Why Roger Moore Doesn't Think There Should Be A Gay James Bond

[quote]they wouldn’t be Bond for the simple reason that wasn’t what Ian Fleming wrote

Who the fuck cares? It's a fucking spy franchise, not the Mahabharata.

Fleming had a character say of Bond in one of the early books, "Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold."

Well, Connery was fucking bald and Daniel Craig is blonde, so they aren't what Fleming wrote either. Moore should just STFU.

The last 20 movies had nothing to do with what Fleming wrote but who's complaining?

[quote]Moore should just STFU.

Maybe Moore was asked his opinion and gave it.

[quote]The last 20 movies had nothing to do with what Fleming wrote but who's complaining?

Actually Daniel Craig's is much closer in spirit to the James Bond of the books.

The James Bond who always got the girl and used these ridiculous gadgets was not in keeping with the books.

It's not like Hollywood takes liberty with the source material when they believe it delivers a bigger profit.

What new dimension to the film would you add by making Bond black or gay?

This article is triggering to me.

Why isn't James Bond a transwoman of color?

That was what Fleming clearly intended for Jemima Bond!!!!!!!!

DL favorite Luke Evans is up against (oh, I like that phrase) Poldark actor Aidan Turner in voting for the next James Bond in a contest for British GQ mag. The timing is interesting for Roger Moore to be speaking about a gay man playing 007.

Why make him gay at all? Just make him flirt with a guy or sleep with one as part of his mission.

He wasn't talking about a gay man playing Bond, r8, but Bond being portrayed as a gay man. Slight difference. Roger Moore is in his eighties. Attitudes like his are dying off. We won't change the likes of him so perhaps he is best ignored.

[quote] This article is triggering to me. Why isn't James Bond a transwoman of color? That was what Fleming clearly intended for Jemima Bond!!!!!!!!

Oh goody. You're going to drag your white supremacist bullshit into every thread. What, no Klan functions to attend this afternoon?

I see no reason for James Bond to be gay, but I would love to see a gay actor get to play him.

Get a load of R3!

I've seeing lots of R3's around here. Not sure if it's one troll or many.

I agree with R12. making James Bond suddenly gay just seems desperate and pointless. But having a gay man PLY JB would be fine.

Wasn't a lot of argument when ELIZABETH TAYLOR was cast as CLEOPATRA back in '61 but she had far more box office appeal (read $$$) than Diahann Carroll.

I'm okay with a black Bond or a Jew Bond, but not a gay Bond. That's too much. That's too desperate.

Yes R16. Changing James Bonds race doesn't really affect the movie in any way whatsoever. Literally not a single change to a script would be needed

When one of James Bond defining characteristics from the movie is how much he chases after girls, changing his sexual orientation DOES actually alter the character and the movies.

I agree that changing Bond's race would not affect storylines whatsoever, but if there were discussions about doing a remake of Shaft and casting a white guy, there would be an uproar heard the world over.

So would Gay-Bond be a top or, more likely, a bottom ? Would he take his Prep straight up? Would his love conquest be named Sum Yung Mann?

Miss Moneypenny would become Mr. Moneyshot.

OP, for God's sake, you can't spell the name of your topic.

No, Janes Bond isn't black. Neither is Superman. That doesn't mean we cant black spys and superheros But don't rewrite history. Next we'll learn that Supergirl will be played as by Caitlyn, as a trans woman.

Let's have actual gay and/or black heros, not reinvent the traditional ones.

Q would become.....well, Q.

Wasn't the creator of James Bond a sister?

Bond with lust for other men's feet

[quote]So would Gay-Bond be a top or, more likely, a bottom ?

Is that even a question?

A gay James Bond would have to be an alpha top obviously. That is the whole idea of the character, how he is a man's man.

Filmmakers would never make a straight character gay. They only make gay characters straight.

I think a lot of gay people would have melt downs if James Bond was turned gay. It definitely ruin their day.

These days, 007 would have to be 008.5 or bigger to get a date if he's gay.

I agree that a black man or a gay man playing James Bond would not alter the story in any way. But yes, having Bond be gay or having a female Bond would.

But do people seriously think they will cast a black or gay man to play Bond, when the audience is typically older people? Will they take that risk? I think they will just play it safe, especially if Bond stays with Sony.

As a product of the English public schools, I can assure you that 007 has been rogered more than Roger Moore would like to admit.

[quote]I can assure you that 007 has been rogered more than Roger Moore would like to admit.

And so has Roger Moore.

am screaming with laughter at "Moneyshot" and "Sum Yung Man". thank you.

Yeah, they certainly don't want a faeg playing Bond, R29. Beets to play it safe. Homosexuals are risks, ugh.

No one cared about his opinion of Bond even when he was Bond.

Bravo to R3. Moore a fellow who actually WAS James Bond) gave a reasoned personal opinion.

But idiots like R1 can only deal with people who only completely agree with them.

As for me (don't have a melt-down R3), I feel that a gay or Black or Asian or whatever Bond would be patronizing.

Do Blacks or Gays really need old has-been characters created by dead white men from another era? Do they need the Bond brand for legitimacy.

Start a new franchise.

Nah, I think a gay hero would anger a lot of gays, regardless if it's new or not.

It would make perfect sense to make the character bisexual, or straight but willing to fuck a man to achieve his ends. That's what a secret agent who relies on charm and sex appeal to complete his missions SHOULD do - adapt his methods to the needs of the case.

Why don't the Bond writers think these things through?

After 50 years, 24 Bond movies and 13 different Bonds, who gives a fuck?

R33 You know damn well the gay media will be all over a gay man playing Bond. They won't let anyone forget he's gay.

That's easy R37. Most people do not want to see a guy hook up with another guy sadly.

I was just about to post what r37 posted. Make him the kind of person who uses sex to achieve his goals with both men and women.

Gay people included R40.

Talk about a manufactured issue

And it's not like it'd be Bond's first time, he went to good upper-crust boys' schools after all!

They even sort of admitted that, in the last one.

A gay James Bond would be cruelly nicknamed Junk Bond.

James Bond was a Navy Commander and we all know the Navy is nothing but the rum, sodomy and the lash.

I don't get it ^

We always thought Roger was a sissy.

Didn't DC recently said he was so done with 007 and was sick of it? I saw the pictures of the premier in UK, he looked like shit, like he's 60 years old.

I don't think he has to be a gay character, but having him pole the cabana boy in a film (because that is the only way to get information out of that twink SMERSH operative) would be plausible.

At least we have people interested in who the next Bond's going to be. Can Idris Elba play gay?

In the latest Bond film Bond pursues a 50+ aged woman. Fleming wouldn't have written anything like this either so why not at least a bi Bond for starters?

Its a bit ironic that Lady Roger Moore should take such an adamant position on the subject.

I think he's right. I don't understand why minorities are always clamoring to take over established white/heterosexual characters. Let's just create our own for fucks sake.

Leave James Bomd alone ffs! This is so stupid.

Follow the money trail people; it will NEVER happen.

You don't make expensive movies to intentionally lose money.

For Heaven's sake 007 is and will always be a womanizer. 009 1/2 on the other hand.....

The article posted by OP names Cuba Gooding Jr. as one of the candidates for a black Bond. WTF. The public hasn't thought of Cuba Gooding jr in the last 15 years at least

"Let's have actual gay and/or black heros, not reinvent the traditional ones."

Great idea, R21, but then screenwriters would have to actually.... think.

Why would they lose money R55? Because of the fegaleh?

It's not beneath James Bond to seduce a gay villain "for Queen and Country".

Needs must, and all that.

How 'bout just no more Bond movies, period.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It's a shame that there are gayvmen who employ Hugh Jackman. I wish gays were like Jews, you kiss them off, you're finished. Gays should take note.

Piss them off

When did Hugh pass us off?

He and his wife always flip out about gay rumors.

Not everything in life has to be gay, or black, white, or whatever. I've always liked the Bond movies and never needed or expected a gay Bond. Sean Connery was the hottest and best Bond, there's no topping him anyway, athough I still enjoy them.

Sorry but I don't enjoy bond movies anymore, they're just like action flicks with spy story-line. I recently watched the latest version of Mission Impossible and I enjoy that much more. I love the action and no need for the needless female sexpot angle. DC is haggard as fuck.

Hey what am I ? Chopped liver ? Forget agent 007.

I'm a spy. I was created by Ian Fleming. I'm gay.

I may seduce women by day, but after work, I go back to my best friend and colleague Kuryakin.

This thread demonstrates why I find gay men to be generally more rational,logical and good humored than most any other "oppressed minority group"....and not always looking for a reason to be aggrieved,disgruntled and victimized.

Most of us don't see the idea of James Bond not being portrayed as gay as offensive,exclusionary, homophobic or hateful at all.

Stay reasonable gays....it works for you.

[quote] This thread demonstrates why I find gay men to be generally more rational,logical and good humored than most any other "oppressed minority group"....and not always looking for a reason to be aggrieved,disgruntled and victimized.

Well we're certainly very pleased that we could help confirm your fantastical bigoted notions. Let me congratulate you and us all on our superiority. Pats on the back all around. Rationality and logic, that's hilarious.

[quote] Most of us don't see the idea of James Bond not being portrayed as gay as offensive,exclusionary, homophobic or hateful at all.

I don't know that it's really a matter of it being exclusionary, hateful or offensive. At least for me, the sexuality or the race are not necessarily important. They've made 20 plus movies and used 14 different people to play the same man. If I can accept 14 different Bond's; I can accept a gay Bond or a black Bond. It's just not important. It shouldn't be important. It shouldn't matter and for me it doesn't. Regardless of what color he is or with whom he sleeps. Bond is still a British spy who's going to triumph in the end. He will get the bad guy. For me, a change in race or sexuality would have no more of a jarring effect than the periodic actor change has had.

14 bonds?

Mabel Maney already wrote the book on "Jane Bond" lesbian superspy.

And there was a sequel "The Girl with the Golden Bouffant"

I am ashamed to admit that I was one who thought that an openly gay actor would mess with my fantasy while watching him as the lead in a film. All that has changed due to one Mr. Don Lemon. That man has discombobulated and confoozled my hormonal wiring and urges to the point that I don't know up from down. I watch him every night and I am moist from 10 to 11 pm like clockwork. I think he would make a MARVELOUS 007.

with Dawson as B.B. Cumbucket

Oh dear...it appears R71. has been aggrieved.

I would rather someone demonstrate an ounce of originality and create a new gay spy character than try re-imagine Bond as gay.

If you want to see more "diversity" in movies, books, or TV - create compelling characters who are diverse, rather than trying to b borrow resonance by co-opting existing characters.

If you want to "see yourself" in great characters or movies, create them. Don't swoop in and demand that an existing character be retconned to satisfy your needs.

Characters like Constantine were created with their sexuality in mind (albeit whitewashed in the recent TV show).

If you want a gay or transwoman of color spy or superhero - create one.

1. Who's making demands? The 25th Bond movie is not at the top of the list of any average American's priorities. Is the race or the sexual orientation of the character important to everyone? No it is not. For some of us it's just not important.

[quote] If you want a gay or transwoman of color spy or superhero - create one.

2. What have you created?

3. Are any of the Hollywood studio executives creative. Are the studios creating anything or merely repeatedly recycling old stories? I'm going to go with recycling.

[quote] If you want to "see yourself" in great characters or movies, create them. Don't swoop in and demand that an existing character be retconned to satisfy your needs.

There are tons of stories that have already been created and tons more will be created in the future. While the studios continue to recycle and reboot. Only a tiny fraction of those new stories will make their way to the big screen because we need 10 Spiderman reboots.

Are people only able to identify with characters who are the same race, gender and share the same sexual orientation. No. Human beings generally speaking share the same range of feelings and emotions. Audiences see themselves in any number of characters who are in many ways different from them. Fictional super action heroes are of course in many ways different from any real human being. Yet the audience identifies with them and they enjoy the story.

Audiences pay money to see movies. Again this is not about demands. However, audiences have a right to voice their opinions about what they pay to see.

[quote] I would rather someone demonstrate an ounce of originality and create a new gay spy character than try re-imagine Bond as gay.

If the character is pattered after James Bond, he will still be the gay James Bond. If that comparison is going to be made regardless? Does it really matter. Using the Bond franchise certainly has its benefits, including budget.

[quote]. Who's making demands? The 25th Bond movie is not at the top of the list of any average American's priorities. Is the race or the sexual orientation of the character important to everyone? No it is not. For some of us it's just not important.

It's not important to me at all. What is important to me is a good story, well told with interesting characters. What I think is a cop-out is retconning characters from established stories simply to achieve some pc purpose of diversity in order to meet the demands of insane sjw. If someone desperately wants to see characters who look like them, then they should write them, not demand that other people's fictional creations be changed for them.

[quote]Using the Bond franchise certainly has its benefits, including budget.

Yes, stealing the entire backstory, plot, situation of established characters and worlds is always easier than coming up with one yourself. It's very difficult to come up with compelling characters who matter to an audience.

[quote]If the character is pattered after James Bond, he will still be the gay James Bond

Yes, a completely derivative character would have that problem.

Yes, it order to sell ideas in Hollywood, it's easier to say "my movie is XXX meets YYY" to give people the elevator speech.

[quote]2. What have you created?

What does this have to do with anything? Whether I could or could not create something, I wouldn't create a rainbow flag character unless it mattered to the story. Characters fill the role necessary to tell the story.

In Paris Review: E. M. Forster speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the course of his novels. Has this ever been a problem for you, or are you in complete command?

NABOKOV: My knowledge of Mr. Forster’s works is limited to one novel, which I dislike; and anyway, it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand; it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves.

I don't think there was all this outrage and opinion-spouting when a black Wizard of Oz was done with Diana Ross.

You're dealing with homosexuality R81. Gay men and closet cases get especially outraged over homosexuality.

I've always assumed 007 would be conditionally bisexual, if necessary, simply to get the job done. And he would enjoy it. It's just that they've never written that situation.

[quote]Didn't DC recently said he was so done with 007 and was sick of it? I saw the pictures of the premier in UK, he looked like shit, like he's 60 years old.

Craig already said few days ago he's up for another Bond. If Spectre gets over $1 billion he'll most probably do another one. The film premiered in the UK on Monday and has been doing extremely well. The reviews haven't been as good as for Skyfall did but it's not thought to be a bad film at all, so it's fair to expect a global B.O. of $1 billion. Skyfall's was $1.1B.

I don't have any problems with Bond staying straight. The gay double entendres like the ones in Skyfall are enough for me. I'm realist enough to understand that if James Bond was suddenly turned completely gay most people would just not see it, and Broccoli and the Hollywood studios obviously realize that. It's a homophobic world. Demanding a gay Bond is just ludicrous. And even if it's not about homophobia it's about straight guys getting to fantasize about being a super spy and bagging loads of pussy. Gay Bond would change that. Obviously, like Craig said, if things are done well gay Bond might work but people all over the world aren't ready for it yet.

Roger Moore has been in the business all his life. Of course he knows what the situation is with Hollywood and gay heroes, i.e. there aren't any. We need those gay movie heroes but starting with James Bond is not the right way. Maybe in a decade or few IF male bisexuality has become normal enough we'll see a gay Bond.

Right. R44?

When he was sort of flirting with the Bardem character. That was a hoot.

It would be ridiculous to think that Bond had never been in that situation before. Whatever it takes to get what he needs, right? Maybe they could start showing those situations on camera little by little.

Uh, hate to burst your bubbles, but there already has been a gay James Bond. Daniel Craig is an obvious homosexual. Gayface, mannerisms, and the odd 'marriage.'

r80, love that Nabokov quote. Closeted gay Forster was rather a chore. All those circumlocutions! Get to the fucking point already.

I like the idea of a sexually-ambivalent Bond exploiting his sexiness to help accomplish the goal of the mission, regardless of who he needs to fuck.

Yes, how can the characters get out of hand unless you the writer cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.

[quote] It's not important to me at all. What is important to me is a good story, well told with interesting characters. What I think is a cop-out is retconning characters from established stories simply to achieve some pc purpose of diversity in order to meet the demands of insane sjw. If someone desperately wants to see characters who look like them, then they should write them, not demand that other people's fictional creations be changed for them.

Ok so this is your moment to whine about political correctness and SJWs. Original works are changed and adapted for any number of reasons. Sometimes they make for a better product and sometimes they don't. If Hollywood is going to continue to recycle and reboot and I'm sure that they will. They will have to find new ways to retell those same stories. Adding 3-D to any random movie obviously has not worked.

[quote] If someone desperately wants to see characters who look like them, then they should write them, not demand that other people's fictional creations be changed for them.

Let me ask this again. Who is demanding what?

Once they are sold to a studio, other people's fictional creations are going to be tweaked and changed in some way or in many ways. Regardless of whether it be race or sexual orientation. It will be changed in some way, shape, or form. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

[quote] What does this have to do with anything? Whether I could or could not create something, I wouldn't create a rainbow flag character unless it mattered to the story. Characters fill the role necessary to tell the story.

You keep mandating and dictating what everyone else should be doing and creating. What are you creating? Perhaps you should be creating movies who's screenplays don't in the least bit deviate from the original work.

The same sort of people in charge of the MI5 and ^ in Ian Fleming's day are still in charge today. So there *might* be black or gay agents, there *could* be black or gay agents, but only because they have to be included, or are needed for specific assignments.

Even if they are as good as Bond, they would never be given Bond's latitude.

(This all applying real world changes to the Bond universe.)

There shouldn't be a gay Bond because James bond isn't gay. Changing the character's sexual identity is completely rewriting the character, the bio, everything. Bond is a womanizing lothario, nuff said. Liking pussy is a big part of straight male identity, it would be akin to making the character a right wing republican.

it's hilarious, the anger exhibited over a fictional character.

I'd like to see a movie about the Afrika Korp featuring gay couple Rommel and Monty -- they've broken up and now are hellbent on each other's destruction....

....but will a night of torrid "sex with the ex" save thousands of lives?

It's the story that's waited 74 years to be told!

[quote]Once they are sold to a studio, other people's fictional creations are going to be tweaked and changed in some way or in many ways. Regardless of whether it be race or sexual orientation. It will be changed in some way, shape, or form. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

[quote]You keep mandating and dictating what everyone else should be doing and creating. What are you creating? Perhaps you should be creating movies who's screenplays don't in the least bit deviate from the original work.

Your fundamental lack of understanding of my points is truly astounding.

You've filtered everything based on the points you wish to make, rather than what I actually made.

"What makes you think this is my first time?"

Straight white males are the overwhelming majority of Bond movie fans, they aren't exactly pleading for a gay bond. If they make it with a gay or probably even a black as James Bond it will be a financial flop. Even if Moore thought it was a good idea, it isn't.

Isn't a black Bond in the works?

Old fans will melt way.

[quote] Your fundamental lack of understanding of my points is truly astounding. You've filtered everything based on the points you wish to make, rather than what I actually made.

I have an extremely good understanding of not only what you said but why you said it. You said the same thing twice. For you this about the evils of political correctness.

I agree! James Bond is a straight guy.

We should, however, have a decent action or spy movie with a gay lead.

I mean, we won't, because Hollywood is fucking terrible, but we SHOULD.

Like you, r97?

I too always thought of Bond as the sort who would do whatever it took to get the job done, much like the "Jackal' in Day of the jackal. He romanced both men and women on his path to infamy. Was he gay? Straight? Opportunistic?

The problem is that society is too PC for it to happen. If gay James Bond were a dashing, dapper total top surrounded by a bunch of jealous, bitchy, prancing queens, that would be a pretty fucking terrific movie.

I figured most spies would be bisexual to get what they wanted.

r102, the people who bitch about "PC" are the ones who would hate a gay Bond

Let the straights have 007. I say let's create our own gay secret agent, named Mark, Rick, or Steve (Thank you, Miss Clairee!) Brand!

Brand...Mark Brand or

Brand...Rick Brand or

Brand...Steve Brand

And he'd be Agent 003, because we know what they say about $3.00 bills.

Mr. Poundcoin, M's secretary, would swoon over him whenever 003 came into the office.

Some of the famous Brand Boys would be: Cock Aplenty, Alexis Imabottom, Ivan Jerkoff, and the love of 003's life, Trace Drago.

If James Bond were gay, then I would never be able to handle the role. No one would believe I'm gay.

You're all forgetting about the international film market, so many parts of the world, huge markets in big budget film making, wouldn't tolerate it, so it won't happen

and I agree with r102