365 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

I saw this yesterday. The original source is Perez Hilton, who is not credible. He "outs" everyone with titillating "news" stories that read like gay fantasies. He's a bit of a nut and a joke. The Andy Dick of gossip.

But if Daniel is gay, so what? Doesn't bother me a bit. If I was riding as high as he is at the moment, I'd be humping everything.

Exactly. On all points.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Yeah but there is more problem when the public know the actor is gay. Then difficulties arise.

Really? What "difficulties" might they be?

Do you not think its more difficult for a gay actor to get straight parts in mainstream projects when they are out?

[Trident]

Couldn't care less. My opinion.

[Zorin Industries]

Yeah but there is more problem when the public know the actor is gay. Then difficulties arise.

Really? What "difficulties" might they be?

Do you not think its more difficult for a gay actor to get straight parts in mainstream projects when they are out?

Gay actors get straight parts all the time. That's why they call it "acting". Likewise, gay directors get multi million dollar budgets to make tentpole releases.

And on the non-story in question... straight guys kiss their gay mates all the time in the context of friendship and greeting - none more so than those in the business we call 'show'. Just because some guys don't, does not imply that all guys don't.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Yeah but there is more problem when the public know the actor is gay. Then difficulties arise.

Really? What "difficulties" might they be?

Do you not think its more difficult for a gay actor to get straight parts in mainstream projects when they are out?

Gay actors get straight parts all the time. That's why they call it "acting". Likewise, gay directors get multi million dollar budgets to make tentpole releases.

Of course they do. No one would suggest otherwise. And because its "acting" most do it well. But I still think your mainstream movies tend to favour the heterosexual actors when it comes to the leading roles possibly because the public isn't so accepting of openly gay actors in leading straight roles. This is what's behind this Craig story, namely the idea that 007 might be gay, and what a scoop that would be....a gay actor in a major straight role.

[Zorin Industries]

Didn't mean any examples to be a joke, but the target audience of BATMAN films is young men. I probably meant that more than "masculine".

I still think your mainstream movies tend to favour the heterosexual actors when it comes to the leading roles possibly because the public isn't so accepting of openly gay actors in leading straight roles. This is what's behind this Craig story, namely the idea that 007 might be gay, and what a scoop that would be....

I know what you mean, but a scoop is only a scoop if the wider sections of the public would have a real problem with it, no?

[Zorin Industries]

"Masculine films such as BATMAN FOREVER"????? That's a joke, right? Is it "gay bashing" to say that the film "looked" gay, and then find out later that the director was indeed gay? I mean, there is such a thing as a "gay sensibility", right?

Not gay bashing at all. Of course there can be a gay "sensibility". Chris O'Donnell's costume nipples were no mistake.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Didn't mean any examples to be a joke, but the target audience of BATMAN films is young men. I probably meant that more than "masculine".

I still think your mainstream movies tend to favour the heterosexual actors when it comes to the leading roles possibly because the public isn't so accepting of openly gay actors in leading straight roles. This is what's behind this Craig story, namely the idea that 007 might be gay, and what a scoop that would be....

I know what you mean, but a scoop is only a scoop if the wider sections of the public would have a real problem with it, no?

Yeah absolutely, but the implication from the publishers of the story is exactly that isn't it, that the wider members of the public would indeed have a problem (or perhaps problem is too strong a word) with an openly gay actor in a major straight role like Bond. Maybe I'm wrong - I certainly hope I am - but I think Craig 007 could loose some public appeal if Craig was actually gay. But it ain't been tested yet to my knowledge has it (?) because I cannot think of one blockbuster film with an openly gay actor playing the heterosexual lead with his name above the title.

[Goodnight]

Yes this sounds extremely likely, because any world famous movie star who wanted to hide his secret sexuality would of course go to a public club and start kissing another man. Funny how in this age of paparazzi, TMZ, and everyone owning a cellphone with a camera, no-one got any evidence of it. Why, it's as if it never actually happened!

Please close this thread.

I agree, how come no one got a photo of it then?

Christ almighty, reminds me of the stupid stuff I'd hear at school being said about people.


Whoever told the press about this is either someone that has something personal against Dan or it's just some deluded idiot looking for some attention.

[Germanlady]

Its ok to have a discussion about this and nothing wrong with being gay, but if you are not, why being called one? And facts are facts and those are, that none of the many visitors of the bar reported it (except this one) or saw anything, not the owner, not the waiter - not inside nor on the parking lot. No pics, no nothing. Plus making out in public with a guy KNOWING he is watched? Plus, DC is not the type to be a closet gay. He´s been with women all his life ... Gay? No...

Edited by Germanlady, 27 May 2010 - 04:59 PM.

[zencat]

My God, there's now a photo!

Attached Files

•  257j9ty.jpg   295.85KB   55 downloads

[Germanlady]

Its ok to have a discussion about this and nothing wrong with being gay, but if you are not, why being called one? And facts are facts and those are, that none of the many visitors of the bar reported it (except this one) or saw anything, not the owner, not the waiter - not inside nor on the parking lot. No pics, no nothing. Plus making out in public with a guy KNOWING he is watched? Plus, DC is not the type to be a closet gay. He´s been with women all his life ... Gay? No...

Daniel Craig Kissed A Guy (and liked it)

He doesn't have to be "gay" to have kissed a man. He could be bisexual, or he could have been curious and it was his first time...he could have been drunk or been dared. I tried a coffee latte back in the 90's and just couldn't do more than a couple of sips and gave it away; never have liked the taste of coffee (only the smell). I was curious...I was young(er)...I wanted to try coffee...it wasn't for me. Does that make me a coffee drinker?

Why is it when a woman makes out with another woman she's "open-minded" and experimenting and just having fun, but when a man does it he's automatically gay?

Good question, but the fact is, that you are very easily branded to be whatever and I agree, that it wouldn´t be all that good for his status as a leading man, if people thought he was gay. So IMO its not that being gay is bad but can hurt a career like his - hence it would be good to clearify the facts. For once, he should sue the paper and not remain silent. I am sure though, he won´t..He never defended himself against anything.

[Safari Suit]

Being the "subject of rumour" vis a vis the old sexuality is part and parcel of being an A-lister. I think suing the magazine would do him fewer favours than this story.

[Germanlady]

For once, he should sue the paper and not remain silent.

I thought I read somewhere that their source had taken a polygraph and passed. In any event, it may not be worth it to sue TNE, as it could lead to heightened public interest in a story that probably would have died off after a one-week news cycle.

Besides, TNE hasn't said that Craig is gay. Their story was carefully worded. He was seen "in a gay kiss"....'dancing with a male friend'...in a gay bar. There is nothing in what TNE has put on their website that actually states with a certainty what his sexual orientation or preference is. And I think that if you sue for libel you may have to prove intent to damage a person's reputation.

The one entity that could *CONCEIVABLY* sue for some sort of damages could be EON, if they could find a lawyer willing to craft a defense that showed the 007 brand was harmed or damaged by reckless innuendo, gossip, and outright lies by TNE. And even if that were the case, EON (or MGM, though they are in no position to be launching lawsuits) could be made to look "intolerant" or "homophobic" by appearing to be offended that their lead actor was thought to be gay or bisexual. The gay rights activists in West Hollywood are very vocal and well-organized; they know how to get a story out into the mainstream press.

It's really a lose-lose situation for Craig and his bosses if they even think of suing. On the other hand, Craig's street cred with women and gay men may have just gone up a bit. According to some of the comments I've been reading elsewhere, not a few women seem to be turned on by the thought of Craig kissing a man, just like many men like seeing two women have it off.

I think, you are right about suing. Will only prolong the whole affair.

[DouglasJ]

I thought I read somewhere that their source had taken a polygraph and passed.

To be fair, the Enquirers version of 'taking a polygraph' probably goes something like this:

"So, are you sure you saw this"
"Yeah, I think so"
"Good enough for me! RUN IT!"

Of course, even if there even is a source, the real story would probably be:

"I saw this guy who kinda looked like Daniel Craig - I'm not sure... I was pretty far away. but if you squinted..."

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0169.htm

[HotRod81000]

Is this crap actually true? Can anyone out there confirm this? Have there ever been any other reports like this on Daniel Craig in the past??

real funny picture, jack*ss

[Emma]

This is non-sense. A celebrity (who plays the greatest leading man role in history) kisses another man in a bar. And NO ONE takes a picture with their cell phone? Give me a break. By the way it wouldn't bother me one bit if Dan was really gay after all. I really no longer care what celebrities do anymore in their private lives.

[dinovelvet]

Having said that....I don't read The National Enquirer, nor have any stock in the company, so I'm not trying to defend them, but I do find it somewhat condescending and elitist for some to suggest that #1 the story be completely discounted and ignored because it was published by The National Enquirer (JOHN EDWARDS, TIGER WOODS, GARY HART, and JESSE JAMES would all beg to differ with people who claim The Enquirer can't be believed, and those are just the names I can think of off the top of my head)

You throw a thousand darts at a board, a few of them will inevitably hit the bullseye. Just because they were right about a couple of things, doesn't mean the other 99% of stories they publish aren't rubbish.

#2 that the thread be shut down because it might lead to people speculating about Daniel Craig's sexuality. If Daniel Craig does not care what people think about him going into a gay bar with gay friends, why should we, and why should the moderators close the thread as if there was something wrong with him either having gay friends, going into a gay bar, or making out with a guy? By shutting the thread down, the moderators would be indirectly playing into the hands of people who say that there is something wrong or shameful about being gay or bisexual.

No, it drags the discussion on CBN down into the tabloid gutter. There's an official "tabloid trash" thread for this kind of thing. Again, I say put up or shut up on this story. Photos, or it didn't happen. I find it extremely odd that in the most cellphone-centric city on the planet, not one person happened to snap a picture of this important, earth-shattering event. And it seems to be the word of one person as opposed to lots of other people who didn't see anything else of the sort :

http://www.gossipcop...man-james-bond/

So yeah, Craig was at the bar. Someone decided to take it one step further and say because he was at a gay-friendly bar, he is gay. One thing's for certain, we're all taking this far more seriously than Daniel is - he's probably laughing and showing it to his friends!

[Loomis]

In 2010 America it is illegal to have an opinion that dares to run contrary to what is politically correct.

Well, you say this, but I imagine that speech is still much freer in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

An example: the U.S.A. tolerates the Westboro Baptist Church, whereas its members are banned from entering Britain on grounds of homophobic hate speech. And rightly so, you might say. But the point I'm trying to make is that America seems to me to strongly uphold the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Another example: if an organisation like the KKK sprang up in Britain, I'm sure that the government would immediately outlaw it.

[zencat]

Gawker's take on this is pretty funny, as you'd expect from Gawker. (BTW, nice new pad, Dan.)

http://gawker.com/55...se-make-him-gay

[elizabeth]

Well, it supposedly happened at a bar. Now what do people usually do at a bar? They drink. He was probably drunk. And when you're drunk, you can't process or plan your actions properly.

Edited by elizabeth, 27 May 2010 - 09:37 PM.

[jaguar007]

Well, it supposedly happened at a bar. Now what do people usually do at a bar? They drink. He was probably drunk. And when you're drunk, you can't process or plan your actions properly.

Also when one is drunk, they may not visualize correctly what is actually happening. A drunk person could see someone giving their friend a goodbye hug and let their imagination run away with what they see.

[Loomis]

I would not defend to the death Westboro Baptist Church's ability to exercise their right to free speech at a person's funeral. I also find the target of their attacks to be odd, since there doesn't appear to be any logical correlation between believing that homosexuality is a sin and the deaths of American soldiers. It's like boycotting Pepsi products because there's an oil spill in The Gulf of Mexico.

Grav, I'm not defending the Westboro Baptist Church or saying that it ought to be indulged. I'm just pointing out the difference between the way America treats this organisation and the way Britain treats it.

I saw the famous Louis Theroux documentary on these people (it's on YouTube and well worth checking out). I think they're vile cranks. All the Americans I know feel the same way. But they are nonetheless allowed to do their thing. The rights and wrongs of this tolerance of intolerance are a separate question, but the fact remains that they are free to do what they do. Well, in Britain they'd be serving prison sentences for pedalling criminally homophobic views. Their church would be a banned organisation. As it stands, their preachers are prevented from entering this country and even their website is blocked over here.

See the difference? This is why I question your assertion that: "In 2010 America it is illegal to have an opinion that dares to run contrary to what is politically correct." Because it would seem to me to be not only perfectly legal but also an important cornerstone of American thought.

[terminus]

As a gay man who lived with a house full of straight men whilst at university, I've been to plenty of gay bars with straight men and even kissed a few of them, a few through dares and one because he was drunk. Likewise, I've been to plenty of non-gay bars with my straight friends and their girlfriends and kissed a few of the girlfriends as a dare. If someone saw me kissing my flatmates girlfriend and dancing with her on the dancefloor, would they be correct in saying that I was straight? No. They wouldn't.

Do gay men kiss men? Yes. Therefore, are all men who kiss men gay? No.

Even if Craig DID kiss a man in the nightclub, there's no reason to leap to the assumption that he's gay.

[DamnCoffee]

I completely agree with the above. Plus, it's none of our business anyway. As an openly Bisexual man, I can say that it's no ones business but his.

[Sark2.0]

I thought I read somewhere that their source had taken a polygraph and passed.

To be fair, the Enquirers version of 'taking a polygraph' probably goes something like this:

"So, are you sure you saw this"
"Yeah, I think so"
"Good enough for me! RUN IT!"

Of course, even if there even is a source, the real story would probably be:

"I saw this guy who kinda looked like Daniel Craig - I'm not sure... I was pretty far away. but if you squinted..."

Passing a polygraph means -all. The polygraph is bull[censored]. Numerous scientific studies have found it to be ineffective at detecting lies. No less than the National Academy of Sciences has said that it's not based on any scientific principles. It's merely a prop.

And yes, Loomis and others, political speech is freer in the US than pretty much anywhere else. We don't have any laws against 'hate speech' or 'blasphemy' and Mein Kampf (as well as every other offensive book) can be openly sold.

[Zorin Industries]

I am reminded of the old line...

What is the difference between gay and straight?

Three pints.




And another great line from Micheal Gambon...

INTERVIEWER: "Are you gay?"

GAMBON : "Not at all. I was once but now I only help out when they are busy".

[singleentendre]

If he was I'd think that's really interesting. But it really doesn't matter at all, plus when the National Enquirer is your only source your argument is just made up.

[Zorin Industries]

EDITED.