54 replies to this topic

[solitaire]

I know this is a controversial choice for many of you,but I really believe he would make a great Bond. As i've stated before,I think he has all the prerequisites required of a Bond actor,he's sexy,intelligent,british,sophisticated,witty and charming. The fact that he's gay in his personal life is besides the point. Over the course of his career,he's played numerous heterosexual characters,and continues to do so convincingly. Women love him,and have no problem accepting his screen portayals. I certainly have never stated that he should play Bond as a gay man,that's not my agenda. I'm always the first to say that Bond should "evolve" and change with the times (to an extent anyway) but going gay would probably be too radical a change. I would love to see a gay secret agent,worked into the plot of a Bond film. That would rock if it was done in an interesting way. Having said all of this,I do realize that Rupert playing Bond is probably in the realm of wishful thinking on my part. The producers probably don't want that marketing headache,and sadly from what i've seen on these threads "hardcore Bond fanatics" would probably go ballistic.
A boy can dream though;)

[Loomis]

This discussion is really already underway on another thread, as you know. And I've already said my piece about why, regardless of his merits as an actor, Everett hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being cast as Bond. However,

Originally posted by solitaire
I would love to see a gay secret agent,worked into the plot of a Bond film. That would rock if it was done in an interesting way.  

This could make for an interesting plot twist. I remember an effective couple of scenes in THE JACKAL (a much better film than it's often made out to be) in which Bruce Willis pretends to be gay and even seduces a man in order to further his mission. I don't say Bond should do this (and I'm going to spell this out very clearly one more time in capital letters because we've seen that a lot of people instantly blow a fuse as soon as they see the words "Bond" and "gay" juxtaposed too closely together: I. DON'T. SAY. BOND. SHOULD. DO. THIS.), but a gay character worked into the plot of a Bond film could indeed be interesting. Maybe an agent could be blackmailed over his or her homosexuality? Or a "honey trap" could backfire after being set for a character no one knows is gay? Or maybe the series could even introduce its first sympathetic gay character (as opposed to Wint and Kidd)?

[IrishCrown]

I thought the Wint and Kidd characters were hysterical because they were so NOT politically correct, and I like that with Bond. He does all the things that piss people off. That's the way he should be.

[Loomis]

Actually, I'm trying to think of other gay characters the series has had apart from Wint and Kidd. Supposedly Madonna plays a lesbian in DIE ANOTHER DAY, and I always thought Henderson in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was meant to be gay.

[solitaire]

I would only want to see gay characters in a Bond film if it was done in an interesting way. A character being "blackmailed" for his homosexuality,or being portrayed as some mincing feminine queen would be extremely old school as well as offensive. This is the 21st century,not 1955. If gay people are to ever have a place in a Bond film,we're going to have to be respected equals of everyone else in the Bond world. I would love to see another agent,completely like Bond in everyway,except he's gay. Just a thought,or a great villian who's sexuality is up front,but not a reason he's a bad guy. Gay people are just as diverse and complex as anyone else,and we're everywhere in society. There are even Gay secret agents in the real world;)

[Loomis]

Originally posted by solitaire
I would only want to see gay characters in a Bond film if it was done in an interesting way. A character being "blackmailed" for his homosexuality,or being portrayed as some mincing feminine queen would be extremely old school as well as offensive.

Well, I'm just idly kicking ideas around, but I don't see that a blackmail subplot would be automatically offensive (although I suppose the idea of blackmail over sexual orientation could seem a little dated; however, I'm sure it must still happen, and it would all be a question of how it was written and executed).

[1q2w3e4r]

I think, no offence, you seriously have some issues to want a homosexual undertone or theme in a Bond film. Its never going to happen. They've already had wint and kidd and they aren't about to have it as a blackmail plot.

Im against Rupert playing Bond to. I don't think he's right for the part. I'd rather see Huge Jackman do it. Besides, it is an issue he's openly gay you can't sell a Bond film like that. Its not descrimination, its a simple fact. Same as Bond as a women or a black Bond won't sell you piss away fifty years of history associated with the novels and films. And to be honest, I wouldn't see a Bond film with Rupert Everett, simply because its almost in my opinion laughing at the audiences perception of the character.

Maybe you need to look at another franchise (sorry just jokes) and ya they did have gay spys. Pretty crappy one's at that to. Have you heard of Burgess and Maclean?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by 1q2w3e4r
I think, no offence, you seriously have some issues to want a homosexual undertone or theme in a Bond film.  Its never going to happen.  They've already had wint and kidd and they aren't about to have it as a blackmail plot.

What sort of "issues" do you mean? Repressed homosexuality? A desire to see a gay-themed Bond movie with a mincing, effeminate 007 bedding blokes left right and centre? No, I'm just floating a couple of ideas in response to solitaire's post. And I don't see what's wrong with those ideas, I'm not suggesting that the issue of homosexuality should completely dominate any Bond film it was included in.

And you've got to ask yourself, why do you react so defensively and negatively to the idea of gay characters in a Bond film? (There have been several gay characters in the series over the years, anyway.) Maybe you are the one with "issues".

From this and a couple of other threads, I've noticed that some people seem to go ballistic as soon as the word "gay" is mentioned. And yes, I have indeed heard of Messrs Burgess and Maclean (which would seem to suggest, if anything, that gay characters could work in a Bond movie).

[1q2w3e4r]

No I have no issues as far as homosexuality is concerned. Though i do see why your asking. A lot of finger pointing always turns up in a topic as such. It seems as though this topic is springing up in a number of threads running all at once. Several gay characters? I count two. But maths was never a strong point.

Actually Burgess and Maclean is funny, cause Toby Stevens is playing one of the Cambridge Spies in his next flick.

I don't think it would work in a Bond film to be honest. Its not that sort of audience. And Im still carrying a little hostility against "Solitare" i guess because of that thread where it was claimed that Madonna was bigger than Bond and she dwarfed any project she was involved in.

Anyways, well there it is. Sorry if i offended.

[Loomis]

Yeah, it's cool, 1q2w3e4r, no offence taken. I know that you weren't running down homosexuals. It's just that some people who post on this site seem to get very, very angry as soon as the word "gay" is mentioned, and the threads in question tend to become multi-page torrents of abuse where the original point remains stranded at the top of page one. Some people inevitably do have "issues", but I know you're not one of them.

I see what you mean about the Bonds being "not that sort of audience". I was just thinking you could drop a gay character or subplot into a Bond film without making any kind of big deal about it, but then I guess you couldn't. It's the nature of mainstream blockbuster moviemaking, the filmmakers would be seen as "exploring gay issues" and Making A Statement, and the last thing a Bond film should ever be is "worthy". It's similar to the reason why Everett would never, as you say, be cast as 007. Because he's openly gay, that fact would overshadow things to the point where trying to market him as Bond would be far more trouble than it would be worth.

I'm pretty sure Wint and Kidd aren't the only gay characters to have been in Bond films. Homosexuality is implied in various others, for instance Rosa Klebb (when she puts her hand on Tanya's knee and Tanya flinches), Pussy Galore, Henderson (my theory, anyway), a couple of others, but that's a discussion for another day.

[1q2w3e4r]

Yeah your right, Rosa! How could I forget, and dear Pussy. Don't know how that one's slipped my mind. Was thinking more or Moore's era

But it just wouldn't work in the context of the films, people are complaining that theres too much drama and not enough "escapism" in the current films as it is!

[Mister Asterix]

Let's not forget Pussy's Flying Circus (I love saying that). If they follow the book a bit then they would be a gaggle of lesbians.

As for Rupert, if he want to play a gay British agent. Create a new character. I get tired of everyone wanting Bond to be gay, black, A woman, or a chicken. Create your own black lesbian poultry spy and leave James Bond alone. The failure of Casino Royale was that James Bond is more than just a name. It comes with an entire attache case full of issues, life experience, and and character attributes. And one of those attributes is that James Bond likes his women.

Rupert would make a fine James Bond, IF he played the role straight. I don't think he would. But if he's willing to he should contact Kevin McClory, because I doubt the Cubbettes would ever have him.

[General Gogol]

I think Mr. Everett is a fine actor and I have no personal objections to seeing him play Bond, but I think that some people would not take it well and a big controversy would ensue. I could personally care less if he were gay, just as long as he does a good job at portraying Bond. I would not want the character of Bod to be gay though. That would go against what Ian Fleming wanted Bond to be. Have a great day!!!

[solitaire]

I wish people would get that i'm not interested in having Bond be gay,I am interested in gay characters being portrayed in the films however. That is my "issue" (if you want to call it that) 1q2w3e4r I think you have some serious issues with gay men,too bad you're so insecure with your masculinity. I'm not interested in gay characters from past Bond films,as they were all pretty much stereotypical and demeaning imo. Like I said Rupert will probably never be Bond (too bad) but perhaps it's for the best anyway,with gay people becoming more powerful and visible in the media,it will only be a matter of time before some smart studio decides to start a gay spy franchise,and gives Bond a run for it's (dated) money.

"God save the Queens"

[General Gogol]

Solitaire, Homosexuality has played a role in espionage operations for many years. Look at Vassall and Guy Burgess two of the most famous cases in espionage history.1q2w3e4r I wouldn't call Burgess and Maclean bad spies they undoubtedly caused extreme damage to the U.K. and western alliance. Having a gay charachter in a Bond film or any other espionage film would make it quite interesting. Though I don't think it will ever happen. Have a great day.

[brendan007]

what is the point of especially having a gay character? why even bother. a gay character would be no different to any other character that could be created, they wouldnt act any different so y bother giving us unneccesary character information that would make little difference to the story.
as for rupert everett, gay or not, he's still a terrible choice for bond no matter what he's sexual preference. rupert everett for bond is the worst casting choice since people suggested hugh grant

[solitaire]

Originally posted by brendan007
what is the point of especially having a gay character? why even bother. a gay character would be no different to any other character that could be created, they wouldnt act any different so y bother giving us unneccesary character information that would make little difference to the story.
as for rupert everett, gay or not, he's still a terrible choice for bond no matter what he's sexual preference. rupert everett for bond is the worst casting choice since people suggested hugh grant

Following your logic,what is the point of having a straight character? why bother with that:rolleyes: The point i'm trying to make is that I think it would be great to see interesting gay characters in Bond films. Bond films are total fantasy,but they can (and sometimes do) reflect a certain truths about the real world. Gay people are a part of the real world,just like everyone else. I know some people would like to forget that fact. The sexuality of the character does'nt have to be interal to the plot,but it should be expressed in the same "matter of fact" way Bond's is.

[brendan007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by solitaire



Following your logic,what is the point of having a straight character? why bother with that:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

the point i tried to make is y bother defining a persons sexuality at all, it makes no difference to anything really.

[/B][/QUOTE] Gay people are a part of the real world,just like everyone else. I know some people would like to forget that fact. [/B][/QUOTE]

most people dont want to forget it, they just dont need to be constantly reminded of it. so people are gay, whoopdedo. i dont say 'im brendan and im heterosexual' every five seconds, so i dont see y knowing that a character is gay makes a difference to anything.

[1q2w3e4r]

I said i think you have an issue in wanting it portrayed in the films, and i don't think that its appropriate for a Bond film to have an openly gay character. Why do you feel the need for their to be one in a Bond film? They've been hinted at in the past. What' s the big issue? There's plenty of other films with gay characters and icons that you could watch that are good films.

Attacking my masculinity as you put it is kinda off putting sorry. Character attacks normal result in threads going downhill really quickly. I don't have any issues with gays and I personnal don't feel the need to say that I don't. Its no concern of mine what your sexuality is, whatever floats your goat.

but Im with Brendan and don't need to be constantly reminded of a characters sexuality every five minutes. Apart from the Bond women in theory anyone who didn't have sex with Bond in a film could be gay. But who cares? Im sorry if you do. But i think its kind of irrelevant because Im positive that the producers won't go that way.

[1q2w3e4r]

Anyway, on topic. I think Hugh Jackman is a better candiate. He's younger and looks the part. And since we've already had one aussie stuff it up, second times a charm. I think he could pull it off, Kate and Leopold and Swordfish show that he can play what the character needs.
He's got my vote, and he's got enough box office success behind him to be successful in the US as well.

Interesting thought. Next person to play Bond will most likely double from a previous actors country ie Connery=Scotland, Lazenby=Aussie
Rog=Britian, Tim=Welsh and Pierce the Irish.

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by solitaire
I wish people would get that i'm not interested in having Bond be gay...

I understand that that you don't want Bond to be gay. However, I understand that Rupert Everett is interested in Bond being gay, and that is why I don't want Rupert Everett as Bond. Another gay actor would be fine.

As for gay characters, I think there should be more of them in the Bond films as long as there is not an overly politically correct brush used to paint the characters. The film makers should not need to be affraid of having gay villains and allies alike.

[JackChase007]

My problem with Rupert Everett as Bond is his attitude. I recall some time ago taht there were articles were he blasted the Bond people, claiming that they didn't approach him because he was gay. If they did come to him next, and he did accept, there would be that friction. I can see it now. It would be like having Lazenby on the set all over again, and we don't need that. Part of what works for the Bond movies is that everything works so well on the sets - it's a family, and we don't need someone who is going to compromise that. Seriously, Everett is a fine actor, but he does have an attitude problem. He seems to think that he's God's gift to the movie industry, and that's not the sort of actor that I want playing Bond (it didn't seem to get Lazenby anywhere...).

[solitaire]

Originally posted by brendan007


most people dont want to forget it, they just dont need to be constantly reminded of it. so people are gay, whoopdedo. i dont say 'im brendan and im heterosexual' every five seconds, so i dont see y knowing that a character is gay makes a difference to anything.

I still don't get your logic,In most Bond films everyone is clearly perceived as heterosexual,whether they sleep with Bond or not. Btw that does'nt prove anything. Having an openly gay character does'nt have to make a difference,it would just be nice for gay people to be represented. Btw straight people talk about there sexuality all the time,gay people are'nt as visible.

[solitaire]

Originally posted by 1q2w3e4r
I said i think you have an issue in wanting it portrayed in the films, and i don't think that its appropriate for a Bond film to have an openly gay character. Why do you feel the need for their to be one in a Bond film? They've been hinted at in the past. What' s the big issue? There's plenty of other films with gay characters and icons that you could watch that are good films.

Attacking my masculinity as you put it is kinda off putting sorry. Character attacks normal result in threads going downhill really quickly. I don't have any issues with gays and I personnal don't feel the need to say that I don't. Its no concern of mine what your sexuality is, whatever floats your goat.

but Im with Brendan and don't need to be constantly reminded of a characters sexuality every five minutes. Apart from the Bond women in theory anyone who didn't have sex with Bond in a film could be gay. But who cares? Im sorry if you do. But i think its kind of irrelevant because Im positive that the producers won't go that way.

I do have an issue with gay characters in Bond films......I want them in the films. My question for you is why do feel so strongly that gay characters would be inappropriate?.....anyway I think you're probably right that the producers won't have any gay characters anytime soon. Too bad people can't see past their own predudices.

[Loomis]

solitaire, I think 1q2w3e4r has already made it perfecly clear, several posts ago, why he feels the Bond films should not be a platform for gay issues, and I agree with his point of view.

And you keep on attacking 1q2w3e4r for being prejudiced against gays, when he's denied that he is. I believe him, end of discussion. I don't see why you seem to feel the need to keep on at him. You've already made it crystal clear where you stand, and so has he.

[Simon]

Not sure of him being Bond but I always thought he would make a superb Saint, ie. that of the literary Saint without all of the Kilmer variations.

He has all the requisite arrogance, superiority, slight frame and sarcasm that is sorely needed for a definitive Saint interpretation.

However, I'm sure our marketing friends would never allow themselves to be put in a position of promoting a gay Saint, especially since with the last film, the American posters had the famous stick figure removed because his right hand looked camp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and replaced with an irrelevant lightening strike.

[solitaire]

Originally posted by Loomis
solitaire, I think 1q2w3e4r has already made it perfecly clear, several posts ago, why he feels the Bond films should not be a platform for gay issues, and I agree with his point of view.

And you keep on attacking 1q2w3e4r for being prejudiced against gays, when he's denied that he is. I believe him, end of discussion. I don't see why you seem to feel the need to keep on at him. You've already made it crystal clear where you stand, and so has he.

First of all,you don't get to tell me how I should react to him and his obvious homophobia. If you believe him that's your right,and the "end of the discussion" for you. I never said Bond films should be a platform for "gay issues",what I said is that it would be really cool to have interesting gay characters in the series. Period. I was'ny attacking him,just answering back. If you,him or anyone else,is not interested in this topic,simply stop posting on my thread.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by solitaire

his obvious homophobia.

See, there you go again. Where is your evidence of the poor guy's supposed homophobia? I think you're overreacting on this one. Has he written "I hate gays" or "being gay is wrong"? Flinging accusations at people is as offensive as homophobia itself.

[solitaire]

Originally posted by Loomis


See, there you go again. Where is your evidence of the poor guy's supposed homophobia? I think you're overreacting on this one. Has he written "I hate gays" or "being gay is wrong"? Flinging accusations at people is as offensive as homophobia itself.

I don't think i'm overreacting at all,a person does'nt have to come right out and say "I hate gays". Homophobia is usually more subtle than that. He obviously has issues with Rupert playing Bond,he also said he doe'snt think there should be "openly gay" characters in a Bond film. That speaks volumes imo. Anyway why are you defending him? i'm sure he's capable of answering for himself.

[brendan007]

Originally posted by solitaire


I don't think i'm overreacting at all,a person does'nt have to come right out and say "I hate gays". Homophobia is usually more subtle than that. He obviously has issues with Rupert playing Bond,he also said he doe'snt think there should be "openly gay" characters in a Bond film. That speaks volumes imo. Anyway why are you defending him? i'm sure he's capable of answering for himself.

i have issues with rupert playing bond, and i also dont think there should be 'openly gay' characters in a bond film, am i homophopic too??