Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Bond couldn't be gay while Barbara Broccoli alive


53 replies to this topic

#1 quantumofsolace

quantumofsolace

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 26 August 2015 - 02:25 PM

http://www.theguardi...-broccoli-alive



#2 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 August 2015 - 02:40 PM

Brozza still knows how to drum up a headline when he has a new film out that needs PR.



#3 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 26 August 2015 - 05:17 PM

What the hell Brozza!?

#4 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 26 August 2015 - 06:32 PM

Would a bi-sexual James Bond would be the ultimate weapon?

 

I only read the first half of the article but its just Brosnan and the media speculating over nothing.



#5 The Krynoid man

The Krynoid man

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Newcastle Upon Tyne

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:10 PM

I've never understood why anyone would even suggest this. Womanising is one of Bond's main characteristics, if you take that away it's not Bond.



#6 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:23 PM

I mean, I love how Skyfall addresses that (With the Bond/Silva scene) and I'd have no problem with Bond say, seducing a guy for information. Would be an interesting change.

It's not something that's really top of the list for me though. What more i'm concerned about is what Brosnan seems to be implying about Barbara Broccoli, really.

Edited by DamnCoffee, 26 August 2015 - 07:24 PM.


#7 The Krynoid man

The Krynoid man

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Newcastle Upon Tyne

Posted 26 August 2015 - 07:25 PM

I don't think he and Barbara Broccoli ever saw eye to eye.



#8 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 26 August 2015 - 11:09 PM

The scene in SF - Bond, having sat through the monologue and being told that M had lied to him, was winding Silva up. Silva was trying it on - no doubt aware of Bond's womanising reputation - and Bond called his bluff. I think that is all there was to that part of the Bond meets villain scene in SF.

#9 B. Ret Smythe

B. Ret Smythe

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 25 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 05:20 AM

Anyone who has seen a James bond movie knows that james bond isnt gay. 

 

Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are gay. 

 

And possibly the knife thrower pretending to be a dead body in the coffin on the gondola in moonraker.

 

Are there any other characters in the Bond franchise that might be a bit poofy? 

 

Don't pick on the new Q actor because he is actually gay. Gay people can play straight you know... like the gandalf magneto guy. 



#10 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 27 August 2015 - 05:27 AM

Anyone who has seen a James bond movie knows that james bond isnt gay. 

 

Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are gay. 

 

And possibly the knife thrower pretending to be a dead body in the coffin on the gondola in moonraker.

 

Are there any other characters in the Bond franchise that might be a bit poofy? 

 

Don't pick on the new Q actor because he is actually gay. Gay people can play straight you know... like the gandalf magneto guy. 

Well, you've published your thoughts.



#11 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 27 August 2015 - 11:41 AM

Brozza still knows how to drum up a headline when he has a new film out that needs PR.

 

Except no movie of his is mentioned in the article. A journalist asked Brosnan a question, he answered it. That's it.


Edited by Walecs, 27 August 2015 - 11:43 AM.


#12 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 27 August 2015 - 12:22 PM

I'm sure all he meant was that as long as the Broccoli family is in charge, they will remain true to Ian Fleming's original conception of the character and not turn the whole thing upside down to cater to any passing notion of "political correctness," however trendy.

 

Right?

 

Or maybe he just meant Babs only casts guys she personally finds "hot."  Which is an entirely different kind of "dig."

 

Anyway, it's interesting that the "related story" link on that page goes to the "Roger Moore says he's not a racist" article.  Internet "journalism" is nothing more than out-of-context quotes engineered into "click-bait," never mind what it does to the image or reputation of the victims, and both these stories are prime examples.



#13 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 01:56 PM


Brozza still knows how to drum up a headline when he has a new film out that needs PR.

Except no movie of his is mentioned in the article. A journalist asked Brosnan a question, he answered it. That's it.
Erm, no.


It's an interview with Details.com, http://www.details.c...-bond-interview

The cause was promo for his upcoming film No Escape.

That the Guardian omits this nifty detail is hardly surprising, you didn't look for it either. Most publications picked up just the part in the headline here. But of course there isn't just 'a journalist asking a question' - there is always something behind it. The spin the story gets afterwards is not always the one people had originally in mind. But rest assured, Brosnan is a veteran of promoting his work, he knew exactly what would generate headlines.

#14 Double Naught spy

Double Naught spy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 169 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 02:50 PM

I wonder why the interviewer didn't ask the obvious follow-up question, "So, are you saying that, given the opportunity, you would play a gay Bond?"   It's all too easy for Hollywood actors like Pierce (not to pick on him, per se) to utter these "enlightened" platitudes; but yet they never have their feet held to the fire.  If he feels this strongly about it, why doesn't he call up his Hollywood pals and have them make a film about an entirely brand-new British Secret Service agent, who happens to be gay, that he can star in?     

 

Why is all the energy channeled into transforming an already exiting character?   Wouldn't it be put to better use in creating original characters who happen to be gay, black, or whatever?  I submit that real "progress" would be something like a Hollywood Reporter headline, "Hollywood's newest action hero, Brosnan's gay British secret agent Sidney Smedlap dominates the box office and outshines the latest 007 flick for the third week in a row."

 

Pierce does raise a valid point though, when he says that a gay Bond would make for "interesting viewing."  For example, imagine how differently Goldfinger could have turned out: 

 

Bond: "Well, here we are Oddjob, alone at last, in a room filled with all this fabulous gold. . . . And, we even have some  handcuffs!  Now, come here and let me show you another use for that otherwise useless mouth of yours." 

 

or Live and Let Die:

 

Mr. Big:  "Did you touch her!?!"

Bond:  "Absolutely not!  Now, why don't you ask Solitaire and Tee Hee to leave us, so you can show me why they call you 'Mr. Big.'" 


Edited by Double Naught spy, 27 August 2015 - 03:11 PM.


#15 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 03:48 PM

Actually, if you just take a closer look, there is no energy invested into 'transforming' this character. What there is energy spent upon is creating a certain buzz, mainly by the media, and mainly for reasons that have nothing to do with Bond whatsoever. This kind of headline is bound to pop up every so often, simply because 'Bond Drinking Martini Again, Drives Aston - New Film To Feature Agent Between Two Deadly Females' isn't exactly newsworthy. But there has yet to be invented a headline that's actually able to change Bond, that's an urban myth.

#16 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 04:21 PM

 But there has yet to be invented a headline that's actually able to change Bond, that's an urban myth.

 

For now it is, but the general direction that the culture is taking is to try to transform already established things to fit the new norms rather than simply create something new.  We see it with the endless parade of reboots and sequels, with everyone needing to take a crack at something because the general populace thinks that they own something because they helped make it popular rather than the true ownership lying with the creator, who can do with it what they wish.

 

There will be a gay Bond at some point in the future.  It could be long after I'm gone, or it could be before, but it'll happen.  Changes to the character happen rather slowly, especially since only six men have played Bond since 1962.  But, even as early as the end of Brosnan's tenure, I never would have believed that we'd have a blonde Bond, yet here we are with many hailing him as the best that there has been.  Further changes to the character, both in appearance and in character traits, will happen.  They'll happen incrementally, but they'll happen nonetheless.



#17 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 27 August 2015 - 04:45 PM

I don´t think so.

 

It is a pet peeve of the media to provoke an outrage: a blond Bond?  A black Bond?  A female Bond?  A gay Bond?

 

But the most "radical" change that has actually been made is accepting an actor with blond hair (sure Sir Roger´s hair turned lighter with age and fashion trends but remained brownish).

 

Everything the character has been before has been carried over from every actor.  And Craig - I sure love his work as Bond - did not reinvent the character at all, let´s be honest.  He got the opportunity to shine and he took it.  But nothing about Craig-Bond has not been done by the previous actors.  And that´s perfectly fine because it´s just about conserving a specific character.

 

If one changes character traits of a figure that has been cemented in the public mind it just will not work.   EON knows this - and therefore sticks with what has been established.

 

I also can´t think of any fictional character that has been changed considerably and remained a success.



#18 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 05:01 PM

I cannot even think of a character in pop culture that was actually 'changed' as such. Who would that be? And I don't speak about details like hair colour or less smoking of tobacco or quitting smoking altogether, none of that is what makes a character. Over the last ten years my hair has turned mostly white, I'd argue I'm still the person I used to be.

#19 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 05:06 PM

EON knows this - and therefore sticks with what has been established.


The current EON regime adheres this principle. There's no telling what the next caretakers of the franchise, after Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli are no longer in charge, will do with it.

It'll happen at some point down the road. They'll continue to tweak minor things here and there, changing just enough each time so that the next, slightly more radical, change doesn't seem particularly radical.

As for whether it should happen, I can't really say that I have an opinion on it. The books are an entirely different animal from the films, as the films only come close to capturing what was great about the books once in a blue moon, so it's hard to take the stand that it must be done a certain way because that's how it was in the novels.

I cannot even think of a character in pop culture that was actually 'changed' as such. Who would that be? And I don't speak about details like hair colour or less smoking of tobacco or quitting smoking altogether, none of that is what makes a character. Over the last ten years my hair has turned mostly white, I'd argue I'm still the person I used to be.


I think that when a lot of peoples' idea of Bond is "tall, dark, and handsome" the hair does matter quite a bit. I don't care on bit about it, as most around here and other fan communities don't, but to the general public (who I'm constantly reminded by people here are who they make the films for), it's a big deal, hence all the CraigNotBond nonsense back in 2005-2006.

Edited by tdalton, 27 August 2015 - 05:08 PM.


#20 Double Naught spy

Double Naught spy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 169 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 05:16 PM

Dustin,

 

I realize that there is no real movement out there to transform Bond in the ways described.  But that is my overall point, isn't it?  If it is such a worthy goal to have a black actor play Bond, or to flip Bond's sexual compass, then why not pay more than mere lip-service to the idea?    Heck, the article's author even refers to these changes as examples of a "progressive goal."  But, as you correctly put it, it's all just "buzz," that's meant to grab headlines.  (How disingenuous is that?) 

 

On the topic of 'making headlines' - I contend that, in 2015, saying that Bond should be gay or black really isn't a bold, courageous position, and certainly isn't "Stop the presses!" newsworthy.  In this day and age, where political correctness rules the roost, what other answer could Pierce have given to the question?  Saying Bond should be black or gay (or both!) is the "safe" answer.  If Pierce truly wanted to make headlines, he could have answered with, "You know, instead of Bond being straight or gay, how about having him be a non-sexual character (think: Roger Moore's ffolkes).  It's bad enough that 007 glamorizes violence, do we need him to continue to glamourize casual sex, on either side of the playing field?"  Now, that would be a courageous position!



#21 B. Ret Smythe

B. Ret Smythe

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 25 posts

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:06 PM

I think if they reboot 'SHAFT' they should make him a homosexual white man.

 

And like put no women in the movie because female is sexist.

 

That would be an awesome movie. 

 

Best reboot ever.



#22 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 28 August 2015 - 02:35 AM

What a truly original thought, never heard that one before. I chuckled...

#23 dtuba

dtuba

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA, USA

Posted 29 August 2015 - 02:54 AM

Yes, that "Shaft" analogy was clever.....

 

(The first 10,000,000,000 times I heard it).



#24 Goodnight

Goodnight

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1917 posts
  • Location:England, United Kingdom

Posted 29 August 2015 - 03:20 AM

Just no.
Shame how many could not take the SF scene with a pinch of salt and leave it there.

#25 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 29 August 2015 - 06:38 AM

Silva was probably bisexual, not gay. It looked to me as if he appreciated Severine's charms, even if she ended up as mere target practice for him. Plus he had rather disturbing "mother" issues involving M which made him, for all his camp flamboyance, a truly disturbing Bond villain. Javier Bardem described Silva as a character who liked to make others "uncomfortable", but he never really succeeded with Bond. I repeat, when he tried it on with Bond tied to the chair, 007 called his bluff with "What makes you think this is my first time?"

There's no evidence, either in the books or films to date of Bond being in a homosexual situation - unless Bond comment in SF refers back to CR and the torture scene. There was a certain homo-eroticism about that - Le Chiffre indicated he admired Bond's physique and what followed could be construed as sado-masochism.

#26 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 29 August 2015 - 06:59 AM

Quite - Silva is a disruptor, an agitator, be it by computer or face-to-face. And it doesn't work on Bond, despite direct attempts to disrupt his confidence - the revelation of the test scores - and his personality. All the man does is "interfere" - take that as you will - and he finally comes across someone undisturbed by it.



#27 Logie

Logie

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 81 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 29 August 2015 - 09:55 AM

There's no evidence, either in the books or films to date of Bond being in a homosexual situation

 

May I present Exhibits A) Eton; B )Fettes; C) Royal Navy; D) SIS. ;)

 

Kidding aside, all of these fine institutions have earned something of a reputation over the years. I'd be astonished if one could serve his time without at least 'dabbling' (for want of a better word) - although in Bond's case I think it's fair to assume that it's not his cup of tea.


Edited by Logie, 29 August 2015 - 09:56 AM.


#28 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 29 August 2015 - 10:46 AM

I'm not saying it isn't possible Bond was put in a same sex sexual tryst, just that there's no evidence of it happening in the books - none that I can think of, anyway, - or in the films, unless you count the torture scene in Casino Royale (book and film in 2006, with its homo-erotic hints by Le Chiffre) and of course SF, where Silva's advances were not reciprocated by Bond.

Having gone through those institutions I'd be surprised if someone hadn't tried it on with Bond in any one of theme but as you say Bond seems pretty much heterosexual, so I doubt he would have responded to any advances, unless in the same way as in SF.

Let's not forget that while Bond is heterosexual, in the novel Goldfinger he wasn't averse to trying to interest two women who were not - rejected by Tilly Masterton, but eventually accepted by Pussy Galore. And in a week or so we'll discover just how long that interest lasted in the new Bond novel "Trigger Mortis".

#29 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 30 August 2015 - 05:04 PM

 

 

 

 

Everything the character has been before has been carried over from every actor.  And Craig - I sure love his work as Bond - did not reinvent the character at all, let´s be honest.  He got the opportunity to shine and he took it.  But nothing about Craig-Bond has not been done by the previous actors.  And that´s perfectly fine because it´s just about conserving a specific character.

 

 

Agreed. The "radical" change of the character going to Craig, was really no more radical than the change from Sean Connery to Roger Moore. All six actors that have portrayed Bond, have maintained the essence of 007. Some actors highlight certain aspects of Bond and down play others, but the essence is still there. Bond was written as a hetrosexual man. It is just too much of what makes Bond, Bond. I don't think any producer in their right mind will ever change that aspect. 



#30 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 August 2015 - 03:18 PM

I don't think he and Barbara Broccoli ever saw eye to eye.

 

He is the only Bond to have been effectively sacked, as far as we know! :)