119 replies to this topic

[Jackanaples]

John Barrowman as Capt. Jack Harkness is one of the few real highlights of the ne DOCTOR WHO series. He just about steals every scene he's in. I'm sure he'll rock on his spinoff show TORCHWOOD too. He's not right for the role of James Bond however.

He's too pretty. Looks like he's never been in a fight. Has no rough edges to smooth out. Doesn't have any sense of threat about him. In short, he's not the "thug in a suit" that James Bond has to be.

I mean, if you have to cast a gay man in the role, then fine. But the operative word there should be MAN.

[Jackanaples]

Out of curiosity, is he from the UK?

Sort of- Scots originally but brought up in the US, hence his heavy American accent. He's good fun, though, and pleasingly he's in the second series of Doctor Who too! And there's going to be a third series!

He's not in the second series regrettably. But the Capt. Jack spinoff series TORCHWOOD starts up in the fall I believe.

[medrecess]

I remember reading somewhere that when they screentested for TLD there
was this gay actor who was in Samson and Delilah and Broccoli was very keen
to cast him and they pursued him to take the part but eventually he came
out in the open about his sexuality and then they didnt approach him
and chose Tim instead.

So john Borrowman will never be James Bond IMO.

[Pussfeller]

Well, that was a long time ago, when a revelation like that might seriously compromise the franchise. Today, I don't think an actor's sexuality would be considered a matter of great importance.

[Andrew]

Today, I don't think an actor's sexuality would be considered a matter of great importance.

If they ridiculed an actor for his hair color, they definitely would make fun of him for being gay.

[medrecess]

In today's times the franchise is even bigger after the Brosnan
era.I don't think we will ever come to that stage as a known gay actor will
never be considered even let alone be Bond.For some people it may never be an
issue as there are many openly gay actors today but the producers will consider evrything.Just look at the criticism Craig faced.Now imagine
a gay man becoming JB.Then think of the criticism he will face.
The tabloids will have a field day.EON might as well hire any actor IMO instead of hiring a bondian gay actor like Borrowman.It will spare them a lot
of criticism for sure.

IMO Borrowman is a Bond for sure.He is like PB.But the sexuality is
a major problem for many fans.that is why Everett was never considered despite being capable.They cant hire a handsome and very
Bondian looking croat let alone hiring a gay man.I am one of those
who thinks that the only reason they didnt hire Goran was his
nationality.

Edited by medrecess, 22 July 2006 - 01:07 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

is john barrowman gay!!? i never knew that.

i'm looking forward to 'Torchwood' though the Doctor Who spin off, but Borrowman as Bond - no way he dosent suit the part at all (not because of his Sexuality he just dosent look right IMO)

[jaguar007]

I remember reading somewhere that when they screentested for TLD there
was this gay actor who was in Samson and Delilah and Broccoli was very keen
to cast him and they pursued him to take the part but eventually he came
out in the open about his sexuality and then they didnt approach him
and chose Tim instead.

So john Borrowman will never be James Bond IMO.

I think you are talking about Anthony Hamilton. He was an Australian actor who replaced Jon Erik Hexum after he died on the set of the early 80's TV show Cover Up. I remember watching the show thinking he might make a good Bond he kind of reminded me of a young Lazenby (Ol' George even guest starred on 1 episode playing a British Agent). Hamilton later teamed with Peter Graves in the late 80's series of Mission Impossible. I learned he was gay when I read about his death of AIDS in 1995.

[marktmurphy]

People in here seem to be bending over backwards not to offend, but the fact is theres nothing wrong with saying you would prefer not to have a gay actor in the part of Bond. I don't want a gay actor playing Bond. There I said it. This absolutely does not have anything to do with homophobia

I'm afraid it does, actually, because one of the definitions of homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals.

Out of curiosity, is he from the UK?

Sort of- Scots originally but brought up in the US, hence his heavy American accent. He's good fun, though, and pleasingly he's in the second series of Doctor Who too! And there's going to be a third series!

He's not in the second series regrettably. But the Capt. Jack spinoff series TORCHWOOD starts up in the fall I believe.

You;re right- they've changed that now. But he has said he's signed to be in the third series of Dr Who.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I heard a rumor that this guy Daniel Craigg was Bond, confirm/deny?

Never heard of the guy. Heard of Daniel Craig though.

[Andrew]

I heard a rumor that this guy Daniel Craigg was Bond, confirm/deny?

Never heard of the guy. Heard of Daniel Craig though.

OMG hes blond bond is not LOLZ1!11!1!

[marktmurphy]

His "friend" or "partner" found my website by keying in the words "Antony Hamilton" in Yahoo and immediately sent me an avalance of photos, news clippings, and personal stories to use.

What are the inverted commas all about? His partner.

[kneelbeforezod]

People in here seem to be bending over backwards not to offend, but the fact is theres nothing wrong with saying you would prefer not to have a gay actor in the part of Bond. I don't want a gay actor playing Bond. There I said it. This absolutely does not have anything to do with homophobia

I'm afraid it does, actually, because one of the definitions of homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals.

No, it really doesn't. Homophobia, and the discrimination that extends from it, is based on fear or dislike of gay people.

Preferring that a straight actor play the part of one of the most rampantly heterosexual characters in film history, in order to fully maintain the believability of that character, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[Pussfeller]

That doesn't make sense to me. There's no need to demand that the actor actually be Bond, nor even be like Bond. Gays have been convincingly playing straight characters since... since forever. There were fans who derided Craig for disliking handguns, and Japanese reporters were disappointed to discover Connery didn't wear tuxedos all the time. Do those things compromise the believability of the character? If a fan can't accept a gay actor in a straight role, but can easily accept a gun-hating actor in a gun-toting role, or can accept an Irishman or an Australian in a British role, then yes, I think that fan has some hang-ups about homosexuality.

[kneelbeforezod]

I really don't have any hang ups about homosexuality. For someone who finds any kind of intolerance pretty sickening its frustrating to hear you say that.

And I dont think the examples you give are on the same level, though you make an interesting point.

Like I said, its a preference. Rightly or wrongly, it would distract me... and if you're being totally honest...

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 23 July 2006 - 12:40 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

And to elaborate slightly further...

In essence I think you're right... it shouldn't matter if an actor playing Bond is gay or straight. And yet it does.

It's true that most people will not give a damn about some throwaway comment Craig made about disliking handguns. But it is also undeniably true that a huge number of fans (both straight and gay I would argue) would scratch their heads with bemusement if a gay actor was cast as Bond. People would be conscious of it.

I'm not even one hundred percent sure why that should be, but I think it's rather lazy and obvious thinking to attribute it to homophobia.

[Athena007]

He's not in the second series regrettably. But the Capt. Jack spinoff series TORCHWOOD starts up in the fall I believe.

I think he's going to make an appearance in the 3rd series of WHO though, we'll see. I hope he does though.

[Mr Malcolm]

He's not in the second series regrettably. But the Capt. Jack spinoff series TORCHWOOD starts up in the fall I believe.

I think he's going to make an appearance in the 3rd series of WHO though, we'll see. I hope he does though.

I think I heard somewhere that he's also going to be in this year's Christmas Special. I could well be wrong, but I can't wait to see Jack back!

[WhiteKnight2000]

Barrowman would be the first gay actor to play Bond.

[Dr. Noah]

He's the same age as Craig. He'll be in his fifties by the time Craig is done.

[Bond Bombshell]

Kneelbeforezod, you have said nothing that needs defending. You are right in that posters have been tiptoeing around the subject, because they are worried about giving offence, or more likely, they are worried about having the finger pointed at them. You are also right in that the image of Bond would be damaged by having him played by a gay actor.

Gay actors have played heterosexual roles successfully for years and vice versa. Nobody has a problem with Ian McKellen playing Magneto. However, James Bond is one of those rare roles where public and media attention is so intense and relentless that any trait at odds with the character can destroy suspension of disbelief. Personally, I'm one of those people whose belief in the world's most famous womanizer would be challenged by the casting of a gay actor.

John Barrowman is an actor who has been all over British TV in recent years in programs like Dr Who, that ice dancing reality show, and another show in which he demonstrated his stage musical skills. Talented bloke, but has anyone ever seen him interviewed? He has a tendency towards campiness that would not help to sell Bond.

I believe these opinions to be fair and representative of the majority of Bond viewers. I am not homophobic, before the thought police say so. If anything, I am Bondophobic in that unBondlike characteristics in the actor off screen do affect my ability to fully accept what I see on screen. Other fans won't care less about what the Bond actor is like away from his Bond portrayal, and that is a valid point of view that I accept. What I won't accept is a charge of discrimination from those that think they have a monopoly on the moral high ground. In fact it niggles me that I feel obliged to defend what I've said before I've even posted it. Unfortunately we live in an age of what I call politically correct McCarthyism, which means freedom of speech has died and everybody is paranoid, especially me.

[marktmurphy]

People in here seem to be bending over backwards not to offend, but the fact is theres nothing wrong with saying you would prefer not to have a gay actor in the part of Bond. I don't want a gay actor playing Bond. There I said it. This absolutely does not have anything to do with homophobia

I'm afraid it does, actually, because one of the definitions of homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals.

No, it really doesn't. Homophobia, and the discrimination that extends from it, is based on fear or dislike of gay people.

Preferring that a straight actor play the part of one of the most rampantly heterosexual characters in film history, in order to fully maintain the believability of that character, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

No- if you're discriminating against homosexuals because of their homosexuality it is homophobia. Doesn't matter where the discrimination 'comes from' because it is discrimination.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I'm afraid it does, actually, because one of the definitions of homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals.

This may be some modern interpretation of homophobia, but in fact the true definition of it is quite simply "irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals".

Taken as such, the term is wildly overused today...

[marktmurphy]

No- that's one definition; not the 'true' one.
Scroll down your page on dictionary.com

Or read and digest:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Homophobia

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word homophobia was originally used to mean "fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex". However, from 1969 the term has been more frequently used with its present meaning..........The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

[Shrublands]

Preferring that a straight actor play the part of one of the most rampantly heterosexual characters in film history, in order to fully maintain the believability of that character, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You see, I can’t help but think, that that reason for discriminating against a homosexual when casting Bond is indeed irrational.

Don’t allow yourself to become distracted by thoughts of what a given actor does, within his personal life with his penis, when watching a film. Its irrational if your a heterosexual male.

Edited by Shrublands, 24 July 2006 - 02:03 PM.

[Jericho_One]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='576899' date='24 July 2006 - 12:32']
[quote name='kneelbeforezod' post='576558' date='22 July 2006 - 23:56']
Preferring that a straight actor play the part of one of the most rampantly heterosexual characters in film history, in order to fully maintain the believability of that character, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
[/quote]

You see, I can

[Shrublands]

Preferring that a straight actor play the part of one of the most rampantly heterosexual characters in film history, in order to fully maintain the believability of that character, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You see, I can’t help but think, that that reason for discriminating against a homosexual when casting Bond is indeed irrational.

Don’t allow yourself to become distracted by thoughts of what a given actor does, within his personal life with his penis, to distract you when watching a film. Its irrational if your a heterosexual male.

Nevertheless, the character's marketability would suffer, no doubt about that. Because in the end, Eon still has a business to run in the most profitable way possible.

Well yes, there is an element of homophobia in society at large.

The argument here is if that homophobia is indeed exhibited, in the opinions of some, in that they would be distracted to know that an actor playing the part of James Bond was gay in his personal life. And that the given actor should be disallowed to play the part on that bias alone.

Is that a homophobic opinion to hold?

I would venture that it meets with the criteria of such.

Edited by Shrublands, 24 July 2006 - 02:19 PM.

[morganhavoc]

Wasn't there rumors about Dalton being gay ( I never gave it much credence)one of the reasons John Calley didn't like him? and now rumors about Craig as well?

[Stephenson]

Ironic, isn't it? I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that most posters here are white, straight, Anglo-Saxon males. We all know the media would have a field day if Eon cast a gay actor. But we make very little mention of the possible problems that might result when one of our own plays a character with a different ethnicity, physical characteristic or sexual preference other than his/her own.

Examples: Tom Hanks was awarded an Oscar for playing a gay character in Philadelphia, Ben Kingsley playing Ghandi, Anthony Hopkins playing Zorro, Heath Ledger playing an American gay cowboy (ditto the other guy), Sean Connery playing a Russian submarine captain, Meryl Streep in ... well just about anything she's done, Hoffman playing autistic, Penn playing mentally challenged, Affleck playing a blind superhero, and the list goes on ....

It would seem we have no problem with an actor adopting a few mannerisms or an accent and playing someone different than his or herself , as long as said actor is very much like us in his or her real life. With few exceptions (whatshername as Bridget Jones or the minor uproar over two Chinese actresses being chosen to play the leads in the Geisha movie) we applaud their efforts (hell, we even reward them for taking "risks" as artists). But go the other way ("a gay actor as Bond!?! I can't accept it!") and all hell would break loose.

Not a judgement, just an observation

[Jericho_One]

It would seem we have no problem with an actor adopting a few mannerisms or an accent and playing someone different than his or herself , as long as said actor is very much like us in his or her real life. With few exceptions (whatshername as Bridget Jones or the minor uproar over two Chinese actresses being chosen to play the leads in the Geisha movie) we applaud their efforts (hell, we even reward them for taking "risks" as artists). But go the other way ("a gay actor as Bond!?! I can't accept it!") and all hell would break loose.

Not a judgement, just an observation

You have a point there, but you sure do agree that in the end James Bond is not such an acting challenge, as it is of PR, publicity, attitude, image, and that stuff.
The actors that portray Bond do have to be a little like him while their contract lasts, but more important than that, one must not forget a very important aspect wich also defines a movie's marketability. - Its target audience.
And James Bond's target audience nowadays are mostly heterossexual men. That target audience will pay to watch a hero they can identify with (Bond), and envy the lucky bastard who plays it (Craig).
So, although gay men may admire and even feel atracted to the character, they certainly don't identify that much with it.
That's why the producers would be taking an unnecessary risk in casting a gay actor.
I'm not talking about moral issues here, this is businness, and smart options must be made.
Just an opinion...