94 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Brozza's homophobic ? I heard from many general public non-bond fans, that they think the Broz is probably gay (or act gay), hence their dislike of his Bond. Funny stuff.

Well, both allegations come from an unsubstantiated source so be careful about repeating it. I'm unaware of any proof of either.

[coco1997]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

[Zorin Industries]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

And that latter point is the only one I think we will agree on for now. As for "I merely stated that some of them".....(!). "Some"?!!!! What's that all about?

I will try and let it go for the sake of dignity on my part, but Joel Schumacher did not have a problem with "separating" his "personal preferences" from his work with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN. If that was true then what take do you have on THE LOST BOYS (lots of shirtless teen boys getting sweaty in caves perhaps?) and FLATLINERS (all that man-on-man mouth to mouth), THE CLIENT (young man has bond with older woman?) and FALLING DOWN (unhappy city worker wants to get his hand on a big gun?!). As for your suggested "gay subtext and imagery" notion.... I hate to tell you but THAT iconography of Batman was surrounding the character and comic book LONG before Schumacher got involved.

And whilst we are on this one, would you berate Tim Burton for putting Michelle Pfeiffer's CATWOMAN in an S&M suit because it was a blatant example of his "personal preferences"...?!!

And WHO said BATMAN AND ROBIN had a "gay subtext"? Not you, surely?! BATMAN AND ROBIN doesn't have ANY subtexts. That's why it's so bloomin' awful a film.

[coco1997]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

And that latter point is the only one I think we will agree on for now. As for "I merely stated that some of them".....(!). "Some"?!!!! What's that all about? "Some" men who have sex a tad differently to you?!!

I will try and let it go for the sake of dignity on my part, but Joel Schumacher did not have a problem with "separating" his "personal preferences" from his work with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN. If that was true then what take do you have on THE LOST BOYS (lots of shirtless teen boys getting sweaty in caves perhaps?) and FLATLINERS (all that man-on-man mouth to mouth), THE CLIENT (young man has bond with older woman?) and FALLING DOWN (unhappy city worker wants to get his hand on a big gun?!). As for your suggested "gay subtext and imagery" notion.... I hate to tell you but THAT iconography of Batman was surrounding the character and comic book LONG before Schumacher got involved.

And whilst we are on this one, would you berate Tim Burton for putting Michelle Pfeiffer's CATWOMAN in an S&M suit because it was a blatant example of his "personal preferences"...?!!

And WHO said BATMAN AND ROBIN had a "gay subtext"? Not you, surely?! BATMAN AND ROBIN doesn't have ANY subtexts. That's why it's so bloomin' awful a film.

Watch the film again. It has PLENTY of gay undertones. Actually, it began with "Forever." I have no problem with a gay director taking the helm, but that one personal preference can make the film inappropriately flamboyant, i.e. "B&R." And when you said the gay iconography didn't begin with Schumacher, I understand, but Batman did NOT start that way. Batman began as a loner. Yes, there were plenty of allegations in the 50's that Batman & Robin were gay. But there have been plenty of fantastic stories since then where the "queer"/"camp" aspect of their relationship is virtually non-existent.

[Zorin Industries]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

And that latter point is the only one I think we will agree on for now. As for "I merely stated that some of them".....(!). "Some"?!!!! What's that all about? "Some" men who have sex a tad differently to you?!!

I will try and let it go for the sake of dignity on my part, but Joel Schumacher did not have a problem with "separating" his "personal preferences" from his work with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN. If that was true then what take do you have on THE LOST BOYS (lots of shirtless teen boys getting sweaty in caves perhaps?) and FLATLINERS (all that man-on-man mouth to mouth), THE CLIENT (young man has bond with older woman?) and FALLING DOWN (unhappy city worker wants to get his hand on a big gun?!). As for your suggested "gay subtext and imagery" notion.... I hate to tell you but THAT iconography of Batman was surrounding the character and comic book LONG before Schumacher got involved.

And whilst we are on this one, would you berate Tim Burton for putting Michelle Pfeiffer's CATWOMAN in an S&M suit because it was a blatant example of his "personal preferences"...?!!

And WHO said BATMAN AND ROBIN had a "gay subtext"? Not you, surely?! BATMAN AND ROBIN doesn't have ANY subtexts. That's why it's so bloomin' awful a film.

Watch the film again. It has PLENTY of gay undertones. Actually, it began with "Forever." I have no problem with a gay director taking the helm, but that one personal preference can make the film inappropriately flamboyant, i.e. "B&R." And when you said the gay iconography didn't begin with Schumacher, I understand, but Batman did NOT start that way. Batman began as a loner. Yes, there were plenty of allegations in the 50's that Batman & Robin were gay. But there have been plenty of fantastic stories since then where the "queer"/"camp" aspect of their relationship is virtually non-existent.

"Inappropriately flamboyant"?!!!! What's more inappropriately flamboyant to begin with than an actor or indeed character bedecked as a leather-clad bat driving about in a penis-shaped car whilst firing piton guns left, right and centre....?!! Cinema is "inappropriately flamboyant". That's why it works. That doesn't make it "gay" or wrong if it did.

Seriously, thank you for your greater knowledge of the Batman character than mine. I just despair at some people's sweeping comments that I know are not said with any great malice, but restrict the debate here (and one that is long overdue) to either / or polemics. I don't want this one to go off on a Bat tangent, but there is still a notion knocking about here that equates someone like Joel Schumacher making a camp, gay subtexted film as being a bad thing - as if a gay director mauling a Batman film is only because that director is gay and nothing else.

Anyway, back to Bond....now, is the President suite or not?!

[dodge]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

And that latter point is the only one I think we will agree on for now. As for "I merely stated that some of them".....(!). "Some"?!!!! What's that all about? "Some" men who have sex a tad differently to you?!!

I will try and let it go for the sake of dignity on my part, but Joel Schumacher did not have a problem with "separating" his "personal preferences" from his work with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN. If that was true then what take do you have on THE LOST BOYS (lots of shirtless teen boys getting sweaty in caves perhaps?) and FLATLINERS (all that man-on-man mouth to mouth), THE CLIENT (young man has bond with older woman?) and FALLING DOWN (unhappy city worker wants to get his hand on a big gun?!). As for your suggested "gay subtext and imagery" notion.... I hate to tell you but THAT iconography of Batman was surrounding the character and comic book LONG before Schumacher got involved.

And whilst we are on this one, would you berate Tim Burton for putting Michelle Pfeiffer's CATWOMAN in an S&M suit because it was a blatant example of his "personal preferences"...?!!

And WHO said BATMAN AND ROBIN had a "gay subtext"? Not you, surely?! BATMAN AND ROBIN doesn't have ANY subtexts. That's why it's so bloomin' awful a film.

Watch the film again. It has PLENTY of gay undertones. Actually, it began with "Forever." I have no problem with a gay director taking the helm, but that one personal preference can make the film inappropriately flamboyant, i.e. "B&R." And when you said the gay iconography didn't begin with Schumacher, I understand, but Batman did NOT start that way. Batman began as a loner. Yes, there were plenty of allegations in the 50's that Batman & Robin were gay. But there have been plenty of fantastic stories since then where the "queer"/"camp" aspect of their relationship is virtually non-existent.

"Inappropriately flamboyant"?!!!! What's more inappropriately flamboyant to begin with than an actor or indeed character bedecked as a leather-clad bat driving about in a penis-shaped car whilst firing piton guns left, right and centre....?!! Cinema is "inappropriately flamboyant". That's why it works. That doesn't make it "gay" or wrong if it did.

Seriously, thank you for your greater knowledge of the Batman character than mine. I just despair at some people's sweeping comments that I know are not said with any great malice, but restrict the debate here (and one that is long overdue) to either / or polemics. I don't want this one to go off on a Bat tangent, but there is still a notion knocking about here that equates someone like Joel Schumacher making a camp, gay subtexted film as being a bad thing - as if a gay director mauling a Batman film is only because that director is gay and nothing else.

Anyway, back to Bond....now, is the President suite or not?!

Thank God! The Zorin we all know and love is back! Hooray! Sincere thanks to you, in particular, for opening the portals toward a serious discussion on this topic. Also to Loomis, Coco, MkB, et al.

And thanks to Jim for not closing the thread. My tongue is nowhere near my cheek: the thread simply proposes a line of thought I feel is worth investigating.

Final point: Loomis, in confirming that Peter Hunt was gay, has really settled the question in mind forever: sexual taste has nothing to do with any artist's ability to deliver the action goods. My interest in the other two questions I posed remains, and I look forward to continued lively discussion.

You guys are great.

[Ry]

I guess this is just my take on this discussion. There always seems to be such an importance of labeling people. Of course in the end this is what we have to do all the time. It's just part of being human. However, does it really matter whether a director is gay or straight? Ang Lee is a straight movie director and he made Brokeback Mountain (nominated for many Oscars). I believe a gay film director could clearly make a "straight" Bond film. It is all about story-telling. If someone is capable of making a good film that should be all that matters. Yes, there are directors like Joel Schumacher that tend to add gay themes into films, but not all directors do that.

As far as making Bond have a gay love affair that seems to be a little strange as that has never been the way the character has been written. There have been suggestions that Greene may have gay tendencies and that is more then fine. As long as it fits into the subject matter of the film then I say go for it.

As for homophobia with the Bond actors is concerned, I highly doubt that Brosnan is homophobic. He even claimed that when he was a kid he wasn't sure whether he was gay or straight. I do, however believe all the actors playing Bond are straight. I also think as Connery has aged he has become more relaxed when it comes to things like gay people. He certainly worked with gay director, Gus Van Sant with Finding Forester. It was also implicated that Connery's character may have been gay in the film. Unless someone makes an outward statement on the subject it is certainly hard to know how they feel on gay people and gay social right issues.

These are just my two cents on the discussion.

[HildebrandRarity]

I have a question for the gay members (ZI, dbf, et al) of CBn:

Both Connery and Brosnan Bond have a lot of chest hair whereas Craig Bond is, basically, waxed clean. The man who cuts my hair is gay and he hates chest hair...and say's gay men detest a hairy chest!

Does the decision for DC to have no chest hair a decision to openly (or covertly) court the gay audience? Or is Daniel naturally without chest hair?

Another question: Was Octopussy's island inhabited by a fair amount of lesbians?

[Loomis]

Brozza's homophobic ? I heard from many general public non-bond fans, that they think the Broz is probably gay (or act gay), hence their dislike of his Bond. Funny stuff.

Well, both allegations come from an unsubstantiated source so be careful about repeating it. I'm unaware of any proof of either.

The Connery one came to me via someone who, to be fair, was almost certainly not in a position to know either one way or t'other. The Brosnan one was reported here on CBn a few years back in a discussion about a gossip site (that nowadays seems unavailable) that carried all sorts of allegations not only about the former 007 but also about virtually every celebrity you could think of.

I do not say that Brosnan and Connery are homophobes, merely that both have been said to be so; however, given that all manner of muck is routinely slung at the famous, these allegations in themselves mean absolutely nothing whatsoever, and certainly should not be taken as "proof" (or indeed "evidence") of anything.

Erm.... yeah. Carry on.

[coco1997]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

Um, nowhere did I say that "no" gay men should direct Bond. I merely stated that some of them (Schumacher, in particular) don't know when and where to separate their personal preferences from a professional piece of work. Granted, "Batman & Robin" had a LOT of other problems going on, but the gay subtext and imagery sure didn't help it and merely highlighted the embarrassingly camp nature of the film even further.

Bond seducing a man or leading him on to get information is acceptable. Bond bedding a man because, after fifty years, he suddenly decides that he likes men, is not.

And that latter point is the only one I think we will agree on for now. As for "I merely stated that some of them".....(!). "Some"?!!!! What's that all about? "Some" men who have sex a tad differently to you?!!

I will try and let it go for the sake of dignity on my part, but Joel Schumacher did not have a problem with "separating" his "personal preferences" from his work with BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN. If that was true then what take do you have on THE LOST BOYS (lots of shirtless teen boys getting sweaty in caves perhaps?) and FLATLINERS (all that man-on-man mouth to mouth), THE CLIENT (young man has bond with older woman?) and FALLING DOWN (unhappy city worker wants to get his hand on a big gun?!). As for your suggested "gay subtext and imagery" notion.... I hate to tell you but THAT iconography of Batman was surrounding the character and comic book LONG before Schumacher got involved.

And whilst we are on this one, would you berate Tim Burton for putting Michelle Pfeiffer's CATWOMAN in an S&M suit because it was a blatant example of his "personal preferences"...?!!

And WHO said BATMAN AND ROBIN had a "gay subtext"? Not you, surely?! BATMAN AND ROBIN doesn't have ANY subtexts. That's why it's so bloomin' awful a film.

Watch the film again. It has PLENTY of gay undertones. Actually, it began with "Forever." I have no problem with a gay director taking the helm, but that one personal preference can make the film inappropriately flamboyant, i.e. "B&R." And when you said the gay iconography didn't begin with Schumacher, I understand, but Batman did NOT start that way. Batman began as a loner. Yes, there were plenty of allegations in the 50's that Batman & Robin were gay. But there have been plenty of fantastic stories since then where the "queer"/"camp" aspect of their relationship is virtually non-existent.

Seriously, thank you for your greater knowledge of the Batman character than mine. I just despair at some people's sweeping comments that I know are not said with any great malice, but restrict the debate here (and one that is long overdue) to either / or polemics. I don't want this one to go off on a Bat tangent, but there is still a notion knocking about here that equates someone like Joel Schumacher making a camp, gay subtexted film as being a bad thing - as if a gay director mauling a Batman film is only because that director is gay and nothing else.

Anyway, back to Bond....now, is the President suite or not?!

I have no problems with a camp, gay subtexted film--so long as it's not Batman or Bond, for example. Actually, that's an unfair statement, as Batman and Bond have both had some great gay characters (the Joker is implicitly gay in the classic Frank Miller story, "The Dark Knight Returns") but to make the character himself gay just seems like a hugely pointless and unnecessary twist intended to stir controversy just for the sake of stirring controversy.

[Zorin Industries]

I have a question for the gay members (ZI, dbf, et al) of CBn:

Both Connery and Brosnan Bond have a lot of chest hair whereas Craig Bond is, basically, waxed clean. The man who cuts my hair is gay and he hates chest hair...and say's gay men detest a hairy chest!

Does the decision for DC to have no chest hair a decision to openly (or covertly) court the gay audience? Or is Daniel naturally without chest hair?

Another question: Was Octopussy's island inhabited by a fair amount of lesbians?

Interesting point. And not a million miles from the vast differences between the Connery and Craig eras. It would be foolish to say all gay men prefer smooth chests. I think it is a thing of taste and fashion. In the 1970's a lot of gay p

[dee-bee-five]

I have a question for the gay members (ZI, dbf, et al) of CBn:

Both Connery and Brosnan Bond have a lot of chest hair whereas Craig Bond is, basically, waxed clean. The man who cuts my hair is gay and he hates chest hair...and say's gay men detest a hairy chest!

Then he's dreadfully out-of-touch. The plucked-chicken look is so 20th century. Chest hair is back. For me, it never went out... I guess Craig's waxing had more to do with displaying the muscle definition he'd developed. One drawback of chest hair - and I speak as someone who goes to the gym three times a week - is that all that hard work is sometimes hidden...

...which is a bizarre confession to be making on CBn

[Santa]

What a younger gay man tends to steer from are hairy backs. Chests can be covered / uncovered, but a hairy back is often a no-no

I think you'll find that's also young straight women. And young gay women. And certainly young straight men. In fact, I think hairy backs are a no-no for pretty much everyone - the exception being those into bestiality.

[Loomis]

What a younger gay man tends to steer from are hairy backs. Chests can be covered / uncovered, but a hairy back is often a no-no - so DIAMONDS Connery and LICENCE TO KILL Dalton would be off limits.

Connery and Dalton had hairy backs? Never noticed that. Mind you, who among us hasn't gazed in awe at Michael Billington at the start of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME?

Craig looks like he does wax, but you show me a Hollywood male star who doesn't.

Hollywood seems to have promoted the smooth-chested man for decades. Not quite sure why, but it has. With the honourable exceptions of Connery and Brosnan, I'm struggling to think of screen appearances of a hairy male chest; indeed, it appears to be something that Hollywood thinks must be exterminated at all costs. Looking through a book about the Rocky films the other day, I noted that Carl Weathers had some chest hair in the 1976 original, but by the time of 1985's ROCKY IV he'd somehow managed to lose it all. And I haven't seen THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, but I've watched the bit in which the hero gets his chest waxed, presumably on the grounds that no man with a hairy chest can pull.... which is obviously absurd. It's all very odd, this apparent War On Chest Hair™.

Does Fleming ever mention whether Bond has chest hair? I don't think he does, but it's strange (yet welcome) that he never describes his hero in ways that would nowadays seem horribly dated and would present present day taste obstacles to those fans who call for more Fidelity To Fellmging™, e.g. Bond never has a moustache, and never uses oil on his hair (Fleming is quite explicit about this in one of his books, as I recall). Heck, I don't think Fleming's Bond even wears a hat all that much. (BTW, when and why did men, en masse, give up wearing hats?)

[HildebrandRarity]

Lazenby Bond wore a hat but then that was it until Moore Bond tossed one in Monnypenny's office in Octopussy I believe...but he never wore it! Then, during a formal race meeting at Ascot or wherever Moore Bond wore a hat with waistcoat and tails.

I see significantly older businessmen in my work area of town (a conservative financial/law/accounting district) wearing hats in winter or in extremely hot and sunny weather...but they're, as I said, usually those who are clearly north of 65 years of age.

I thought about getting a hat for winter several years ago but decided against it for fear of coming across as absurdly pretentious.

Back to topic, was Maurice Binder homosexual? I may be mistaken but I think I read that somewhere. Peter Hunt was. One director who SEEMS like he COULD have swung both ways was the utterly fashionable Terence Young - champagne, pretty tailored suits and all.

btw, thanks to Zorin and Dee-Bee for their input on chest hair.

[Santa]

I'd like to mention here that I don't mind a bit of chest hair.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'd like to mention here that I don't mind a bit of chest hair.

On a man, I presume?

Welcome to my kingdom. Men are animals at the core and women love men who are animals in the privacy of the bedroom. A bit of rough play turns them on. Biting, mild spanking of the a**, etc. It's all good.

[Zorin Industries]

I'd like to mention here that I don't mind a bit of chest hair.

Neither do I. Especially on the right woman...

Where did this notion that Peter Hunt was gay come from? It's a new one on me. Not that it matters.

[stamper]

Hey, I'm not saying Broz is (btw I met him and he didn't strike me as such). I'm saying I met non-fans who says so. They don't need proof of anything, it's just the way he acts on screen.

[Loomis]

Back to topic, was Maurice Binder homosexual? I may be mistaken but I think I read that somewhere.

I think I did, too. Not That It Matters™, I obligatorily hasten to add.

[DamnCoffee]

Didn't Binder get married?

[Jim]

One director who SEEMS like he COULD have swung both ways was the utterly fashionable Terence Young - champagne, pretty tailored suits and all.

Conclusive.

[dee-bee-five]

Does Fleming ever mention whether Bond has chest hair? I don't think he does.

I believe he does. I don't have a copy to hand, but I seem to recall that, in Dr. No, the centipede is said to nose its way through the thin hairs on Bond's chest.

[Loomis]

Ah, yes. Just had a look at it. So I guess James Bond is officially supposed to have a hairy chest. But they're thin hairs, interestingly enough.

[Bondian]

Ah, yes. Just had a look at it. So I guess James Bond is officially supposed to have a hairy chest. But they're thin hairs, interestingly enough.

Sounds like that old Chinese proverb "hairy birds never made nest in naked tree".

[dodge]

I have a question for the gay members (ZI, dbf, et al) of CBn:

Both Connery and Brosnan Bond have a lot of chest hair whereas Craig Bond is, basically, waxed clean. The man who cuts my hair is gay and he hates chest hair...and say's gay men detest a hairy chest!

Does the decision for DC to have no chest hair a decision to openly (or covertly) court the gay audience? Or is Daniel naturally without chest hair?

Another question: Was Octopussy's island inhabited by a fair amount of lesbians?

Interesting observation, which expands upon my own that Dan and Eon consciously courted the gay 'vote'. Dan can protests all he likes--even needs--about being regarded as a boy toy/sex object. But to me it grows ever clearer that his and Eon's decision was canny and quite conscious: expand the audience by whipping men and women, gay and straight, into states of drooling lust: monster member beneath eensey-teensy unpolkadotted bikini...waxed body...mucho muscles. Very, very shrewd, dudes and nothing to get hung about but they can't have their cake both ways, claiming naivete now.

[hilly]

Didn't Binder get married?

No. According to the "Sillouhettes" doc on the YOLT dvd, he died unmarried. Several interviewees point out that he "liked the ladies" but could not commit.

[honeyjes]

Not sure if Daniels waxed, he has a happy trail

[HildebrandRarity]

According to the "Sillouhettes" doc on the YOLT dvd, he died unmarried. Several interviewees point out that he "liked the ladies" but could not commit.

Er...yeah...sure. Couldnt commit, eh? I say BS to that.

Binder had (and did) a great job and if I were him I would have enjoyed more than my share of the girls he filmed for the titles. But he was as gay as a bird on a summers eve and couldnt get it up for the ladies.

Remember, even Freddie Mercury had a tough time 'coming out' as late as the mid 8Os so Binder keeping his private life private was par for the course. Things have changed only in the last 10 years, 15 max.

As for Craig Bond waxing his chest...well that was, as Dodge says, to capitalize on all points...north, south, east, and west. The gays love him and Eon's history has been all about having one character or another flirt on the edge of homosexuality.

One director who SEEMS like he COULD have swung both ways was the utterly fashionable Terence Young - champagne, pretty tailored suits and all.

Conclusive.

SEEMS, COULD. Not WAS or DID.

By the way, who here thinks Sir Hillary Bray was either a unic or loved taking the Greek Tour? [Excitedly: "I'm going to lose myself in the churches of Brittany." And then Bond's take on Sir Hilly: "I never had much to do with the ladies".]

[Jim]

Does Fleming ever mention whether Bond has chest hair? I don't think he does.

I believe he does. I don't have a copy to hand, but I seem to recall that, in Dr. No, the centipede is said to nose its way through the thin hairs on Bond's chest.

Centipede is a euphemism. If one accepts that proposition, that whole passage (don't) can be read as outrageously homophobic.

Pretty big if, I know.

One director who SEEMS like he COULD have swung both ways was the utterly fashionable Terence Young - champagne, pretty tailored suits and all.

Conclusive.

SEEMS, COULD. Not WAS or DID.

So James Bond being a well-tailored chap who keeps ordering Bollinger and equally naff dishwater makes him seem... what? Given that he was doing that years before Mr Young got his hands on the character.