I'm not going to say Bond can't be gender bent. Obviously it's possible.
It's not what I'd like to happen, though.
I'd really prefer a new IP be made for the sake of having Bond, AND a potent female spy around. They could have crossover movies, or she could have a TV show, or something like that.
I'm not a huge fan of "make your own new character" as it doesn't take a lot of reasoning to understand that it's not that easy.
It's hard to make a new, popular character that stands on their own as everything that puts that character in the character's world has to be right, or the character's going to flop. Sometimes standing on the shoulders of a giant can really be helpful.
Still, a spinoff character, or series can help gain traction. A female spy is probably easier to get off the ground than say, a new comicbook character.
I'm perfectly fine with art having a message, but the way you keep describing this gender-bending, its provocative nature, and media reaction to it, makes the entire thing sound more like controversy bait that serves as little more than fodder for a bunch of media outlets to publish insipid thought pieces rather than a particularly thought provoking work of art in its own right.
"Insipid thought pieces"? Such as wacky MRA-esque channels on YT burbling on about feminazis taking away straight white men's pop-cultural playthings? No creator can control the reaction to a given work, and so the totality of the response would be valuable, i.e. you can't just foster smart feedback from all sides, you have to take the [antagonistic] rough with the [moderate] smooth.
That aside, what on earth's wrong with a little controversy?
Maybe because everyone's tired of it? I know I'm getting pretty sick of everything having to be a political statement of some kind when I just want a bit of entertainment.
Further more, despite liking art with more brains behind it, I don't think everything needs to be some preachy venue for social critique. Some art is just entertainment and escapism, so you really shouldn't be all that surprised if people resent you when you take something that's just supposed to be some fun entertainment and turn it into a political piece about dissecting masculinity and gender roles in society.
Eh, why would a different expression of a character be "preachy"? What's "preachy" about a female Bond?
As for your pretty fair point about mass market entertaintment; that's why this will probably never happen, because the mainstream is conservative, and what's familiar is what appeals - even if the gender of the central character would have no bearing on how 'arty' the actual film would be. I'm not suggesting an era of a female Bond gains subtitles and biases towards existentialism over explosions...
Can I ask how do you define what a character truly 'is'? Can a character's skin colour change and they still remain identifiable? Does a change of sexual orientation undo all that they are? How much should a character be allowed to change from their very first incarnation?
infohippie said:
See, that's exactly why a character like James Bond SHOULDN'T be gender swapped. "Forcing" the audience to "deal with preconceived ideas of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness" is nothing remotely to do with the character in the first place. It misses the point of the character altogether.
You're rather missing or ignoring my point, though. Bond offers a unique opportunity that does not exist anywhere else.
But James Bond is there for the spy drama, the gunfights and fistfights, the cool gadgets. Turning that into social commentary makes a totally different kind of film and a totally different kind of character.
As I said above, the spy drama and action would still be there.
But yes, that's almost certainly why it'll never happen; it's a safe, conservative, mass market property. So all the fans of Bond as a sociopathic masculine fantasy don't have to prepare their pitchforks any time soon. But there's ostensibly no real reason why a mass market icon shouldn't achieve something interesting, something new, something more relative to decades of mild-bordering-on-pointless iteration.
Three or four films with a female lead, and it could go back to the male version. Nothing would be lost, but a lot could be gained.
Wrex Brogan said:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love Craig's Bond (I'll be brutally honest, it's partly because he's good to look at and had some serious bisexual undertones in Skyfall)
Bond's reaction in the 'chair' scene was fun, but I wasn't keen on the whole effeminate villain angle. On its own it'd have been tolerable, but Skyfall's deeply problematic in how it practically hard resets to a nastier, more sexist vision of the character and world. Mini offtopic rant and spoilers:
Female agent in the field? Derp! Shoots Bond and ends up as a secretary! What's with this matriarchy business? Pft, time to replace them with a more traditional patriarch! Bond's slightly improved attitude to women in Casino and Quantum? Can't have that! Fuck a sexworker on a yacht, then have the camp villain shoot her in the head! And so on... I think it's a terrible film because of its plot, but I was bewildered just how regressive it was.
Craig's portrayal of Bond is just an interpretation of the Bond character. Like each different actor plays him differently - they're all still 'Bond', but they're all different 'Bonds', you know what I mean? His Bond is different to Connery's Bond, who is different to Brosnan's Bond, who is different to Dalton's Bond...
If by "different" you mean 'better than all of those', then yes. ;-)
Craig's era is the first and only era I mostly enjoy, though I'm apparently a complete anomaly in that I feel Quantum Of Solace is a damn fine film. I think I tap out of this era at Skyfall, and by all accounts Spectre is more of the same but arguably even dumber/worse.
Hence why my position on this is a case of 'Well it's certainly not impossible'. An actress playing Bond would just be a different interpretation of the Bond character, which is something that's been going on for the last 60 years.
I think this thread illustrates why it would be practically impossible; attitudes are rigidly stuck in one iteration, and the studios aren't known for taking big creative risks. If it takes Marvel Studios eleven years and twenty MCU films to release their first female led feature (Captain Marvel in 2019), then a female Bond is, sadly, pure alt-dimension fantasy.
/edit
sniddy said:
Could a female 00 movie series work - I actually think it could really well. The interactions between them Q, M and the world could be really quite something....but you don't need them to be Jill Bond, they can be their own character, and ultimately be better for it I'd say
Didn't see this post, and whilst I obviously disagree with your other points regarding retaining the name and changing the gender, this would be a compromise I'd be fine with; it would exist within the same universe, so would at least force people to directly compare what Bond 'is' to what this new female 00 agent represents.
You could arguably achieve all that I outlined as a positive about changing Bond's gender, yet you'd sidestep all the silly paranoid culture war guff. Well, it wouldn't entirely, 'cause proponents of culture wars stick to their guns despite everything, but objective reason would still show that the seemingly sacredly male and masculine 007 hadn't been changed.
Yeah, that would be fine and could even be quite interesting. No need to screw with an established character. Of course, that's only if the character isn't going to be solely a political statement. If she's an interesting character that just happens to be a woman, then great! If, on the other hand, her character is first and foremost about being a woman (Or worse, "being a woman in a man's world"), then that makes her nothing more than a political statement rather than an actual character. As long as female characters are more about their gender than about being an interesting character then there's never going to be any progress made.
I am sorry but this is patently ridiculous. It would be really easy to make a female Bond. She would be intelligent, sexy, and capable. She would dress in a beautiful evening gown while infiltrating the criminal mastermind's casino based operation. She would use her gambling skills and seduction skills to get the info she needs, then use her spy capabilities to carry out her mission. There would be a side kick to the criminal mastermind who would end up falling for the female Bond, Jane Bond, and he would end up helping her out when she got captured shortly before the finale, although ultimately she would rescue him after causing the secret lair to explode.
I think it would be awesome to see and I'm not a self proclaimed feminist nor an "SJW."
I know a fair number of women who quite like James Bond, but none who have said "You know, I would enjoy this character so much more if he was a woman."
I could go into a fair number of reasons why it wouldn't work in a world that's supposed to parallel our own, but just to throw one into the pot: think about Casino Royale, or The World is Not Enough, for that matter. How do you think an extended scene of an attractive woman being tortured in such a way would play, today?
I think fucking with things because you can is pretty much a cornerstone of the definition of immature prick. I think that if you want to see 007 genderbent, you probably don't care too much about the character itself and rather the actor you are seeing or just want to see a female with the attributes we associate with James Bond. Make your own character. No 007 isn't sacred, it doesn't need to be sacred for me to ask you not to fuck with things because it is possible.
I wouldn't enjoy a female James Bond. I can see it being done, and it might make for some interesting re- imaginings and twists (would all the goons and thugs in the action scenes be women? Would she seduce men in important positions? etc.), but ultimately I'm not interested in this sort of approach to my escapism.
I agree that, from a purely artistic perspective, making Bond female would be of... limited use. As you say, you could tell the exact same sort of story with an entirely original character.
HOWEVER
A female Bond may not improve the film, but it also wouldn't hurt it;
A: Being an inhumanly efficient killing machine with so much charisma that you can have all the sex you want isn't an exclusively male fantasy; the desire for sexual and environmental domination are pretty basic human traits.
B: There's no reason that a character who embodies your fantasies has to be the same gender as you are.
So then this must be nothing more than a matter of personal preference, right? It doesn't matter if Bond is male or female.
But you have to consider not only the film itself, but the cinematic landscape the film would release into. The story implications of a female Bond are debatable, but the cultural and financial implications are ASTRONOMICAL.
Easy one first; if 007 was played by a chick, you better believe that would put the franchise front and center in the media and the public consciousness. In part because, yes, it would piss a lot of people off; wrongfully so, if you ask me, but it would.
Audiences would want to see the movie just to be included in the conversation, either so they can confirm that they predicted how terrible an idea it was, OR so they can say with confidence that everybody else was overreacting. Bottom line; this would be big news and get asses into seats.
Now the more complicated issue...
You have to recognize the power that the name James Bond carries with it; the character has a presence in almost every North American's psychology, for good or for ill. 007 is a symbol for exotic adventure fantasy; he represents excitement, liberation from both lawful and sexual bonds, competence, charisma. James Bond is an almost universally accepted candidate for the coolest fucking guy on earth! With his wits, his words and his skill he can go anywhere and do anything.
Now before anyone says anything, I certainly DO NOT think there is anything inherently sexist about James Bond as a character; some of his individual portrayals have been... let's just say questionable. But by default, James Bond is not dismissive or disrespectful of the women he woos; he either simply enjoys their company, the whole thing is just part of his job, or both.
At the very least, if you're going for the more adventurous and lighthearted interpretation of the character, that's how he SHOULD be if you ask me.
Now, knowing what you now know, try to evoke an image of all the ideas James Bond represents, but applied to a character saddled with the dogma and mores of sexism. James Bond's very essence subverts SO much of it, SO thoroughly. By simply being who they were, the character would make a statement. There would be no need for heavy handed preaching; there would be no need to alter artistic DNA; the idea that a woman can do what 007 does, be everything 007 is, and represent everything 007 represents is a powerful statement for egalitarianism BY ITSELF.
Here we would have a female lead in an action adventure film, whose not only just as clever, magnetic, dangerous and enigmatic as any man, but whose also allowed the freedom in her sexuality that is so often either not permitted of women PERIOD, or theoretically forgiven but always conveniently avoided when it comes to actually informing the actions of main characters.
Here we would have a masculine symbol of power not subverted but expanded, without being diminished or tarnished, in the spirit of universal brotherhood; not a statement of what men or women are uniquely capable or not capable of, but a statement about what ANYONE can be capable of.
This is the bottom line; having a 007 female equivalent is neither as potent nor as public as having the genuine article. This wouldn't just be a film, it would be a stunt.
Now, I recognize that if this goes wrong it will go TERRIBLY wrong; a project like this has the potential to work against it's own intended goals. The film could get mutated into some straw-feminist "Girl power" exploitation flick; the film could just happens to be among the weaker Bond movies, but get inevitably dog pilled on twice as hard; they might shy away from violence because they're afraid to hit a girl; they might adopt some of the franchises previous bad habits and mistreat the Bond Boys(?) in a misguided attempt to "Balance the scales" (After all, "When you gaze long into an abyss..."); they might try to downplay Bond's promiscuity because they think "Women just aren't built that way".
There are a myriad of ways this could all come crashing down, but I have an ego the size of Texas and no financial stake in this fight and I think that against all odds it might just be crazy enough to work.
I can think of scarcely few statements of equality in the arts that would be equal in power to proving that the gender of 007 truly DOES NOT MATTER.
I know a fair number of women who quite like James Bond, but none who have said "You know, I would enjoy this character so much more if he was a woman."
I could go into a fair number of reasons why it wouldn't work in a world that's supposed to parallel our own, but just to throw one into the pot: think about Casino Royale, or The World is Not Enough, for that matter. How do you think an extended scene of an attractive woman being tortured in such a way would play, today?
I could see it being interesting if they genderswapped the entire world it took place in. Matriarchal society, dudeypenny, uhh... Richard Galore... some room for jokes there while deconstructing the genre and making points about gender issues. If Bubba Ho-Tep taught us anything... you can make a good movie out of any premise.
Sure he can. Promiscuous, ass kicking, charming but extremely capable female spy and boom! Genderbent James Bond. We'll call her Jamie.
Whether it would be better to create a new character as a female spy from the ground up (it would) is a separate discussion. A spin off 00 movie with a 00 agent who is a woman would be great, and would still benefit from brand recognition since it is set in the same universe and supporting characters from MI6 could still have rolls. James Bond shouldn't have a cameo though, lest he overshadow the new character.
Hopefully they'd make a female James Bond more interesting and less rapey than the male ones we get. As for anyone beating on the 'go make your own characters' drum, the irony here is gobsmacking. James Bond is literally a character that has had different iterations since 1962. I don't see anyone saying 'No George Lazenby, you can't be James Bond, you have to be a different 007. Connery had it first!'
Hopefully they'd make a female James Bond more interesting and less rapey than the male ones we get. As for anyone beating on the 'go make your own characters' drum, the irony here is gobsmacking. James Bond is literally a character that has had different iterations since 1962. I don't see anyone saying 'No George Lazenby, you can't be James Bond, you have to be a different 007. Connery had it first!'
That's not ironic at all. Actors have changed, and the tone of the films has changed, but the character has remained broadly faithful to the literary character. George Lazenby's Bond was a male British spy, just as Connery's Bond was a male British spy.
And what is it about Michael B. Jordan playing the human torch that's unfaithful to the character exactly? Is being white an intergal part of his character? There would be nothing wrong with a female 007. She can take on whatever name she wants imo, I don't see anything special about the Bond character that requires him to be male. British, yea, you could make an argument there.
And what is it about Michael B. Jordan playing the human torch that's unfaithful to the character exactly? Is being white an intergal part of his character? There would be nothing wrong with a female 007. She can take on whatever name she wants imo, I don't see anything special about the Bond character that requires him to be male. British, yea, you could make an argument there.
A female 007 could work. In the next film they could kill off or retire James Bond and replace him with a female spy who uses the 007 codename, Daniel Craig is as boring as fuck anyway.
They probably shouldn't gender bend bond for the same reason why they shouldn't have made Dante's hair black. You're changing the character in some fundamental way that only serves to piss people off and stir up controversy. That's not a good thing. That's assuming those are their motivations, of course.
There have been a bunch of Bonds, but are they supposed to be the same guy from different eras(I honestly don't know)?
If they are, then they did a pretty poor job sticking to the same look (perhaps just going by whoever seemed bankable/captured the spirit of the character at the time), but at least they did manage to pin down "dude from united kingdom" each time, and I think people would have a right to complain if they changed one of the two defining superficial features that he has. That said, if a woman is more bankable or more suited then that's pretty much the same casting policy they've always appeared to have.
If they're not, then I don't really see a problem with a lady bond.
It was someone on the first page going on about comic book characters. Which is why I phrased my post as I did, leaving it open ended and not limited solely to Bond.
Star Wars also can't have Jarjar Binks, midichlorines, coarse sand, or poorly injected slapstick, yet it does.
Do not mistake what you think should be done with a character/property, for what can be done with it.
I've never really been a huge Bond fan, but after watching that scene where he lets the villain shoot his girlfriend and then cooly remarks on the drink being spilled from atop her head, I really just can't summon any sympathy for him as a noble male fantasy.
Besides, if they made the female Bond a ladies' woman wouldn't that be another kind of ultimate male fantasy?
He absolutely CAN be genderbent, but he shouldn't.
If you want appealing female character in fiction, write one.
Stop taking established franchises and warping them for the sake of your bullshit politics.
Show some goddamn originality and creativity in stead of twisting other people's work so you can leech off of the success of the character you're ruining.
He absolutely CAN be genderbent, but he shouldn't.
If you want appealing female character in fiction, write one.
Stop taking established franchises and warping them for the sake of your bullshit politics.
Show some goddamn originality and creativity in stead of twisting other people's work so you can leech off of the success of the character you're ruining.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
