Daniel Craig Haters Respond to Casino Royale

I suppose it would be nice to include gay characters who aren't villains (as in Diamonds are Forever). While being in the service and a closeted gay was at one time perceived as a hazard for blackmail's sake, we really should be ready now to accept varied sexuality as a fact of nature and deal with it. Certainly the sadomasochistic elements that permeate both books and films between Bond and his nemeses would lead to an interpretation that, whether open or not, Bond has a rather more intimate relationship with his foes than with his women.

As for the diehard Brosnan fans, I have no sympathy. They got a good ride out of it. Let those of us interested in a more textured and grown-up Bond enjoy the change. I can tell you the audience I was in literally cheered at the end and again when the words "James Bond will return" appeared in the end credits. There was a palpable sense of joy in the crowded theater from the gitgo and throughout the screening at the bold new direction of the franchise. I look forward to the next installment.

Reply

There's also groups that believe in space aliens and that the Earth is flat. Why give 'em ink?

Reply

As to possible gay characters I just remember one of my favorite lines (parphrased im sure)

"The things I do for Queen and Country"

Bond could easily get it on with a guy if the mission required it. I am all for the frontal nudity. Bond has towed the sexual line long enough that there is no reason we shouldn't see some bits.

Reply

god, their web site looks like a 3 year old designed it. Here is a clue guys...if you want to be taken seriously, your web site has to look some what credible.

Reply

I personally have stuck with my own boycott of Casino Royale. I would not see it if someone paid me. I'm not even a diehard bond fan, it's more that I think Daniel Craig is a terrible Bond.

Reply

Geoff, can you explain what it is you think makes Daniel Craig a terrible Bond? Without seeing the film I don't think you can actually make that statement.

Reply

Craig citing *Doctor Who* for "gay action" as a reference point as for what to do with the Bond character is not accurate.

The Doctor got kissed by Captain Jack Harkness as a goodbye that Jack gave also to Rose Tyler (Billie Piper) when all the characters thought they were going to die fighting the Daleks in the finale to Series/Season 1. It was a gesture of friendship on the recipients regardless of what Jack's motives were. Had The Doctor reacted negatively to what Jack did, that would have been rather insensitive and harsh under the circumstances. In no way did that magically transform The Doctor into a gay character...especially since he was shown to be romancing it up with Reinette in the very next season as well as the whole love aspect to the relationship with Rose.

What it sounds like what Craig is suggesting is making Bond bisexual. That's wholly a different thing. Who does this guy think he is, Jon Peters?

Reply

I don't think that full frontal could ever be used in a Bond film. It would get an R rating or even an NC17 depending on what happens in the sequence. Casino Royale was already getting close to an R with the testicle whipping scene.

Craig is a very versatile actor that is willing to do lots of things for his art but much of that is incompatible with the character. Lucky for him he can still continue doing offbeat roles in between Bond films.

Reply

Akbar, I agree with you. Its mindless pandering like that that just annoys the crap out of me. "He sucks as Bond. No I haven't seen it....why? Oooo, candy!"

Honestly.

While I was apparently one of the few you liked Brosnan's take on Bond (anything is better than the joke of a Bond Roger Moore and his stupid counterpart Dalton), but I liked the directions producers were taking when they decided not to have Brosnan for a 5th time around.

I liked their agenda to strip down the series to its basics and bring back the characters to the movie and not concentrate on the dazzling explosions (even though there were plenty of those too). I hoping for some great things in the future.

Now as far as the idea of introducing gay themes to Bond...it is indeed perplexing. I agree with Cath that perhaps some non Bond-villians characters should be gay. It would add another sense of realism to the series. Now as far as Bond having homosexual relations himself...I dunno if Craig is right in thinking people could would warm up to the idea of a Bi-Bond...even though it is fun to say.

Reply

I absolutely loved Casino Royale. Daniel Craig was exactly what the Bond franchise needed to invigorate it and bring in a whole new generation of fans. The creators were somehow able to modernize and refresh the series, and at the same time keep it feeling like a Bond movie. Not an easy thing to do. My only complaints about the movie would be that the rest of the movie never quite recaptures the intensity of the opening scene, and that the movie was a little too long and could have used a little tighter editing. They are minor complaints though, and I have nothing but good things to say about Daniel Craig's performance!

Reply

Jeremy, I think he was referring to more than just the one kiss that Jack gave the Doctor.

Look at ALL of Jack's actions in Doctor Who.
1. Flirting with the RAF officer
2. The Doctors reference to the human species "dancing"
3. The Doctor telling Rose he is not sure who Jack wants to dance with
4. Jack sleeping with BOTH of his executioners (lovely couple...stayed in touch)

need I go on?

Reply

I sent this article to my gf and her response was "I'd pay to see Daniel Craig's dick and see him fuck some guy."

So there is at least one person who is all for it.

It would be interesting and really not all that out of character for Bond really.

Reply

I'll just put in my four cents and be done with it...

Brosnan was an awesome Bond, the best since Connery. While I was originally put off with the decision to oust him in favor of Craig, I must say that a good trip to the movie theater has changed my mind. I'm sorry if people have problems with Daniel Craig as James Bond, but get over it.

Certainly, Craig's Bond lacks style, slickness and grace... but as Casino Royale portrays Bond as a newly promoted 007, this absolutely makes sense. This is a bond who still has some learning to do, a Bond who doesn't do everything perfectly the first time. Frankly, it's quite refreshing.

While the movie itself lacks the balls-to-the-wall action of the Brosnan flicks, it makes up for it with a more visceral experience. Any criticism of the film can only be leveled at the overly-long poker game. Mr. Craig's performance in the role however, was absolute justice.

... now as for gays and bisexuals in a Bond movie... I wholly support gays and bisexuals, but must we change a movie franchises established tradition just to please some people? It seems that instead of adding realism, such a move would be nothing more than an arbitrary and awkward statement of "Look! We're not homophobes!". It's just an unnatural, and unnecessary change to the formula. You don't need to include every single nationality, race, color, sexual preference, etc. to modernize your movie. Bond isn't gay, either, so don't even THINK about changing that up...




... however I absolutely support some full-frontals of the illustrious Bond girls...

Reply

Perhaps he was referring to Torchwood, the Doctor Who spin off that has shown same sex between both men and women....and aliens... and which also features the F word regularly..... And it features Captain Jack!

Reply

I think casino royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made and its the first time since I was a kid that I am really looking forward to the next one

Reply

I don't think you can just sort of spring a gay Bond on the public, as he is one of the more notoriously heterosexual characters in film history.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Reply

Craig's comments don't nescessarily mean that it would be the character of Bond who is gay.

He said a gay character in a Bond movie, not a gay Bond. Also, when mentioning this, I think he was using gayess as one example of modernizing Bond films, he could jst as easily used any of a wide array of other taboo subjects as his example.

Reply

Akbar Fazil,

My point was that the revitalization of *Doctor Who* did not change The Doctor's characterization to that of being bisexual or gay. Captain Jack's antics are separate because he is/was a supporting character. To do something similar in the Bond film world would be to introduce elements to supporting Bond characters like say Q, M, Moneypenny, Felix, or a new 006. But what is being inferred or interpreted by Craig's comments is to modify Bond's character.

Its probably just a stunt to keep Craig and the Bond franchise itself buzzworthy and on the movie going public's collective minds.

Just imagine what would happen if Moneypenny was an unavailable conquest for Bond due to her orientation. That would be adding *Chasing Amy* elements to the films. Maybe that would actually work as another means of shedding light onto what makes Bond tick.

Just a note to Erik and the Cinematical staff...how about a warning about the lack of "office friendly" material that you link to? The Engadget folks proper do this often. Thanks.

Reply

Daniel Craig as James Bond is HOT, HOT, HOT and I look forward to the next few Bond movies as I never have before. He is smoldering, sexy, and smoking HOT and I'm utterly besotted. HOT, I tell you!

(And, like many of you, I think it is extremely bizarre to announce that Daniel Craig sucks as Bond when you haven't seen the movie. Silly! Goofy! Crazy!)

Reply