James Bond cannot be genderbent

[jamtea]

Have the 'official' icon with the iconic theme tune show up to be a woman? And suddenly it's a talking point. Suddenly people are forced to try to deal with preconceived ideas of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness (their own, and societies). It would be a provocative statement, both creative and social. How does Bond's behaviour relate to his gender? What is acceptable for one gendered character, but not another? And so on.

This is exactly why it is wrong though. Characters are not supposed to be political vehicles to drive some deeper narrative. Characters exist to serve their story and their stories should exist to serve them. As soon as the author betrays the character with an unfitting story, or changes the outcome to fit some political motive, they have not done right by the character or the audience.

If you want to make a political statement, you do that in the appropriate venue. I don't go to the cinema to have the latest social justice crap served to me in some manner of 'but it's the same character'.

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

 

[Rastrelly]

Have the 'official' icon with the iconic theme tune show up to be a woman? And suddenly it's a talking point. Suddenly people are forced to try to deal with preconceived ideas of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness (their own, and societies). It would be a provocative statement, both creative and social. How does Bond's behaviour relate to his gender? What is acceptable for one gendered character, but not another? And so on.

This is exactly why it is wrong though. Characters are not supposed to be political vehicles to drive some deeper narrative. Characters exist to serve their story and their stories should exist to serve them. As soon as the author betrays the character with an unfitting story, or changes the outcome to fit some political motive, they have not done right by the character or the audience.

If you want to make a political statement, you do that in the appropriate venue. I don't go to the cinema to have the latest social justice crap served to me in some manner of 'but it's the same character'.

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

A mug of finest mead to this bee of wisdom, for making an iconic character into a tool for political propaganda is never correct way to deal with an iconic character.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

This is exactly why it is wrong though. Characters are not supposed to be political vehicles to drive some deeper narrative.

Is anything about art 'supposed' to be anything? Can't things be explored? Subverted? Challenged?

Characters exist to serve their story and their stories should exist to serve them.

Didactic narratives say that's not where characters purpose ends at all. You may have a preference for your form of narrative, fine, but it's not the only form.

As soon as the author betrays the character with an unfitting story, or changes the outcome to fit some political motive, they have not done right by the character or the audience.

What 'betrays' a character or IP is highly subjective.

If you want to make a political statement, you do that in the appropriate venue. I don't go to the cinema to have the latest social justice crap served to me in some manner of 'but it's the same character'.

So you don't want art/entertainment to make you think?

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

Apologies for sounding like a bit of a broken record, but, again, that's your own personal opinion. That's fine, but I clearly disagree.

 

[inmunitas]

Have the 'official' icon with the iconic theme tune show up to be a woman? And suddenly it's a talking point. Suddenly people are forced to try to deal with preconceived ideas of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness (their own, and societies). It would be a provocative statement, both creative and social. How does Bond's behaviour relate to his gender? What is acceptable for one gendered character, but not another? And so on.

This is exactly why it is wrong though. Characters are not supposed to be political vehicles to drive some deeper narrative. Characters exist to serve their story and their stories should exist to serve them. As soon as the author betrays the character with an unfitting story, or changes the outcome to fit some political motive, they have not done right by the character or the audience.

If you want to make a political statement, you do that in the appropriate venue. I don't go to the cinema to have the latest social justice crap served to me in some manner of 'but it's the same character'.

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

Totally agree, if Bond had been female from the outset people would be just as resistant as it's not about the characters sex, it's more about familiarity with an established character.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I honestly don't see why not. Bond can be any race, sex, gender, or sexuality you want. The point of Bond varies from one series to another, there has never been a real consistency of character or theme. Bond is a spy for MI6 who does the sex, drinks martinis, and makes quips. Everything else is negotiable.

 

[jamtea]

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

Apologies for sounding like a bit of a broken record, but, again, that's your own personal opinion. That's fine, but I clearly disagree.

Well, that's cleared that up then! Though I have to say, coming from your (presumably left wing social justicey) standpoint it would seem a touch hypocritical to (pop)culturally appropriate someone elses character to drive your own political message.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no-one's politically bipartisan bee, but these tactics of authoritarian left wingers manipulating the media around them to deliver politically subversive propaganda, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

Apologies for sounding like a bit of a broken record, but, again, that's your own personal opinion. That's fine, but I clearly disagree.

Well, that's cleared that up then! Though I have to say, coming from your (presumably left wing social justicey) standpoint it would seem a touch hypocritical to (pop)culturally appropriate someone elses character to drive your own political message.

So literally everyone who thinks art can serve a message beyond itself is a firm believer in the most extreme idea of cultural appropriation? Like, CS Lewis? Cicero? You realize how absurd your argument is?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no-one's bipartisan bee, but these tactics of authoritarian left wingers manipulating the media around them to deliver politically subversive propaganda, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

If your notion of propaganda is having a political message, then I'm pretty certain you should have issue with more than just the dreaded SJWs. Roughly half of all artists are on your propagandist list by those standards.

 

[Breakdown]

Politics should be left on the door when it comes to stories and characters as they only ruin and betray the audience's enjoyment of the work. No if's, and's or genderfluid butts.

Apologies for sounding like a bit of a broken record, but, again, that's your own personal opinion. That's fine, but I clearly disagree.

Well, that's cleared that up then! Though I have to say, coming from your (presumably left wing social justicey) standpoint it would seem a touch hypocritical to (pop)culturally appropriate someone elses character to drive your own political message.

So literally everyone who thinks art can serve a message beyond itself is a firm believer in the most extreme idea of cultural appropriation? Like, CS Lewis? Cicero? You realize how absurd your argument is?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no-one's bipartisan bee, but these tactics of authoritarian left wingers manipulating the media around them to deliver politically subversive propaganda, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

If your notion of propaganda is having a political message, then I'm pretty certain you should have issue with more than just the dreaded SJWs. Roughly half of all artists are on your propagandist list by those standards.

There's a difference between including a political message in your own work, and appropriating an established franchise and intellectual property to push your political message. It's disrespectful to the character, existing fans and the original creator, like standing on the shoulder of a giant, and then pissing in his ear.

 

[jamtea]

I'm talking about the people who co-opt media for their own purposes, not the audiences. If you want to create something that sends a political message, I'm all for it. If you want to take something of someone else's and change it to suit your own political narrative and by association try to make that prior work and tie it to your political message, then yes I'm against that.

The fact of the matter is, that for better or for worse, Bond is a product of it's time and author. It would be disrespectful to the work and to the creator to betray the original works by changing them for political purposes and them selling them off as representative of those works. It's that simple. You can argue it all you like, but it doesn't make your argument have any merit. You're arguing for political reasons, not artistic ones. If you don't think that artwork should be protected from political interference, then you are simply proving my point. I don't agree with it if right-wingers do it, and I don't agree with it if left-wingers do it.

 

[inmunitas]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no-one's bipartisan bee, but these tactics of authoritarian left wingers manipulating the media around them to deliver politically subversive propaganda, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

If your notion of propaganda is having a political message, then I'm pretty certain you should have issue with more than just the dreaded SJWs. Roughly half of all artists are on your propagandist list by those standards.

Pretty sure from the sentence you quoted the main issue that jamtea has is with the tactics being employed, not just the fact that it's blatant propaganda.

 

[Parasondox]

How do threads like these always turn toxic. I mean, buzz words like "SJW" and "propaganda", is too often used and just derails a healthy and open debate.

WE NEED MORE FUN!!

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Spoiler

"Technically" you can genderbent him, but might as well burn every book or film with the character for seeing his gender as something "wrong" that needs fixing.

That's making a mighty leap of logic there. It's not that there's anything "wrong" with James Bond's gender, or that it "needs fixing", as much as it is that James Bond is pretty stale. Having a female step into the shoes of 007 would be a drastic change in many respects. Especially because of the sexist tropes that are usually applied to James Bond as a character. Wouldn't fix the fact that James Bond is a really dull character in the movies. At any rate, gender swapping James Bond doesn't diminish any of the previous movies, or the books, making such an assertion is like putting a "no girls allowed" sign on your door. In that it's kinda childish and petty to declare a whole franchise retroactively ruined, just because someone decided to do different with new installments. Kind of like how Star Trek(2009) and Into Darkness didn't ruin all the previous installments in the Star Trek franchise that were good.

OT: You can genderbend James Bond, but it won't stop the resulting character from being just another uninteresting super spy character. In all honesty, hasn't there been enough James Bond already, can we put this franchise to rest finally? Especially because I'm still waiting for a good movie depiction of The Saint, Simon Templar is a character that's lot more interesting than James Bond has ever been.

But the problem is the question "why", James Bond is not an interesting character you can give different interpretations of by gender, so there's not really a real reason to do the change, without raising the question of "why not make a new character?". And I didn't mean it would "ruin the series", but rather show disrepect to the source material the studio might as well destory it if they change his gender to appeal to others.

Edit: example for when changing ethonicity or gender is justified, Hamlet in China, since (at least potentially) it can reveal points on the culture in both how it's close to the european and different.

The whole question of "why" can be answered very simply: Because someone wanted to do it, or thought it would be a good, or at least interesting, idea. That's literally all the motivation that's necessary. Also a lot of things that are critical and financial successes are also disrespecting their source materials, virtually every comic book superhero movie does this by killing off the villain(s) at the end of the movie. Also no movie studio is going to go belly up over a single concept that's rejected by the fans, mostly because fans are fickle cry babies that pitch fits over the tiniest things. A thing that virtually everyone does, because virtually everyone is a fan of something. Changing Bond's gender could alienate all of the fans, but the movie could turn out well done enough to be a massive critical success and blow up the box office by attracting more casual viewers and people who usually wouldn't watch a James Bond movie.

Also changing the ethnicity, gender, or even the species of an existing character doesn't have to be justified, as it can be done just for the sake of doing it. The Magnificent Seven was a copy paste of the story Seven Samurai into the wild west, while the original was already available to non-Japanese speaking audiences. In many respects The Magnificent Seven is inferior to the original, but it's still considered a timeless classic, just like the original story it's based on. There was no justification for the rip-off of Seven Samurai either, except for the fact that Seven Samurai is a master piece.

Edit:

To play Satan's sidekick ...

Best phrase corruption ever!

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Sure he can. Here's a genderbent Bond.

Spoiler

[/spoiler]Oh wait, except it isn't. It's Cate Archer[footnote]http://i.imgur.com/fmFKoMY.gif[/footnote], heavily inspired by Bond movies, but ultimately a character on her own.

The problem is, Bond is a walking stereotype. Being a sexist pig and a male power fantasy is a huge chunk of his persona. Strip that away and there's not much left. He could be turned into Jane Bond 007, an female agent that sleeps with lots of dudes and has a taste for expensive cars and martini. But it just won't feel like Bond anymore - rather like one of those numerous Bond spoofs.
If you would like to have a spy franchise with a female protag, better aim at Bourne's example, not Bond's.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

...

Established characters shouldn't be changed. Want a female James Bond? Make a new character. Want a black human torch? Make a new character. Want a female muslim super hero, make a new damn character. (Ok that one technically is, but she stil relies on a different characters fame instead of her own merits)

You're kinda missing the point of why it could be well worth doing; creating another character simply creates a Bond or Bourne clone, and barely anyone would be engaged or give a toss. It would just be a good, ho-hum, or bad film on its own merits. That's not particularly interesting or challenging at all.

Have the 'official' icon with the iconic theme tune show up to be a woman? And suddenly it's a talking point. Suddenly people are forced to try to deal with preconceived ideas of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness (their own, and societies). It would be a provocative statement, both creative and social. How does Bond's behaviour relate to his gender? What is acceptable for one gendered character, but not another? And so on.

None of these points would be forced with just another female spy film - they could only be realised with a radical new take on the icon. Sure, countless opinionated people on teh internetz would explode into conspiracy theory guff about feminazis and progressive cultural takeovers (which would be funny, if such things didn't also have the side-effect of creating online abuse), but a lot of good editorials, blogs, vids and so on would arise from it.

Simply put, rebooting Bond as female is a unique opportunity.

Make your own damn interesting minority character and leaves the ones already made alone.

A female character's a "minority" now? *remembers Hollywood's a thing* Ah, nevermind...

So the main reason to make Bond female isn't to create an interesting film in its own right (that could be done with a Bond/Bourne clone), but rather, to piggy-back off the name recognition to create controversy in order to write a bunch of think-pieces about gender politics ...

Fine, you're entitled to your own opinions and desires about art, but I'm not convinced that stirring the pot for journalistic purposes is good reason to change a character.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Yea, I said Jamie Bond with a picture of Emily Blunt in a suit if I'm not mistaken. I meant it as a joke, to be honest. That said, I wouldn't mind a super spy movie with a leading lady*. I like watching women kicking ass, I only play female characters if given the option, but I find the whole sexism/equality/feminism debate tiresome and repetitive.

*can't be Scarlett Johansson because she's in too many action roles already.

 

[Bat Vader]

I think a female James Bond would be cool. Not because the character is female but because it would finally put to rest the character vs code-name argument.

Skyfall did that. Bond's parents were, in fact, named Bond.

Dammit. Even for a fictional character that seems like such an inefficient and dangerous thing to do. Any bad guy could look him up in the phone book and just blow up his house or leave a flaming bag of dog poop on his doorstep.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think a female James Bond would be cool. Not because the character is female but because it would finally put to rest the character vs code-name argument.

Skyfall did that. Bond's parents were, in fact, named Bond.

Dammit. Even for a fictional character that seems like such an inefficient and dangerous thing to do. Any bad guy could look him up in the phone book and just blow up his house or leave a flaming bag of dog poop on his doorstep.

Spoiler: Skyfall Spoilers

They do that in Skyfall too.

 

[mduncan50]

I think a female James Bond would be cool. Not because the character is female but because it would finally put to rest the character vs code-name argument.

Skyfall did that. Bond's parents were, in fact, named Bond.

Dammit. Even for a fictional character that seems like such an inefficient and dangerous thing to do. Any bad guy could look him up in the phone book and just blow up his house or leave a flaming bag of dog poop on his doorstep.

It was Bond on their gravestones. Not a big deal to have that changed by HMSS, so I don't consider that conclusive.

What if it was more of a Doctor Who type deal, where Bond's mind is transferred to a new agent body when he is badly injured or too old? It's not too outside the bounds of other tech we've seen in the franchise.

 

[BytByte]

I think it'd be fun, but that would mean that a female James Bond would have to get the guy, and unfortunately people don't seem to like boy-butt as they do girl-butt.

Can't we just love all butts equally? 3=

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

So, just so everybody remembers what franchise we're talking about, this is James Bond. The franchise which's second novel heavily focuses on VooDoo, which was adapted into a blaxploitation film featuring VooDoo satan.

There is no core idea of Bond. There is no giant who's ear someone is pissing in when they use it to tell a story about the modern surveillance state or North Korea. They're merely following in the footsteps of the man who took a spy novel and wrote about VooDoo sorcery because he's moved to Jamaica and thought the idea was interesting.