You think? I mean, the article didn't say so explicitly, but it seemed like a pretty clear implication. "Hey there should be a gay scene" + "hey I'll do full frontal for my female and male fans" sounds to me pretty much like "hey let's have Bond swing both ways."
If your interpretation is the correct one, I'd have no problems with that.
It seemed like the author of the article made a pretty clear implication by way of creative editing that Craig wanted a gay sex scene. They never quoted what exactly Craig said or the context of his assertation of a full frontal nude scene.
omg, wtf, all other angrams, etc. It isn't a matter of "movie audiences acceepting it." It's a character that has been around since the beginning of time, and we've established his personality! He's not some fucking bi-curious drunk college student.
"Daniel. Listen. We were really okay with what you gave us: tight blue go-go boy swim trunks, shoulders that should be covered in A1 and devoured, and a nude scene in which you taunt a fey villain into repeatedly whipping you with the world's largest anal bead. It's kind of you to offer, but you must understand that your unattainability is what makes us fags love you. Because if you were gay, clearly you would be within the realm of attainability. You would join the ranks of Jack Nasty and Anderson Cooper, and we won't be allowed to talk about you on DataLounge anymore!
James Bond wouldn't be James Bond if he weren't sponged in pussy galore, swimming in Octopussy, and always guzzling 'tang. If he occasionally passed on the poon to get to know Rimmy l'Anus, he'd just be plain' ol Daniel Craig. "