is far more overt than Klebb and I think actually intended by EON as a sort of mea culpa for "sandbagging" characters like Klebb or heterosexist jokes like Wynt and Kidd and the concierge ... the last, I think, representing EON's final entry in cringe-inducing stereotypes (if you ignore Stacey, that is).
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DANIEL-CRAIG-TOILET-SEAT-COVER_W0QQitemZ230058729799QQihZ013QQcategoryZ90736QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
How do people think of these things eh ?:)???[/quote]
my bids in ;%
Before we get into any confusion here:
CnB = Craig Not Bond (or whatever name it goes by these days)
CBn = CommanderBond.net
I doubt that CnB people were at the opening (unless they were hurling insults at anyone daring to cross their "picket line".
I'm sure a number of commanderbond.net people were there and jsw isn't calling them homophobic.
I agree with lavabubble, being that, and please forgive my ignorance, I don't even know what CnB is, the URL, and have no knowledge of them, but I think that the twisting of homosexuality is a falsification on tabloid intervention. I would rather ignore it, however, I do think that after not 21 films, and as bad as this sounds, a woman never being shown nude, why in the H*ll would they show a man on man nude scene? Even after seeing realistic soy films such as Day of the Jackal, where the Jackal was shown involved in sexual intercourse with a man in his shower, that was a stretch back in the 70's, I think that the notion of a full frontal would be crude, immoral, and only a pleasrue of the flesh, with no indicative intentions other than for women and gays to get off.
Think about it, possible, though highly improbable, women are pictured nude in film more than men, and that is statistically proven, neglecting pornographic natured films. THey would be smarter to show a woman nude, or a woman and Craig nude, than just Craig alone, or even worse, with a man.
A poster recently put up, "This is the biggest piece of ******** I've ever heard", something to that effect. ALl I can say is that, without exception, I concur.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/craig%20scared%20by%20casino%20royale%20success_1015526
Accordingly, Daniel Craig is scared to make Bond 22 because CR has been too much of a success. I've seen these Craig quotes before, and I've never found even a hint of fear in them. Heck, the CM article itself doesn't show where Craig says he's scared. As I wrote earlier, I think Craig's "gay" comments were a joke, or perhaps an "up yours" to his detractors, that the media exploited; this ContactMusic article shows that the media are indeed interested in little more than stirring the pot.
Absolutely; I totally meant CraigNotBond, not CommanderBond.net. Some of my best friends use CBN. Well, maybe not best friends - let's not give them too much promotion
If I can return to PoorMansJB's other point about Jacoba Brink and the effete hotel man, and also the suggestion about Sir Hilary; Klebb and Wint & Kidd are the only overt homosexual representatives in the series. Brink's devotion to Bibi certainly has sapphic undertones, but no more than Irma Bunt and her girls. The overriding idea is that she wants the best for Bibi as a pupil (wouldn't you disapprove of a teenage girl hurling herself at a man old enough to be her grandfather?) I've always perceived Sir Hilary to be bookish and mannered, the kind of man you often find loitering around the darker recesses of the library in the university with ink on his fingers and sticky tape on his glasses. There's no hint of campery in George Baker's performance.
The concierge, yes; a Queen par excellence. No idea what he's doing there (particularly with that cut glass English accent; in Rio? Really?). Purely a cheap laugh. But Bond makes no reference to his sexuality - nor did he say anything about Wint & Kidd's. Unlike many films and tv shows of the sixties and seventies, it's pretty clear that Bond isn't being cruel to The Gay because he is The Gay. There is no "Fetch my shoes" moment for the homosexual characters. That's different, and interesting. And it means they haven't dated quite as badly as some of their contemporaries.
@merseytart
Thank you, yes, my bad; makes much more sense then. Unfortunate acronyms ...