James Bond cannot be genderbent

[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.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Well, that's just not true. You totally can genderbend Bond.

It's just a question of whether or not it's a good idea that everyone gets into a fist-fight over.

Personally? I don't know, really. I've never been the biggest fan of Bond, since it's always relied on the actor playing him rather than anything inherent to character. So an actress taking on the role doesn't seem the big a deal, since it's just someone else playing the role rather than keeping anything 'sacred'.

...plus as a character he's remarkably shallow anyway, so it's not like there's much to keep sacred anyway. Drinking, driving cars, shooting people with guns and having sex with beautiful women are all things women do too.

On the other hand... is Bond a mythological* character yet? Judging from some of the responses in this thread I might chalk this one up to a 'no', which means radical reinterpretations (as unradical as making him a woman would be) of the character aren't going to be met favorably. Maybe in 30 years time when we've had another half-dozen Bonds and everyone loosens the fuck up?

[sub]By 'mythological' character here, it's when a character becomes so ingrained into culture that you can do whatever the fuck you want with them and people will still know it's that 'character'. Like the Lion King being Hamlet, or setting Romeo and Juliet as a story between two crime families in 1990s America. Far cries from the original settings yet we still understand the stories and characters as being who they are. So Bond being mythological would mean we'd understand the character regardless of race, gender, species and cybernetic limb replacements.[/sub]

 

[frizzlebyte]

I love that it can be played by white men that look completely different, have different accents, be from different countries, and act completely different, but the fact that it may be played by someone of a different skin color or someone that has a vagina and it's just inconceivable.

Different skin color is a little bit different from changing a character's gender, don't you think? I mean, it's not that you can't change Bond's gender. You can, and I'd love to see what a female Bond would be like, but I think it would also change the relationship of the character to its audience somewhat, and I'm not sure I think that needs to be/ should be done with an established character.

As others have pointed out, as goofy as Bond is, he's essentially a power-fantasy character for straight (and so far, white) males: a fast-car-driving, gun-wielding ladies man who's impeccably suave and sophisticated and gets to save the world. That's just who Bond is. Assuming you do this with a female, it can still be a male fantasy character, but it's more about creating a female character who's a male's asskicking-woman fantasy, and I'm not sure the average guy wants to watch a movie in which a woman takes every guy she wants to bed. Is that sexist? Probably, but then again, as I said, it wouldn't bother me enough not to watch it, even though Jane Bond might not be my favorite iteration of the character.

That's not even going into whether that character would be appealing to women. I assume it would be to some, but I know women who love the James Bond character and would find a Jane Bond insufferable, because a Bond-style promiscuous woman just seems...off to them. Not sure if this is typical, though.

EDIT: Also, this also isn't discussing a lesbian or bi-sexual Jane Bond. While I know plenty of guys (myself included) who love the sight of two beautiful women doing sexy things with each other, how would that affect the appeal of that character? I just don't know.

 

[maninahat]

Bond is very purposefully dated. People treat it as an inherent value of the character that he isn't just male, but also sexist, racist and retrograde in his behaviour. Very few heroes would be forgiven for being an outright rapist, but JB gets away with it all the time. Yeah, I think it is fine to demand Bond to be male, inasmuch as to demand Bond to be this ridiculously dated perspective of an idealised macho man.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

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...

If you call 'making art that provokes thought and might be a catalyst for change', then sure, that.

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.

Is there no value in creating a work to cause a reaction? Can't a response to a work of art be valuable, and reason enough to create?

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.

It'd be nice if you did a little less presuming about strangers' politics in a thread about James Bond; I've voted Conservative for all but one election in my life [footnote]Though given the state of left'n'right in this country I'm being forced to the centre.[/footnote].

As for "someone elses character"; who, exactly, is who in that sentence? Is Bond yours? Mine? Some dead guys? The intellectual property of a company? Or does Bond exist collectively as an idea across generations, malleable to each era?

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.

Eh... Conspiracy and hyperbole then, is it? Because by your reasoning, a film with a different take on a fictional character equates to favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Can't art can't just be about provoking thought? Must it be reduced to trite, bland, mundane culture war and talk of "tactics"?

...plus as a character he's remarkably shallow anyway, so it's not like there's much to keep sacred anyway. Drinking, driving cars, shooting people with guns and having sex with beautiful women are all things women do too.

Pft, don't be silly! Only men can drive cars, shoot people, have sex, wear fancy clothes, be sociopaths and knock back booze...

I agree he's puddle shallow, but Craig's had some decent moments of reflection and introspection as Bond, so there's always room for growth. Part of my reasoning for wanting a female Bond is simply because what else is there to try? Someone like Idris Elba would be a great next step (he's as quintessentially English and blokey as Daniel Craig), but rebooting with a female Bond would be major shake up.

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=

Pft, some of us do. The sexual and/or romantic orientation of a female Bond would be an amusing minefield, though. Give her male casual fucks 'love interests', and what can a straight male demographic objectify, if Bond is the default audience association/POV and it's female? Yet make her swing both ways or be a friend of Dorothy Sappho, and accusations of sexism and pandering could abound...

I'd like to see it just to see how nuts everyone goes. ;-) Get someone like Greengrass or even JJ.Abrams to direct, and as long as it was a quality film with an interesting angle on the world and mythos of Bond, I'd say people could come to accept a stint (say, three or four films) with the iteration.