its not just that they can't create, its a purposeful attempt to subvert established culture and try to replace it with what they consider a new and improved culture. They believe they must tear down the edifice of the old so that their new culture can take root. It is not really aimed at older generations either. It is aimed at the young, who will view it as 'new' and 'progressive' and 'superior'.
As a gay man , who enjoys the escapism of these films, I think a gay bond is ridiculous. He wasn’t written as a gay man. This changing and updating characters is silly. If they want a guy spy film write a new book.
In defence of Tim, he's only reporting about an article for comment, which they're are many. Initiating a discussion. People have strong opinions on " retelling ", an established narative. As someone " outside " the LGBTQ socio political " community??". But? Both that community, and others insist I'm part of. I have a unique perspective. It apears from detailed research. The term " queer ", which used to be used as a slur for homosexual males, is now used as a term for anyone who is " unusual ", be that a feminie homosexual reverting back to an identity pre 1960s before the Matschine identity of Will hay, of the " gay man ". Queer also refecting bisexual women, who were not of a lesbian identity. Queer, also has been adopted by some heterosexual men. Yes sexual oriention is diverse, as well as its expression. People generaly don't have a problem of people that exist having representation in film and television. They always have, including diferent racial group's. Some less positive, and some positive. The 2014 remake of Dracula, had a masc gay man play the role. Unless one knew who Luke Evans was. He played a very straight role. Move forward to 2020 Queen's Gambit cast a transsexual woman to play a character that wasn't written as trans in the script and was just like, a lady doing a job and living her life. It only came to light when Graham Linehan famously accused her of taking a part from " a real women ". All luke and Rebbeca were doing was doing a job they had auditioned for and got based on their abilities. People apart from Linehan don't have a problem with actor's doing what actors do. Theater itself is heavily gay, not intersectionaly gay, but flair, and expression often come with the orientation. What particularly makes heterosexual men uncomfortable is. Openly homosexual affection in a public way. Especialy onscreen. Something I think the gay community sometimes forget. Everything in moderation used to be the thing. Maybe instead of forcing the majority to see a gay romantic acting scene as the " norm '. More emphasis should be on overtime " normaliseing what is part of nature. Be that homosexuality, transsexuality, intersex, and even autosexuality are orientations that people don't have control of. Importantly they aren't as widespread and a " threat ", that could be seen by " turning 007 GAY ". The socio political LGBTQ want the masses to think. Half the population are! That frightenes people, mainly through ignorance, but mostly because people are tribal, but are generaly liberal, as long as that liberalism isn't put to the test.
I am a raving hetero sexual Prof and Bond was not Gayi in any shape or form neither was he black time for the left wing to leave these fictitious characters well alone and to stop trying to change the history of their characters,carry out some research on Christopher Lee and his time with the OSS.Ps he wasn't Gay or Black.
Considering that some men lost their minds when the shift was from Sean Connery to Roger Moore, it is unsurprising that today's boys are unlikely to possess the requisite curiosity and robustness of psyche to accept any revision or expansion of the character beyond the beloved and affirming tropes. I mean, the inches of screen space given over to agonized consideration of Bond's martini preference should be enough to suggest that a good many men will simply not tolerate and deviation from what was in the beginning a constructed masculine archetype who's prime directive is to maintain the at all cost the misogynistic hegemony of heteronormative values.
If the gay community need a James Bond type character on the big screen, then there should be one, however leave the name James Bond for the straight community. This is like asking myself to forget that I am straight and become gay just to make a few people included. It’s NOT who I am and it’s not the character that Ian Fleming created. Leave existing stuff alone and go create your own characters. I don’t have a problem with inclusion, I just have a problem with inclusion taking over everything that straight and maybe other members of the LGBT community people enjoy.
I'm not going to say it wouldn't work but I think the target audience demographic would lead to a flop at the box office. Like trying to sell beef burgers at a vegan convention, I just don't see it selling.
I'm not overly bothered because I can't honestly remember the most recent Bond movie I watched but it does seem a bit ridiculous that a relatively small percentage of the population seems to have to be so disproportionately represented.
"Reimagining a fictional character" ...is always about opening up the franchise to a new audience. If your franchise is dated, or even deemed as having... 'archaic societal values'. Then it makes sense, if you want to keep the money making machine going... to update it for 'modern audiences'. It's not meant to attack your own personal 'archaic value system'. Just a 'business persons' attempt to make 'easy-money' from a dying franchise, by reimagining it.
Fans haven't pushed for this, a fringe number of politically motivated people have. Disney went all in on this idiology and are losing billions due to it - they have recently started to dial it back in a big way. Bud Light learned a lesson too and there are other examples I could provide. This is possibly the loudest shouted, but least supported push that I have seen in my lifetime. Anyone that pushes this is so out of touch it isn't even funny, either that or they refuse to support it when creatively bankrupt people actually cave in. There is no "modern audience" just marxist educators pushing nonsense ideas with an attempt to undermine culture.
As a gay man i wouldnt like the change. Even more i still find the use of the term queer as relating to gay men deeply offensive . This is because when i was young it was an insult and today it is an umbrella term used for the aphabet soup.This i feel belittles the serious issues that exist ie gender dysphoria,the plight of living as a homosexual in extremest countries etc
Let’s see how well they do in the cinemas. Disney has already shown how Well the changing of established characters to placate the woke agenda works. It doesn’t.
Women don't need sloppy seconds. New roles and IPs should be created for them. Besides, the current slop being produced is terrible and our cinemas are empty. Hollywood Will Do u-turns. It's only a matter of time. But I am looking forward to the new snow White, it does look quite funny.
The problem with that type of rewriting, is the motivation. Now it’s mainly clumsily shoehorned in to satisfy market research and committees. Therefore it’s done badly for the wrong reasons. Strangely! When the creative people where forced to sneak in it against the powers. It was clever, compelling and good. Because the right people did it for the right reasons. When ordered from above. It just becomes a task for the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Therefore it becomes sinister, exploitative and contra productive.
Sorry, as someone else has said. Badonoc would have a field day. Bond is a very straight fictional character, based on a real life character. Infact, his sexuality is part of the character. Hate crime is on the rise, partly due to the straight majorities liberal views, on homosexuality, feeling threatened. They are fine with a homosexual character on screen, even someone gay, whos straight acting playing a general role. Fact is Bond is Heterosexual. Fact some in the LGBTQ+++ continue to push the envelope beyond our curent societies acceptance levels. Just for the sake of " diversity ". As someone whos publicaly sufering the consequences. If I were out to people. A gay bond would only further inflame the so called culture wars. Things are going backwards, rather than forward.
I am not the target audience, not a Bond fan. I think there is a place for a gay spy, or a spy who uses any means possible to gain information. But that character cannot steal the identity of another, needs to be new. Writers need to stop being afraid. Ripley, played by Andrew Scott, was amazing, I had to tear myself away for priorities. That hasn't happened since Lost. He is possibly based on being asexual. How out of the box is that?
The makers of the previous Bond film just killed him off pissing off the majority of die hard fans. Any discussion of making him or any previous book character who was originally straight will be a box office dud. The facts are apparent with recent failures both film and streaming with changing the hero into something they are not. Speculation is great for a RUclips discussion but not for actually making a film that will push what remains of fans into apathy. (Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc.)
I don't think a gay Bond is necessary now. Today there are hundreds of movies, vlogs, books and websites that affirm us. Just so long as there are no gay villains again like Wint and Kidd ("Diamonds Are Forever")!
To be honest Prof Flemings Bond is a product of its time; deeply sexist, heavily misogynistic, bigoted etc etc. so rehashing or rebranding in anyway trashes what has been a highly enjoyable ( if ocassionally dubious) series. Daniel Craig's iteration should be the final one. Just my tuppence worth
Eunice Gayson and Lois Maxwell stirred the testosterone tea clockwise for Bond, which sweetened the 007 story considerably for adolescent boys like me; so, if it isn't broke don't try to fix it. 👙♥
I don't see anything against a ethnic diverse James bond but I'm unsure about a gay James bond. A bisexual bond however would fit the character perfectly I think
yeah, the problem is....Ian Fleming wrote about a Straight White Scottish man working for the British Secret Service in the 1950s....so....you know....could be issues....
@@swanvictor887 but would a white English man do unjust to the character? Or a black Scottish man? The current movies are not set in the 50s so changing it from a white Scottish man to a ethnic Welsh man or any other British man would in my opinion fit the character just fine in current time. In-line with that a 007 who is flexible with who he is attracted to or acts like he is attracted to would do just to the character
@@roland4610 over the last 60 years, Bond has indeed, been played by an Englishman, Scottish, Welsh and Irish man. But all were white....because Fleming wrote about a British Secret Service Agent....of course he wouldn't be black. Now, even the most die-hard Bond fans will admit that as literature, Bond is just escapism with little literally merit (something even Fleming admitted) but out of respect, surely we must retain a semblance of the character for the movies?? IF indeed, they choose a black man to play Bond....WHO Are they making it for?? DO Black people "NEED" to have a Black James Bond? WHY? Here's an idea: IF these screaming activists WANT a Gay, black, trans, disabled Spy...THEN WHY DON'T THEY CREATE ONE? We know the answer of course. a) they haven't the creativity and b) its all bollocks anyway: these 'Activists' don't believe a single word they spout and in fact, THEY ARE the bigots that they accuse the likes of me of being....
If Bond were to be bisexual it would double the number of possible accomplices or adversaries he could 'manipulate'. Maybe a big orgy could encompass the whole plot of goodies and baddies. Think of the savings on jetting around the world, glamorous locations and complex action sequences. Malcolm McDowell could direct!
why? The Daniel Craig era set aside the misogynistic JB of the past and concentrated more on good story lines than just jumping in and out of bed with counter-parts.
The creative bankruptcy is to blame, Bond was played out a long time ago and only truly makes sense in a Cold War setting. It would be a nice treat perhaps to see Nolan direct one set in that era but is it necessary? No, i prefer watching originals especially the roger moore foolishness that will never be repeated.
reinventing seems to be the thing these days even though its not how the charactors of bond n holmes are portrayed by their writers/inventers, maybe the film industry should try writing their own works/inventing charactors,im sure they could invent an gay detective or spy
Enough already !!! This professor's rant is utter piffle. Prof, go spend your time rewriting the works of Plato where all the characters are gay chickens.
There is no problem with a gay Spy, There are many real life precedents , As with women, But just as with modern versions of Shakespeare, (one with tanks) It is okay to change slightly for many good reasons, But not the whole character. if you want a gay spy/agent,, write a story about one, just give him/her/they their own name. Films have a "set pattern" If the first makes 40 million, the second should make at least 20 million etc, Thats why they do not like anything really new
You do have the air of Rupert the bear today! I do not think James Bond was gay. Ian Fleming would have written it so, however, he had to be all things to all people, therefore, it is not unimaginable.
Oh god, I can hear the crying and whining from the right already 😂. That being said, it is moving away from the original character. As a straight guy I always enjoyed a lot of good looking females in the film. What will we get with a gay bond, male snogging and big moustaches 😅
Oh dear I don t think a gay Bond would be right...the role is far too manly and physical....I guess everything goes these days....I can t see it being successful...
Why do we have to keep changing our heroes?
Let's write new books, create new films, create more diverse roles not change "the old classics".
In my opinion,, CGI has a lot to answer for. For instance the MARVEL franchise.
becuse they dont know how to ceate anymore. they have zero imagination.
its not just that they can't create, its a purposeful attempt to subvert established culture and try to replace it with what they consider a new and improved culture. They believe they must tear down the edifice of the old so that their new culture can take root. It is not really aimed at older generations either. It is aimed at the young, who will view it as 'new' and 'progressive' and 'superior'.
Farce , James Bond is not a homosexual!
Reimagination is a synonym for a lack of imagination. Who is this for, particularly?
As a gay man , who enjoys the escapism of these films, I think a gay bond is ridiculous. He wasn’t written as a gay man. This changing and updating characters is silly. If they want a guy spy film write a new book.
Totaly agree brother
A effing Men.
@@AdastraRecordings If you want to call me a " man ", I'm not offended. My boyfriend might object though 🤣
You are the real one man...
I think Twitter people and RUclipsrs are actually the ones who make more harm to the community.
We're ALL less sympathetic to a gay James Bond, I homosexual by the way.
Ditto
Why not just make the new James Bond Black,trans and in a wheelchair sorry if I missed anything else 😂
@@Jamie-uk2zh blind and Jewish
Autistic...?
Gives a whole knew meaning to Roger Moore....
Or cuddly bond who a change of heart in their villians, no guns just ovaltine , and never leaves the mens shed.
In defence of Tim, he's only reporting about an article for comment, which they're are many. Initiating a discussion. People have strong opinions on " retelling ", an established narative. As someone " outside " the LGBTQ socio political " community??". But? Both that community, and others insist I'm part of. I have a unique perspective. It apears from detailed research. The term " queer ", which used to be used as a slur for homosexual males, is now used as a term for anyone who is " unusual ", be that a feminie homosexual reverting back to an identity pre 1960s before the Matschine identity of Will hay, of the " gay man ". Queer also refecting bisexual women, who were not of a lesbian identity. Queer, also has been adopted by some heterosexual men. Yes sexual oriention is diverse, as well as its expression. People generaly don't have a problem of people that exist having representation in film and television. They always have, including diferent racial group's. Some less positive, and some positive. The 2014 remake of Dracula, had a masc gay man play the role. Unless one knew who Luke Evans was. He played a very straight role. Move forward to 2020 Queen's Gambit cast a transsexual woman to play a character that wasn't written as trans in the script and was just like, a lady doing a job and living her life. It only came to light when Graham Linehan famously accused her of taking a part from " a real women ". All luke and Rebbeca were doing was doing a job they had auditioned for and got based on their abilities. People apart from Linehan don't have a problem with actor's doing what actors do. Theater itself is heavily gay, not intersectionaly gay, but flair, and expression often come with the orientation. What particularly makes heterosexual men uncomfortable is. Openly homosexual affection in a public way. Especialy onscreen. Something I think the gay community sometimes forget. Everything in moderation used to be the thing. Maybe instead of forcing the majority to see a gay romantic acting scene as the " norm '. More emphasis should be on overtime " normaliseing what is part of nature. Be that homosexuality, transsexuality, intersex, and even autosexuality are orientations that people don't have control of. Importantly they aren't as widespread and a " threat ", that could be seen by " turning 007 GAY ". The socio political LGBTQ want the masses to think. Half the population are! That frightenes people, mainly through ignorance, but mostly because people are tribal, but are generaly liberal, as long as that liberalism isn't put to the test.
I am a raving hetero sexual Prof and Bond was not Gayi in any shape or form neither was he black time for the left wing to leave these fictitious characters well alone and to stop trying to change the history of their characters,carry out some research on Christopher Lee and his time with the OSS.Ps he wasn't Gay or Black.
If you create such a diverse character spectrum at what point is the character lost?
Bi-s*xual Bond, 007. Would be very interesting.
@@tugpilotsmiffy you think?
Yes, we think @@MrGrantSloan
Considering that some men lost their minds when the shift was from Sean Connery to Roger Moore, it is unsurprising that today's boys are unlikely to possess the requisite curiosity and robustness of psyche to accept any revision or expansion of the character beyond the beloved and affirming tropes. I mean, the inches of screen space given over to agonized consideration of Bond's martini preference should be enough to suggest that a good many men will simply not tolerate and deviation from what was in the beginning a constructed masculine archetype who's prime directive is to maintain the at all cost the misogynistic hegemony of heteronormative values.
If the gay community need a James Bond type character on the big screen, then there should be one, however leave the name James Bond for the straight community. This is like asking myself to forget that I am straight and become gay just to make a few people included. It’s NOT who I am and it’s not the character that Ian Fleming created. Leave existing stuff alone and go create your own characters. I don’t have a problem with inclusion, I just have a problem with inclusion taking over everything that straight and maybe other members of the LGBT community people enjoy.
No such thing as the LGBT community. Only indivuals, not activists
I'm not going to say it wouldn't work but I think the target audience demographic would lead to a flop at the box office. Like trying to sell beef burgers at a vegan convention, I just don't see it selling.
Tim: The name's Bear ... Rupert Bear
Rupert T. Bear. Or Rupert The Bear, surely. No, I didn't called you Shirley.
Wouldn't see it selling that much to be honest, especially if that's going to be the focal point of the movie in the first place.
James Bond is not homosexual! He’s unisexual. If it moves it’s fair game.
What a lot of nonsense.
Bond was always a deeply strange psychopath. I doubt he'd have an issue with dominating a man by any means necessary
I'm not overly bothered because I can't honestly remember the most recent Bond movie I watched but it does seem a bit ridiculous that a relatively small percentage of the population seems to have to be so disproportionately represented.
It’s hardly over the top. Considering how many bond films there has been and the percentage of gay people.
@James-oo1yq why don't you watch a gay film? Why do you people try to ruin everything
The lady is not for bonding.
"Reimagining a fictional character" ...is always about opening up the franchise to a new audience.
If your franchise is dated, or even deemed as having... 'archaic societal values'.
Then it makes sense, if you want to keep the money making machine going... to update it for 'modern audiences'.
It's not meant to attack your own personal 'archaic value system'.
Just a 'business persons' attempt to make 'easy-money' from a dying franchise, by reimagining it.
The name is Bond, James Bond, but you can call me Jimmy darling.
Fans haven't pushed for this, a fringe number of politically motivated people have. Disney went all in on this idiology and are losing billions due to it - they have recently started to dial it back in a big way. Bud Light learned a lesson too and there are other examples I could provide. This is possibly the loudest shouted, but least supported push that I have seen in my lifetime. Anyone that pushes this is so out of touch it isn't even funny, either that or they refuse to support it when creatively bankrupt people actually cave in. There is no "modern audience" just marxist educators pushing nonsense ideas with an attempt to undermine culture.
Thing is its always NOT the people it's claimed to support, who push for this, but they always get the blame. As you say
As a gay man i wouldnt like the change. Even more i still find the use of the term queer as relating to gay men deeply offensive . This is because when i was young it was an insult and today it is an umbrella term used for the aphabet soup.This i feel belittles the serious issues that exist ie gender dysphoria,the plight of living as a homosexual in extremest countries etc
Let’s see how well they do in the cinemas.
Disney has already shown how Well the changing of established characters to placate the woke agenda works. It doesn’t.
Well Dumbledore turned out to be a Gay, and it didn't stop him from whipping out his wand!
....which is why he is now on the Register....!!
James Bend.
Ha haha
@@ivanconnolly7332 played by Rogering Moore
Women don't need sloppy seconds. New roles and IPs should be created for them.
Besides, the current slop being produced is terrible and our cinemas are empty.
Hollywood Will Do u-turns. It's only a matter of time. But I am looking forward to the new snow White, it does look quite funny.
The problem with that type of rewriting, is the motivation. Now it’s mainly clumsily shoehorned in to satisfy market research and committees. Therefore it’s done badly for the wrong reasons.
Strangely! When the creative people where forced to sneak in it against the powers. It was clever, compelling and good. Because the right people did it for the right reasons.
When ordered from above. It just becomes a task for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Therefore it becomes sinister, exploitative and contra productive.
Sorry, as someone else has said. Badonoc would have a field day. Bond is a very straight fictional character, based on a real life character. Infact, his sexuality is part of the character. Hate crime is on the rise, partly due to the straight majorities liberal views, on homosexuality, feeling threatened. They are fine with a homosexual character on screen, even someone gay, whos straight acting playing a general role. Fact is Bond is Heterosexual. Fact some in the LGBTQ+++ continue to push the envelope beyond our curent societies acceptance levels. Just for the sake of " diversity ". As someone whos publicaly sufering the consequences. If I were out to people. A gay bond would only further inflame the so called culture wars. Things are going backwards, rather than forward.
moral of the story: don t change a franchise that has long been established in cinema.6
Also Sherlock Holmes was asexual. His true love was cocaine.😂
I am not the target audience, not a Bond fan. I think there is a place for a gay spy, or a spy who uses any means possible to gain information. But that character cannot steal the identity of another, needs to be new. Writers need to stop being afraid. Ripley, played by Andrew Scott, was amazing, I had to tear myself away for priorities. That hasn't happened since Lost. He is possibly based on being asexual. How out of the box is that?
did putin die? lol
What's next, Orcs with families and feelings?
The makers of the previous Bond film just killed him off pissing off the majority of die hard fans. Any discussion of making him or any previous book character who was originally straight will be a box office dud. The facts are apparent with recent failures both film and streaming with changing the hero into something they are not. Speculation is great for a RUclips discussion but not for actually making a film that will push what remains of fans into apathy. (Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc.)
I don't think a gay Bond is necessary now. Today there are hundreds of movies, vlogs, books and websites that affirm us. Just so long as there are no gay villains again like Wint and Kidd ("Diamonds Are Forever")!
O my! We all die! Famous or not, Arrogant or not!!!
To be honest Prof Flemings Bond is a product of its time; deeply sexist, heavily misogynistic, bigoted etc etc. so rehashing or rebranding in anyway trashes what has been a highly enjoyable ( if ocassionally dubious) series.
Daniel Craig's iteration should be the final one.
Just my tuppence worth
They can make their own stories about lgtb.
Eunice Gayson and Lois Maxwell stirred the testosterone tea clockwise for Bond, which sweetened the 007 story considerably for adolescent boys like me; so, if it isn't broke don't try to fix it. 👙♥
What about a Black Lesbian Trans Bond? Rewrite history in the name of politically correct entertainment. But the struggle is ongoing.
Badenoch would have a field day.
I don't see anything against a ethnic diverse James bond but I'm unsure about a gay James bond. A bisexual bond however would fit the character perfectly I think
Write you own stories about your black gay spy.
yeah, the problem is....Ian Fleming wrote about a Straight White Scottish man working for the British Secret Service in the 1950s....so....you know....could be issues....
@@swanvictor887 but would a white English man do unjust to the character? Or a black Scottish man? The current movies are not set in the 50s so changing it from a white Scottish man to a ethnic Welsh man or any other British man would in my opinion fit the character just fine in current time. In-line with that a 007 who is flexible with who he is attracted to or acts like he is attracted to would do just to the character
@@roland4610 over the last 60 years, Bond has indeed, been played by an Englishman, Scottish, Welsh and Irish man. But all were white....because Fleming wrote about a British Secret Service Agent....of course he wouldn't be black. Now, even the most die-hard Bond fans will admit that as literature, Bond is just escapism with little literally merit (something even Fleming admitted) but out of respect, surely we must retain a semblance of the character for the movies?? IF indeed, they choose a black man to play Bond....WHO Are they making it for?? DO Black people "NEED" to have a Black James Bond? WHY? Here's an idea: IF these screaming activists WANT a Gay, black, trans, disabled Spy...THEN WHY DON'T THEY CREATE ONE? We know the answer of course. a) they haven't the creativity and b) its all bollocks anyway: these 'Activists' don't believe a single word they spout and in fact, THEY ARE the bigots that they accuse the likes of me of being....
i feel a Cartmen quote coming on. haven't they learnt by the fails of marvels, disney, starwars, dr who,Furiosa etc
If Bond were to be bisexual it would double the number of possible accomplices or adversaries he could 'manipulate'. Maybe a big orgy could encompass the whole plot of goodies and baddies. Think of the savings on jetting around the world, glamorous locations and complex action sequences. Malcolm McDowell could direct!
why? The Daniel Craig era set aside the misogynistic JB of the past and concentrated more on good story lines than just jumping in and out of bed with counter-parts.
I don't think the classical JB was misogynistic. That's just feminists saying that. Most women don't mind the old bond.
The creative bankruptcy is to blame, Bond was played out a long time ago and only truly makes sense in a Cold War setting. It would be a nice treat perhaps to see Nolan direct one set in that era but is it necessary? No, i prefer watching originals especially the roger moore foolishness that will never be repeated.
reinventing seems to be the thing these days even though its not how the charactors of bond n holmes are portrayed by their writers/inventers, maybe the film industry should try writing their own works/inventing charactors,im sure they could invent an gay detective or spy
Bond isn't a spy. he's an 'agent'.
Enough already !!! This professor's rant is utter piffle. Prof, go spend your time rewriting the works of Plato where all the characters are gay chickens.
Evolution? I think you mean devolution.
We don’t need a gay bond or a feminist bond we don’t need a chauvinist bond we just need a gentleman role model bond 🤔
There is no problem with a gay Spy, There are many real life precedents , As with women, But just as with modern versions of Shakespeare, (one with tanks) It is okay to change slightly for many good reasons, But not the whole character. if you want a gay spy/agent,, write a story about one, just give him/her/they their own name. Films have a "set pattern" If the first makes 40 million, the second should make at least 20 million etc, Thats why they do not like anything really new
Will not look at another Bond film.He refuse Idris Elba as the first black bond!!👎😡
@@tugpilotsmiffy Pay attention! He can be whatever apparently!
You do have the air of Rupert the bear today! I do not think James Bond was gay. Ian Fleming would have written it so, however, he had to be all things to all people, therefore, it is not unimaginable.
Oh god, I can hear the crying and whining from the right already 😂. That being said, it is moving away from the original character. As a straight guy I always enjoyed a lot of good looking females in the film. What will we get with a gay bond, male snogging and big moustaches 😅
Are you also crying and whining?
@@ricardocima No, but I am a little amused at the thought
Why not make a film about slavery in the US and the slaves are white and the masters are black
Keneth Williams would have been great…Ooh Matron!
Did Putin die. I missed that. Or is it "When Bond was alive"?
Will this increase or decrease suicide
What about straightning some gay fiction and real character? Maybe a heterossexual Oscar Wilde, married, 3 kids, football on weekends.
lol! THEN you really would see the Pink Haired out in the streets screaming in protest!! lol
Although Wilde was gay, he also married and had two sons.
@@clarecrawford9677 good point
Gay James Bond 🤣🤣🤣make him really camp🤣🤣🤣👍please Oooo hello honky tonks🤣🤣🤣of course you do realise that these films are only made to make money 🤣🤣🤣
Bond....licence to 'mince'. 😃
Oh dear I don t think a gay Bond would be right...the role is far too manly and physical....I guess everything goes these days....I can t see it being successful...
I'm sick of 'diversity!' It’s tearing the world apart...and quite boring to be honest.
Dr who suffering a diverse problem.
get a job '' professor ''
What a load of nonsence...intelligent nonscence but nonscence nontheless