December 3rd, 2006

Previous Entry Next Entry
06:49 pm - because BOND IS NOT F'IN GAY, that's why

I mean srsly. The world is enriched by the presence of gay people, and cinema is enriched by the presence of gay characters and themes. But can we please leave 007 out of it?

Tags: ,

Current Mood: pissed
Current Music: Daft Punk - One More Time

(11 comments | Leave a comment)


[User Picture] From: thesadpunk
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 12:39 am
Um... you know it's not going to be Bond making out with some flaming queen. It's going to be 2 chicks going at it, and Bond will join.

[User Picture] From: jimbojones
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 01:20 am
I'm pretty sure that's not what Craig was talking about.

I mean hell, shy of a few crazed Bible-thumpers on the waaaaaaay right side of the spectrum, it wouldn't even occur to most people to call that "gay" in the first place.

[User Picture] From: thesadpunk
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 01:23 am
I'm pretty sure Craig wasn't suggesting that Bond himself get involved in a gay love affair either though.

I don't recall there ever being a gay character in a Bond movie. Maybe Craig was just saying, 'it's about time.'

[User Picture] From: jimbojones
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 01:26 am
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.

[User Picture] From: thesadpunk
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 01:47 am
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.

From: five_speed
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 12:58 am
I have to agree wholeheartedly. It'll be a great way to alienate their #1 target audience, straight men.

[User Picture] From: wanton_bliss
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 05:57 am
I thought my mother and all other middle-aged straight women were the target audience of James Bond flicks.

[User Picture] From: staringgoldfish
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 03:12 am
A) Just entertaining the notion that Bond is anything but all about the ladies is asinine.

B) What is Mr. Gone saying in that icon?

[User Picture] From: freakout
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 04:04 am
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.

[User Picture] From: clme
Date: December 4th, 2006 - 06:24 am
What if he had to have gay sex in order to diffuse the ridiculously complicated laser trap that he was left in to die?

Actually thats just silly. We all know the only way that would work is if he was left with a bunch of... my head just exploded. Nevermind.

[User Picture] From: clme
Date: December 5th, 2006 - 12:29 am
Aaaaand a quote from some gay guys:

"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. "

I'm very amused.

> Go to Top