James Bond cannot be genderbent

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

"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.

 

[2HF]

James Bond cannot be genderbent.

warp the character beyond comprehension in my eyes

Herein lies the problem with your post. You make a declarative statement in your title, as if what you are saying is inarguable, and then you proceed to admit that this is purely your opinion.

So then I say that James Bond can be genderbent and I'll go ahead and add that I believe mine harder than you believe yours and so I win.

 

[09philj]

He's problematic in the gender politics department as it is. Genderbending him would create a singularity made up of the solidified rage of Bond fans demanding a man and feminists realising the horrifying implications of what a female Bond actually means, that will suck the universe into it.

 

[MythicMatt]

*Snip*

Yeah, you're right. Sort of.

Why is it so important to the sort of people that want X character but Y gender/ethnicity/religion that they want to co-opt existing franchises rather than make their own? Too lazy to write anything but complaints at not getting the stuff they want?[/stupidity]

But, seriously, is there any point to co-opting a franchise in the name of equality, when you could in theory equalize things more effectively by just making an entire new franchise? It also means that you avoid offending about half your potential audience.

As far as I'm concerned, though, changing James Bond on a scale this minor, while a nice change of pace, would leave many people [or at least ones who knew the character before] conflicted, a large number of those would complain, and other people would complain at the complaints. Stupidest cycle I know of, but it happens so often...

 

[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. I don't care how skilled someone is, a super secret agent using their own name is a death sentence. James or Jane Bond being a code name makes so much more sense.

 

[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.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I assume he must also be Scottish, if we're sticking to tradition. Everyone always gets up in arms "Oh, they can't be a women" or "Oh, they can't be black" but they never say "He must be Scottish"

Personally, I couldn't care if Bond was black, white, male, female or fish.

 

[Rastrelly]

Female Bond is like male Lara Croft or white Martin Luther King.

 

[Zenja]

When Phasmal pointed it out, I have to agree and tilt my head. Ultimate male power fantasy? Uh, no thanks. I don't consider fucking the lesbian out of someone to be a fantasy. Bond is a pretty sexist character, of course he is, he's from the 60s.

Hell, Kenshiro is a bit closer to the ultimate male power fantasy in my book, considering he can kick ass but is more about protecting the innocent and not being afraid to cry.

Even as a James Bond fan I would consider fucking the lesbian out of someone tro be the ultimate male fanatasy. As a Bond fan I personally dont find ti to be the ultimate fantasy. The man just simply has cool gadgets and interesting rivals. PLus, he keeps cool and collected which is always classy. I wouldn't say he is the ultimate male fantasy but he is a fun one. It's just fun to watch Bond. AT a c ertain age you should outgrow the fun of watching him shoot down gyro copters with a 9mm beretta and outmaneuver fighter jets in a bomber.

 

[Flathole]

Why not make a new IP about a supersecret agent thats a girl instead of taking a Bond script and using find+replace?


Also, if Jane Bond had sex with every major male character (like James does with the ladies), does that make her a "misogynistic depiction of womyn who cant achieve anything without getting their tits out" or "a strong empowered depiction of wymyn that are comfortable with their sexuality?" please anita sarkesian i need to know

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Actually, quick question, have we had any FtM genderbends? Seems like thats an unexploited market. Laurence Croft, Sam Aran, time to shine!!

 

[jamtea]

The very nature of an established character means you literally can't change them. You can make a new character, with a similar name, backstory and setting, but they will never be that character because you've changed the fundamentals about how they work, interact with their world and how their world responds to them.

The very nature of how different actors have played James Bond, some successfully, but arguably only two have encapsulated the character as he was written. That would be Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. That's not to take away from the films of Roger Moore, who has certainly produced some of my favourite 007 movies, but he never quite played the character as authentically as the other two, and certainly played to the audiences of the time.

This is part of the reason why the newer Daniel Craig movies aren't really inline with the nature of the character. They've had to modernise a character who is so firmly established in the world of the past. James Bond fundamentally is a character of the remenants of the old British Empire. He is a historical character who embodies the spirit of those times, times of conflict, subterfuge and of the classic 'Gentleman' type.

To be honest, I'd love to see Bond movies be made in the setting of their stories. It's like how Sherlock Holmes works best in the Victorian/Edwardian setting. You can try to modernise the character, but they are still deeply rooted in their founding setting. Take the Benedict Cumberbatch version of Sherlock. He is a totally new character. He may share a name, habits and certain visual cues with the original character, but take him out of his time and he becomes a new character.

So it comes to the argument of doing right by the character and portraying them faithfully. With Benedict, it's actually remarkably easy to see if he did, as they did the Christmas Special and the character fit pretty much perfectly into the correct setting for the character. If you did the same with Roger Moore, he's a bit too 60's camp to fit into the world of the post war fractured empire that Sean Connery first inhabits, though Pierce Brosnan's Bond might fit well (or at least better).

Anyway, this is turning more into a character thesis rather than a quick response, so in summary, yes you can change things about a character to make a new literary creation, but that does not make the resulting character take on the mantle of the character that was the genesis for the new creation!

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

but to change Bonds gender would be to warp the character beyond comprehension in my eyes

So, you concede it's just a subjective opinion? Doesn't that make the unequivocal "cannot" in your thread title a tad redundant?

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...

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Female Bond is like male Lara Croft or white Martin Luther King.

One of those people isn't fictional, so that's a bit of a false equivalence.

Actually, quick question, have we had any FtM genderbends? Seems like thats an unexploited market. Laurence Croft, Sam Aran, time to shine!!

Would they still get to wear the booty shorts/zero suit respectively? Asking for a friend!

 

[omega 616]

But what exactly makes a "Good female" character?
Why would a female character who acts like "a British manly man doing man things" be a bad character?

Why do we need to change the character's defining traits (in the case of James Bond, he shoots things, has sex a lot and seems to be unable to maintain a steady relationship), in order for the character to be female? A women is perfectly capable of doing every single one of these things I've listed.
[footnote](Note: OP did not state this but it's something I see crop up a lot on the genderbent Bond discussions)[/footnote]

I don't get what the issue is with female characters who "Are basically a man with tits" so what if she exhibits characteristics that are typically associated with how men are viewed to act. People act according to their own personalities.

If you don't think James Bond should be genderbent because it's lazy and Hollywood could use some new material, fine, but I don't understand why this character trope must be exclusively male.

To play Satan's sidekick ...

It's tone would be weird, having a dainty lady kicking so much ass that her foot smells of farts isn't very lady like ... even black widow doesn't get down like the guys do. In her little intro in the first avengers film she is strapped to a chair being interrogated by a bunch of Russians, she is using her feminine wiles to seem weak and vulnerable, then she gets to go wild ... does the same again to Loki.

Bond kinda sorta does the same the same thing, there is always the "no, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die" scene where they bad guy details his whole plot to Bond, so bond can escape, come back and the pew pew starts but that's not using his feminine wiles, that's just bad writing or a shit spy.

Another example is Ronda Rousey in the 2 films she has done, she looks like this hulking dude-ette, it's like watching the mountain from GOT try ballet, it's just a bit awkward. It doesn't help that Ronda's "mean look" is like she trying to take a tricky shit.

To be less of a sexist asshole, I think Gina Carano is a great actress ... though they made her look silly in Deadpool, who gives a woman a mullet?

I think more women should be the badass of the films but not in the same way guys do, it just doesn't suit women. There is more than one way to be a badass, men have the likes of Rambo, terminator etc but women can't really do male power fantasy.

All the writers in the world and the best we can do is to make women "like 90's action movie star but a woman"?

 

[Rastrelly]

Female Bond is like male Lara Croft or white Martin Luther King.

One of those people isn't fictional, so that's a bit of a false equivalence.

OK, replace white Martin Luther King with black Scarlett O'Hara or female D'Artagnan.

BTW, I see no difference between perverting classic fictional character or real historical person.

 

[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.