fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2166 ]

[ SECRET POST #2166 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2166 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

#19 contains a moving .gif.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

[Penn & Teller]

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

[Spartacus]

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

20. [SPOILERS for Hollyoaks]

__________________________________________________

21. [SPOILERS for Downton Abbey]

__________________________________________________

22. [SPOILERS for Rudolph (1998)]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #309.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Daniel Craig has gone on record saying he is very much in support of James Bond being bisexual, and wouldn't mind having a "Bond Boy" instead of a "Bond Girl" in a movie someday.
And this wasn't like, this year, this was in 2006 or 2007.

well, I mean, Bond is in British intelligence

eyyyyyyyyyyy

This is one of the many reasons I love Daniel Craig.

My two major dreams for the franchise are either a Bond Boy, or Idris Elba as the next Bond.

On a slightly more shallow note, I'm on board with the OP. GIVE ME ALL YOUR 00Q.

My head just went to a Thor/James Bond crossover where Elba's Bond was actually Heimdall getting bored of Asgard and deciding to muck about on Earth for a while.

It's a good thing my head went there without me. Or a bad thing. I can't really tell, yet.

Really? Could I have a link, please? Not every day a guy recognizes bi guys exist.

Do you have a link by any chance? Everything I've ever read or seen with him dating back to him being cast as Bond is contrary to your statement. Daniel Craig is very much in support of gay and bisexual characters and has played them before, but he has said many times that he is against the idea of making Bond bisexual because he is and always has been heterosexual and it's an integral part of the character.

Not the person you replied to, but... here he says there will never be a gay James Bond, and here he says he's open to a bisexual James Bond. So...idk. I realize being gay and bi are two totally different things, but I don't see why a gay James Bond would be impossible or OOC.

DA
I can see why someone would be open to a bi Bond but not to a gay one. They might think it would go against Bond's relationship history, for example.

I'm not a Bond enthusiast by any means and everyone's allowed their opinion, I just don't personally see why it matters. I thought every Bond was different? (Of course they share some of the same personality traits and that sort of thing, but...still.) Going from a ladies man to a...well mans-man (whatever) seems like it could work to me. Now would it work with the audience? Probably not, at least not right now. But I don't see why it couldn't work for a film itself.

A gay James Bond would be completely out of character.

Not to sound like the spoil sport or bring down DA WRATH OF SJW, but a major part of the Bond character is his enthusiastic womanizing. He pretty clearly enjoys being with women, and it's emphasized heavily throughout the movies.

To make the character gay would essentially be to retcon a huge part of the franchise.

HOWEVER. Bi James Bond? I vote a heavy-handed yes on that one! Not really for TEH HOT SEX, but more because there aren't a lot of representatives for the bi community, and they get a ridiculous amount of shit from both sides and a great action hero would be great :)!

Just gonna copy-paste my above response because that's easier.

I'm not a Bond enthusiast by any means and everyone's allowed their opinion, I just don't personally see why it matters. I thought every Bond was different? (Of course they share some of the same personality traits and that sort of thing, but...still.) Going from a ladies man to a...well mans-man (whatever) seems like it could work to me. Now would it work with the audience? Probably not, at least not right now. But I don't see why it couldn't work for a film itself.

I'll add that I don't mean that every James Bond should be gay or anything like that, and I'm not a huge Bond fan myself so I'm not going to be heartbroken if it never happens, I just don't see why him liking dudes is an all important factor.

No, every Bond is the same character, and ignoring the different actor is, except in the case of the reboot (which is explicitly a reboot), supposed to be part of the suspension of disbelief as much as pretending any of the tech or wacky plots make sense. It isn't even a Doctor Who regeneration situation, even if there are some lines of fanon that do prefer treating the name as an inheritable alias along with the number.

I always thought the name James Bond was simply a codename given to different people, but apparently the last movie debunked that. I like the codename theory more myself, but...*shrugs* In that case I can see why there would never be a gay James Bond.

Fleming wrote it both ways. The movies used to go with the name being assigned to different people and then they went the other way with the reboot. They weren't as obvious about it in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as they were in Skyfall, but it was there.

Re: da

elaminator - 2012-12-08 20:39 (UTC) - Expand

Well, you'd have to disregard 60 years of canon to do it. And the character is an intellectual property subject to controls and contracts and legalese. The only legal way to expand the canon is the Eon films (which is why 'Never Say Never' isn't officially a Bond film and its production resulted in lawsuits). Eon have strict parameters to work within when making the films and only barely met the minimum requirement with 'Quantum of Solace'. If they change James Bond's sexuality (which is specifically heterosexual), they will immediately lose all rights to the character. Any change they make to the character is subject to approval and the contracts specifically preclude certain changes, including sexuality, nationality, and employment because they're all central to the character.

If they change James Bond's sexuality (which is specifically heterosexual), they will immediately lose all rights to the character. Any change they make to the character is subject to approval and the contracts specifically preclude certain changes, including sexuality, nationality, and employment because they're all central to the character.

Hmm...I didn't know that. *insert more you know graphic here*

Guess it really won't ever happen then.

I wouldn't be so sure.

I mean, quite frankly, they change aspects of Bond's character and history all the time (it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to really buy that all the previous Bonds are the same character with different actors/faces, after all), and the contracts could probably be changed if the studios decide that making Bond bi would be profitable enough.

That said, it's just unlikely to be any time soon because right now, making Bond bi would be too risky, even with gay rights standing as they are around the world. Give it another decade or two, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bond started actually getting hot and heavy with the boys as well as the girls, and not just hinting at it like in Skyfall.

I agree 100%, including the bit about all the Bonds being the same character (I just found this out actually, and was shocked. I thought it was just another codename...). That seems wacky to me, and though Bond movies are certainly about fun and I can understand a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required, that seems a bit much to me. Still, if it's canon, it's canon I guess.

The movie producers have limited rights to Bond. Whatever they want to do with the character is irrelevant because they can only do what they're allowed to.

I don't know what movie you saw, but they didn't hint that he's bisexual in Skyfall.

Bond himself didn't seem to have a problem hinting it.

(I know, I know, he could have just been snarking. But on the other hand he might not be. Equal opportunity honeytrap.)

Yes they did. "What makes you think it'd be my first time?"

Re: Daniel Craig

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-08 06:37 (UTC) - Expand

..."What makes you think this is my first time?", anyone?

As Visp said, it can go either way - a line that ambiguous can be taken in any direction the viewer wants it to. Regardless of what the director might have intended, it's kind of a massive window of opportunity, especially if Craig himself said all the way back in 2008 he wouldn't mind being bi. People who like their Bond straight can say he was just trying to screw with Silva, and people who would like to imagine him as bi can take it as a 'confession'.

Edited 2012-12-08 10:31 (UTC)

What wouldn't you be so sure about?

...they change aspects of Bond's character and history all the time... All the changes they make are drawn from the books or are approved by Ian Fleming's literary executors. Other authors have written stories about James Bond but that doesn't automatically make them a part of the canon. They have to have pre-authorization and their finished work must meet certain criteria before they can publish.

...contracts could probably be changed if the studios decide that making Bond bi would be profitable enough. Not in this case. The character is owned and licensed through a trust. The executors have strict guidelines within which to operate. No matter how profitable someone in Hollywood thinks it might be to make James Bond bisexual, they can't do it. Ian Fleming was very careful about what would happen to Bond after he himself had died. He set things up so the character could live on but that no one could change the character.

It's an artistic integrity vs. possible profit grudge match!

Re: Daniel Craig

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-08 06:33 (UTC) - Expand

+1

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-08 06:59 (UTC) - Expand

Ah, did not know that. My comments were based on standard movie operating procedures, but I guess I'm not too surprised an author might do something like that if they are able (is that sort of thing typical in Britain or was this a unique situation? With most American studios, the literary author wouldn't really have that kind of authority, so to speak, so now I'm curious...)

Re: Daniel Craig

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-08 11:09 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2166 ]

Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

no subject

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig

+1

Re: Daniel Craig

Re: Daniel Craig