Roger Moore wants 007 to be a heterosexual male

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
007 who isn’t a playboy heterosexual would be as lame as a Sherlock Holmes who isn’t an opium fiend
 
Tenoris said:
That’s already been the case for 50+ years.
Click to expand...
Sadly, though, a LOT of things that have been the case for the last 50 (and more) years are not only being challenged, but vilified, rejected, and twisted out of all recognition. I’m sure a politically correct, gay 007 who cross-dresses while on assignment would be welcomed as “progressive” in some quarters. He could maybe have a mango smoothie, shaken, not stirred.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Sadly, though, a LOT of things that have been the case for the last 50 (and more) years are not only being challenged, but vilified, rejected, and twisted out of all recognition. I’m sure a politically correct, gay 007 who cross-dresses while on assignment would be welcomed as “progressive” in some quarters. He could maybe have a mango smoothie, shaken, not stirred.
Click to expand...
Hope they never turn Santa into a transsexual!
 
The topic has become even more popular since Daniel Craig’s public statements that he’s grown tired of playing the character.
Click to expand...
Oh, poor Daniel Craig. He’s tired. boohoo.:crying::crying:

I’m tired of being a construction worker. Maybe I should quit to…pansy…:rolleyes:

As for a gay 007, why not? 77.9% of all males are gay, aren’t they? So a gay 007 should do very well!😃
 
In “Into the Breach”, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted’s epic, ground-breaking Apostolic Exhortation to Catholic men in the Diocese of Phoenix, the topic of James Bond comes up.
For decades now, a model for manhood has been fashioned in the fictional British spy character named James Bond. Various actors have taken turns portraying this man who, in several adventures, has proposed what it means to be “manly,” yet Bond remains an enigma. Like the women that he uses in the films, the ones who watch him find themselves wanting to know him. He is never a father, nor does he accept responsibility for or love one woman. In him, we see a man whose relationships are shallow and purely utilitarian. Indeed, “James Bond is a male character whose name is the height of irony. He is 40 years old and has no bonds. He is actually pathetic.” (Dr. Paul Vitz, Lecture, February 21, 2015)
Click to expand...
How different this is from Jesus Christ! Is there fear in Him? Not in the least! Who is more of a man, the one who runs away or the one who can face the responsibilities and challenges of relationships, family, and intimacy? Could a man fearful of self-gift be a true disciple of Christ? In fact, can such a man love at all?
Click to expand...
James Bond’s name is the height of irony because he is a man with no bonds. Yet true masculine love will always build bonds! On the Cross and through the Eucharist, Jesus gives his very blood to bind us to Himself in love. At the Last Supper, offering us the Eucharist, His prayer to the Father is “that they may be one even as we are one” (John 17:11). As He proclaims, His committed, binding love will “draw all men to himself” (John 12:32). In its Latin root, the word religion implies “binding together.” Thus, it is no wonder that in a culture of broken bonds, so fearful of commitment, we often hear, “I’m spiritual, but not religious.” Satan is also “spiritual, but not religious”! A man who lives life without a single, self-giving bond in his life deserves our pity, not our admiration.
Click to expand...
Instead, the true love of Christ is centered on willing the good of the other, on pouring oneself out in charity for others. This is how the Son reveals the Father’s love: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you…This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (John 15: 9, 12). In Christ, we see that sacrifice is at the heart of love. Only the man who has fought the interior battle of self-mastery against sterility, the man who lays down his life for others, can avoid stagnancy and self-absorption. Never doubt that this sacrifice is worth the suffering! Our Lord encourages men in saying, “greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
Click to expand...
 
A gay 007 could be fun, though, depending on how they did it. If they made him really stereotypical or an obvious promotion for LGBT rights then it wouldn’t be so good.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Joie_de_Vivre said:
007 who isn’t a playboy heterosexual would be as lame as a Sherlock Holmes who isn’t an opium fiend
Click to expand...
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes…

Benedict Cumberbatch would be my number 1 choice if they really needed a new Bond. His performance as Khan in the last Star Trek was sensational. He would have to be up there given he also arguably approximates Bond’s physical description in the original novels.

Personally I think Craig will do a few more first. His comments mostly reflected how the productions are physically tough, indicative of him needing a rest, and when push comes to shove he’ll strap on his tuxedo once more.
 
We need more diversity in the Bond movies
We need trans gender actors showing us that they are wonderful human beings
Some disabled actors as well as a few Hispanic, Chinese and aboriginal actors
The movie should be so diverse that we cannot even pronounce the surnames of the actors
Then the NY times will find it a positive movie.
 
But there is already a lot of diversity in the Bond universe.

The 2 assassins in Diamonds are Forever Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint, were obviously gay.
Some have argued Ernst Stavro Blofeld is also gay.

In the book Goldfinger (although not the movie) Honor Blackman’s character (whose name I can’t repeat here) was a lesbian.

One of the villains was disabled (Blofeld was wheelchair bound in Fr Your Eyes Only at the beginning; and Kananga’s henchman in Live and Let Die had only one arm).

Bond has had many black allies (such as Quarrel in Dr. No and Felix Leiter) Bond girls (Mayday and Jinx, to name a few) and villains (Kananga, who even had his own secret subterranean lair) so there is no racism present.

I don;t see why we have to PC-fy Bond himself as there is no prejudice in the Bond universe except possibly portraying women as sex objects.
 
colliric said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

Speaking of Sherlock Holmes…

Benedict Cumberbatch would be my number 1 choice if they really needed a new Bond. His performance as Khan in the last Star Trek was sensational. He would have to be up there given he also arguably approximates Bond’s physical description in the original novels.

Personally I think Craig will do a few more first. His comments mostly reflected how the productions are physically tough, indicative of him needing a rest, and when push comes to shove he’ll strap on his tuxedo once more.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it Benedict might be an interesting Bond at that!
 
I guess about 30 years or so ago, there was an Italian variety show that had a skit on it spoofing 007.

His colleague was 006, who was gay. So the joke was instead of the pronunciation being “zero zero sei”, it was pronounced “zero zero gay.”
 
Durnford said:
We need more diversity in the Bond movies
We need trans gender actors showing us that they are wonderful human beings
Some disabled actors as well as a few Hispanic, Chinese and aboriginal actors
The movie should be so diverse that we cannot even pronounce the surnames of the actors
Then the NY times will find it a positive movie.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top