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.
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.
