James Bond is a white, British, privileged, male spy
How he behaves and acts, is part of his heritage, the newer films have shown a rougher edge which I liked but he's still .
Could you make him black...probably, but it's just not worth it - and you'd have to reboot the whole franchise, as it's a different way for the character to act and behave and while it would be bondish you've taken an existing brand and slapped it onto something else. just as easily call him 003 or something - same with making him her. With what you've changed the easiest and best thing to do is build a new brand as a spin-off, you can use the same universe, same ethos and ideas but blend the new ideas into it - not forcing one to be the other.
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
I kind of find it ironic here how James Bond is a male fantasy character, and we're going "Nothing wrong with gender bending him," yet we look at Ghost in the Shell and we go from a Japanese-based character to a very white character, and it's, "This is wrong! Must be Japanese! Cultural homogenisation!"
Just because I've been noticing what seem to me like false conflations on both sides of the aisle, may I ask who "we" are? Which people in this thread have argued in favor of James Bond being female but against Motoko Kusanagi being white, and what rationales did they offer for holding those positions? If one intends to accuse others of hypocrisy, then I think to avoid falling into the trap of strawmanning, one has a duty to establish clearly who is being a hypocrite and how.
To be honest, I'm not looking at specific individuals as I'm not going to run back and forth between a bunch of threads and compare names, more the general attitude of the site at large as I've seen.
The thing about that is, it's just not super cool. I first noticed this a couple of months ago, when I saw someone saying the people who dislike the trailer for the new Ghostbusters are the same people who send vile, criminal death threats to video game feminists, and ever since then I can't seem to stop noticing people who look at two separate groups and seemingly say to themselves, "I disagree with both of these groups; therefore these groups are composed of the same people."
Take whatever stance you want on whether Jamie Bond is a good idea; it makes no difference to my life, especially since it's never gonna happen anyway, so I got no profit on trying to tell you what to think about it. I'm just asking that we as a society kind of knock it off with tying one group's opinion to another group's opinion in order to mock them for both when the first group does not have the second group's opinion.
But you see, I'm not. I'm taking one group - The Escapist Forum Community - and noting that its got varied opinions within it, that I find somewhat Ironic. I'm not breaking it into subgroups and saying two subgroups are the same, I'm looking at a larger group and noticing something I find interesting. I agree that linking two different groups is wrong, but as said, I'm looking at one group - and not even a nebulous non-group like "Internet Denisens", a fixed group of The Escapist Forum Community, and noting how the site at large tends to have an interesting criteria for what is and isn't acceptible overall, kind of ironic, without being hypocritical - a word you threw in to try and give yourself a point to argue against - because I recognise these may be different individuals.
I think you're trying to paint some meaning into my words that isn't there, and to take a phrase from your book, that's just not super cool.
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Joccaren said:
Honestly, I'm against gender/race/sexuality bending any established character simply for the sake of 'equality' or 'because we can'. I mean should someone who fits the part well be cast and it isn't what they traditionally were? Yeah, sure. However I kind of find it ironic here how James Bond is a male fantasy character, and we're going "Nothing wrong with gender bending him", yet we look at Ghost in the Shell and we go from Japanese based character to a very white character and its "This is wrong must be Japanese, cultural homogenisation". Apparently established characters only matter if they're not white men.
The problem with the part I made bold is not that it's a change, it's that it's part of a racist trope that was used to exclude non-whites from mainstream Hollywood movies up into the 1980's. It's called "whitewashing" and it still represents shitty practices in Hollywood, along with highlighting a bitterness that the vast majority of characters in movies are white. Worse still we rarely get an Asian protagonist unless the film is a kung-fu film, or how there's rarely a black protagonist unless the movie is about gangs, or is a "buddy-cops" film.
In the case of Ghost in the Shell we have a particularly bad case of whitewashing, where they make an entire Japanese cast from a police agency in cyber-punk future Japan into white people. Yeah you can hand-wave explain it with the fact that they're all cyborgs with mostly prosthetic bodies, but it's still kind of taking the cultural identity away from Ghost in the Shell, which is also pretty damn central to the series. As Ghost in the Shell is very much a social comentary on the world, coming from sensibilities and a world view that's very Japanese. Also I know they didn't do it to be racist, but because this is an American production of this canon, and there aren't really that many well known Japanese, or even Asian actors and actresses in action to fill out the cast. So they filled the roles with white actors, because that's who's well known in the American market and really in the world market for Hollywood films, while name name recognition is how they put butts in seats for movies.
That all doesn't make it any less of a slightly offensive thing to have done though.
It doesn't help that when a film is inclusive, where the main characters aren't taken from a pool of stock generic white male actors, that some people bawl how it's "white genocide" and an "attack on white heterosexual men". Like how the vast majority of the complaints revolving around Star Wars: The Force Awakens before it even came out were all framed. I mean there is more vehement backlash when a film is inclusive than when a film whitewashes the cast, and that just smacks of an entitled mentality, paired with a persecution complex. Not exactly a pretty thing, which also doesn't help the chronically risk adverse film industry in American, get away from making bland safe films that are guaranteed to make a box office profit by being bland and safe.
Oh, believe me, I am against the whole Ghost in the Shell thing. I am against any character being changed for rather arbitrary reasons, especially ones where they're changed from something that was in fact core to their character, to something "More acceptable" for a certain audience. White Washing is an issue, and anyone who complains about minorities being in films at all is a moron.
I simply find it interesting that that is the main criteria applied to whether a character can be changed or not on this site. "Is it getting changed to more minority casting?". If yes, acceptable. If no, pitchforks. The individual character and their traits don't matter so much as to whether its a minority getting the role or not. As stated, Ghost in the Shell's change is counted as problematic because its part of those characters and the story that they're Japanese, its a lot of the point of the show. Likewise, its important for Bond's character that he's a guy doing guy things - again its the point of the show - yet its acceptable to change him, and the fact it goes against the point of his character doesn't matter, because it would be changing to a greater minority - women.
I don't really pass judgement on this sort of view, as it naturally has its merits, but I don't agree with it. Established characters shouldn't be changed, especially when part of their character is their gender or ethnicity, and that's what's being changed. I care more on the character front, I simply found it amusing that in general the site tends to trend towards the minority front than the character front, and ironic that the same arguments used to criticise Ghost in the Shell, are dismissed here.
You don't have to make Bond a female. There are 9 00's in the License To Kill program. Any one of them could be female. Let them have their own spinoff series.
There is actually a few female 00 agents, Scarlett "004" Papava, Briony "0013" Thorne, and Suzi (alias unknown) Kew.
Also "James Bond" is not a codename that's the characters real name, "007" is his codename. If James Bond died then someone else would take the title of "007", they wouldn't also be called "James Bond".
You don't have to make Bond a female. There are 9 00's in the License To Kill program. Any one of them could be female. Let them have their own spinoff series.
There is actually a few female 00 agents, Scarlett "004" Papava, Briony "0013" Thorne, and Suzi (alias unknown) Kew.
Also "James Bond" is not a codename that's the characters real name, "007" is his codename. If James Bond died then someone else would take the title of "007", they wouldn't also be called "James Bond".
I did not know this was the case, a film based around another 00 agent within the Bond universe could work and it would be interesting to see interactions between M, Q and a female agent, potentially even moneypenny pre-skyfall. You could also use the alternate viewpoint to see how other 00s view Bond, the different missions that occur (they wouldn;t be "lesser" missions, just different) It would also be interesting to see how an agent that isn't Ms favourite would be treated.
Would it be a James Bond film? No. But that doesn't mean it can't be in house.
If you're concerned about Bond's "authenticity" then you shouldn't watch any of the films, and if you're using the films as a base, which of the several different versions of the character are you talking about?
That being said, I broadly agree with the idea that Bond's gender (unlike his race, Idris Elba bond 4 life, yo) is essential to his character. Introduce a female character with the same traits as Bond, the sexism, promiscuity, smugness etc and you have a character who plays very differently to modern audiences. That wouldn't make for a good traditional Bond film, but it would make for a GREAT deconstruction of one, and fuck it, why not try that at this point? Can't be any worse than Quantum of Solace or any of the Brosnan films that weren't Goldeneye.
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?
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.
I read the "Who should play James Bond next" thread and found that several people wanted James Bond to be genderbent to either Jane Bond or Jamie Bond. Rather than de-rail that thread, I figured I should start a seperate one.
James Bond cannot be genderbent.
James Bond being a British manly man doing man things is a huge part of a character. He's the ultimate male fantasy who Kicks badguys asses, blows shit up, drives ridiculous cars, is ripped/incredibly good looking, witty, gets all the girls he wants and, at the end of the day, drinks expensive drinks, wears the best clothes etc etc. Can women do this? Of course.
but to change Bonds gender would be to warp the character beyond comprehension in my eyes, and is also slightly pointless. If you would like a superspy badass female character, I have no doubt there are several about (looking at Black Widow for starters) that could be adapted into their own film to box office, critical and public acclaim, whereas genderbending Bond would more than likely result in outcry (such as my own).
Maybe I am just stuck in the mud and traditionalist on this point, but I don't believe that genderbending for the sake of genderbending is the right move for equality and diversity. Good female characters should not be "male characters with tits".
while i agree that male sexuality is a centrla characteristic of james bond it does mean that my enjoyment of the movies come with increasing ammounts of guilt. most of the films have excellent cinematography, action and acting but by now i'm pretty sure bond is almost on par with Louis XV, both in terms of how he uses the women around him and how many he has been in a "relationship" with (i put that in quotation marks mainly because i wouldn't say a one week aquintance and a few quick roots count for much). Bond is a product of the 60s and while other aspects of the bond franchise have updated for moodern times bond himself is still a type of man that largely doesn't exist anymore and as much as i like his movies i think it's a good thing that men are largely neither like that or expected to be like that by society.
-Ghost in the Shell's main character should be Asian as the story draws on a lot of Japanese cultural things and its an important part of her character that she is Asian.
If Batman can be a gun-toting psychopath who crushes fleeing cars with his tank, calls a 12 year old boy retarded and fucking quits until his knee is magically healed than James Bond (which I consider to be a title attached to the number 007) can literally be any gender or indeed race on the spectrum. This applies to just about everyone too: Bring on the male Samus Arens, bring on the dark-skinned Asguardians, bring on the all-woman Justice Society of America without calling them Bombshells.
I don't know or care too much about James Bond or the 007 books or movies to begin with so disregard my opinion. I only ever really watched the 3 Gold movies and played the one N64 game that everybody else played. It just seems to me that since so many other characters are changed in various adaptations that it's high time for a huge shake-up in something like 007 and turning him into her but keeping the womanizing, fast-cars, cool gadgets thing would be a quick, cheap and, easy swap. So long as she's more British than Idris Elba who obviously ins't British enough to be Bond[/sarcasm].
You realize we basically already have a genderbent James Bond right? Black Widow from Marvel Comics, sure she's not British but she's basically James Bond. James Bond as a character could be played by either sex, really just depends on the actor/actress(but they do have to be British, that's a factor I think). Can't be though? No I don't think so.
Sure he can- imagine, a James Bond who isn't an awful misogynist?
Alternatively, a female James Bond who is just as awful to women, and makes the supposedly suave and charming man we all know seem all the more ridiculous- kinda like how modding Ocelot's model into Quiet's poses looks fucking hilarious, just because it's so absurd that someone would act like that when divorced from the bizarre social conditioning we're looking at them through- now, that might be interesting.
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.
-Ghost in the Shell's main character should be Asian as the story draws on a lot of Japanese cultural things and its an important part of her character that she is Asian.
I like how some people are pretty open that they only want to genderbend a character not because they have a great idea for a story or feel that a portrayal with genders reversed would do something great with the character by playing them in unorthodox situations, nope, we just wanna do that cos it's the zeitgeist and...it will get a reaction!
Art is reaction! Are you against art? -^ You phillistine!
*slams head on desk*
Anyways as for gender bending Bond..
His identity is basically a broad appeal to old fashioned ideals of virility with a touch of british empire derring' do.
The gender flipped version would therefore be an appeal to old fashioned ideals of feminity...mixed with british empire..
So Mary Poppins as a spy? Replacing a love of fast cars with..ponies or horses I guess (remember we are going by what stereotypically appeals in broad strokes to that gender, I could not care less about cars for example)
Alternatively if you just want to take an archetypical Bond setup and flip the genders around..
The example a previous forumite mentioned of having an almost entirely female cast with exception of the love interest (also because Bond gets the girl/guy at the end in most films this character CANNOT die and would only be in 1-2 peril scenes max if at all, otherwise he should be hyper competent at all times. That's the only part of the example I disagree with really, if you want to fridge a male love interest then Bond isn't the right franchise to do so unless the love interest was also secretly a bad guy like Sophie Marceau's character in..Goldeneye I think it was?) could work though would be tricky to make it 100% straight without delving into parody territory.
That's the only part of the example I disagree with really, if you want to fridge a male love interest then Bond isn't the right franchise to do so unless the love interest was also secretly a bad guy like Sophie Marceau's character in..Goldeneye I think it was?)
That was The World Is Not Enough. There was an evil woman in Goldeneye, but she was obviously so from the outset (and I'd argue one of the most flat-out crazy Bond villains period). Goldeneye was Famke Jansen, by the way.
OT: I'm not in agreement with those who are for the gender bending. That doesn't mean I'm against a female spy movie. I'd really enjoy a movie with a female 006. Hell, if they were to have a movie where Bond gets killed on a mission, and the new 007 was female, I'd be amazed, and impressed if it stuck. But taking the character itself and saying "female now" does a disservice to Bond fans by totally dismissing decades of continuity AND the original source material.
That was The World Is Not Enough. There was an evil woman in Goldeneye, but she was obviously so from the outset (and I'd argue one of the most flat-out crazy Bond villains period). Goldeneye was Famke Jansen, by the way.
Doh! He even whispers the title after she dies too if memory serves. Also should have recalled back to the Goldeneye game on the n64...Ah well clearly I need to rewatch my Brosnan Bond films.
James Bond could definitely be genderbent. Hell, it might even be possible to make an interesting movie surrounding it. I don't want them to though. That's not to say that I want more James Bond, I don't, but the idea of a genderbent one to me just shoots a million red flags in my head that it's going to be poorly made. Too often do people in media who genderbend characters for a story do it simply as a publicity stunt, not because they think it will be a good idea. To go along with this, they then fail to give enough attention to the product to make it something worth while on its own merits outside of just being genderbent other thing. That's not to say it isn't possible to do it and make a decent product, but I have little faith in Hollywood to make it not shit. The people that are creative and original enough to make it interesting probably would want to make their own movie that holds up on their own merits alone rather than having to be noticeable because it's an established franchise, and the people that would feel like they need to work on an established franchise probably wouldn't be any better than reading a shitty fanfic online.
I always hate this idea that there is a single character in existence that cannot in anyway be portrayed by someone of the opposite sex. Any actual character could be portrayed by the opposite sex, because any compitantly written character should be written first as a character, not as their gender, and even the poorly written ones that are written solely around the fact that they are a member of their sex can still be the person of the opposite sex, and in fact can be made more interesting that way because if you change only their sex and nothing else, you can have the most over compensating crossdresser/transgender person ever.
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.
