James Bond cannot be genderbent

[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.

 

[JaKandDaxter]

I have to agree. The character of James Bond has already been established for decades. And the gender-bent arguers likely represent a very small minority of Bond fans. That is if they're fans of the series to begin with.

Making drastic changes in an established IP whether in games, movies, tv shows, and heck even books. Is always a huge risk of isolating and destroying the existing fanbase. If you took Final Fantasy and decided, well I like shooters. Lets abandon JRPG's and make Final Fantasy a western inspired shooter for the next couple of main releases. Sales would instantly decline in comparison to the JRPG FF games. Because people buy main Final Fantasy games for a JRPG experience. Likewise people watch and buy Bond movies for its existing formula. Changing Bond in a main series movie to a female is the equivalent of changing Harry Potter to a female. An established character like Potter, will have to be drastically changed to please a small minority. And you will not get the same final product. As for the chance of a spin off with a female Bond. If the movie bombs in reviews or the box office, it could hurt the public perception of what is easily the biggest and most profitable movie IP brand in the world.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Anything can be gender bent. James Bond, as a character, has had more changes than simply the idea of transforming boy MI:6 spy into girl MI:6 spy. Frankly I'd prefer a Jeanine Bond if they reversed all the gritty, emo garbage they've turned the IP into. I wouldn't care if we had a boy or girl with a licence to kill if they went back to Roger Moore era of cheese.

Make James or Jeanine Bond fun again. The gender matters little if you could offer the glorious awkwardness and camp of the Moore years. Bring back the yo-yo circular saw wristblades, and ridiculous, dice-crushing Indian bodyguards (and that was all in ONE movie)...


... would it matter, man or woman, if they delivered such glorious camp again?

 

[JimB]

I saw this on Facebook the other day...

"I want an inverse spy flick. The spy is a woman. Her whole team is made up of diverse women. All the villains are women. There is only one man in the movie and he is a Strong Male character who is like 25 and decently ripped and has a scene where he slowly steps out of a pool wearing speedos because he is Confident And In Control Of His Sexuality. We see his ass when he has to tug down his pants to get at the knife strapped to his thigh. His nipples are always erect for no fucking reason.

"They are undercover in a nightclub. In order to keep their cover from being blown, he has to kiss another man.

"He knits to relieve stress and to keep his mind sharp. Someone asks him how he knows to do that. 'I have four sisters,' he answers. This is also how he knows how to fight while armed with nothing but a purse, a high heel shoe, and a can of hairspray. During this fight, he is, for no apparent reason, shirtless.

"The lead spy is Helen Mirren. She nails the Action Boy in the shower. There's a lot of lingering closeups on the way the shower spray runs across his breathlessly ecstatic face. We also hear every whimper of his climax, while out in the hallway Lucy Liu is smoking impatiently, a duffel bag of rocket launchers slung across her shoulder. The President isn't going to kidnap herself, here! Christ.

"Action Boy emerges in a small towel, sheepish yet radiant. Helen Mirren emerges in a tuxedo, also smoking, also with a duffel bag of rocket launchers.

"In one scene, the lead villain captures the Strong Male Lead. He is, once more, inexplicably shirtless as she ties him to the chair. He makes some quips about his sexual independence before he is rescued by a sweat-drenched Helen Mirren, who kicks down the door and nukes everyone in the room. Strong Male Character's hair remains perfect throughout.

"Strong Male Character is heartlessly slain in front of Helen Mirren's eyes despite all his skills and combat prowess. His body slumps to the ground, lifeless but supple. Helen Mirren makes a witty quip at Strong Male Character's killers before quickly and dramatically slaying them all. She steals one last glance at Strong Male Character. His beautiful eyes stare back from a handsome face with perfectly tousled hair, lips positioned as if in a gentle sigh. There's no bringing him back now. Helen Mirren walks away, stronger than before. Strong Male Character's death has hardened her, but given her the strength and resolve to complete her task."

I have no problem with genderflipping James Bond if it means I get to watch this movie.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

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?

...

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. 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.

 

[Kolby Jack]

ITT: People take hyperbole meant to express a strong opinion at face value and treat OP like an idiot for saying it. Classy. Obviously you CAN genderbend any character. Don't be a smarmy dick like you've never seen someone say someone "can't" do something before. Jesus.

On-topic: Obviously my dick wouldn't fall off if they made a female Bond, but I don't really see the appeal. Bond has a strong core audience that values the things that make a Bond film a Bond film, stupid or not. Part of the reason Casino Royale worked is because, even though they subverted a lot of Bond tropes, it all coalesced at the end and we saw the Bond we expected to see come into being. Like it or not, males and females are different, and a female Bond wouldn't feel the same as James Bond. Either it would come off as cheap and disingenuous, or it would come off as a new character with the same last name. It would NOT feel like "James Bond, but female." If you really think someone could pull that off, you're either a fool or you're making hypothetical points just be contradictory.

 

[Erttheking]

I hear quite a lot that James Bond is 'the ultimate male fantasy', and I'm just... like... really?
I mean, Bond's fine and all, but ultimate fantasy?

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.

So the fact that he's suave, always cool headed, great with ladies, can kick ass and look good doing it, has the most badass cars, tours the world while saving it on a regular basis, DOESN'T strike you as a male power fantasy? Freaking a, I don't even LIKE Bond movies and even I can see the appeal of being him!

Also, king, Fist of The North Star is pretty sexist as well. At the very least one of the morals in that show was that women shouldn't be fighting when there's men to do it. It's not fucking the lesbian out of someone, but it's still pretty bad by our standards.

Opinion, opinion, my aforementioned comment about fucking the lesbian out of someone, dime a dozen and opinion. I didn't say no one could could appreciate him, I was voicing my own personal problems with the character. Also I was taking issue with him being the "ultimate" male power fantasy. Pretty sure we can do better than him just by looking at video game protagonists.

That was actually kind of the point I was going for. FotNS is fairly sexist, but still better than Bond. And at least it has messages about how violence should be used only to protect the innocent and how it's ok for men to openly show sadness. It's something.

 

[JimB]

ITT: People take hyperbole meant to express a strong opinion at face value and treat OP like an idiot for saying it. Classy. Obviously you can genderbend any character. Don't be a smarmy dick like you've never seen someone say someone "can't" do something before. Jesus.

There's not much to respond to, otherwise. "I assert my personal standards and will not change them" provokes no conversation, so "Please tone down the hyperbole" becomes just about the only direct response to him.

 

[infohippie]

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.

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. Sure, go ahead and do it with a character who is there to make you think about social issues, such as V from V for Vendetta, for example. That would make sense. 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.

Edit: Okay, reading further, Jamtea made the same point but more clearly and succinctly.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...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.

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), but it's just like... 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...

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.

 

[infohippie]

I saw this on Facebook the other day...

"I want an inverse spy flick. The spy is a woman. Her whole team is made up of diverse women. All the villains are women. There is only one man in the movie and he is a Strong Male character who is like 25 and decently ripped and has a scene where he slowly steps out of a pool wearing speedos because he is Confident And In Control Of His Sexuality. We see his ass when he has to tug down his pants to get at the knife strapped to his thigh. His nipples are always erect for no fucking reason.

"They are undercover in a nightclub. In order to keep their cover from being blown, he has to kiss another man.

"He knits to relieve stress and to keep his mind sharp. Someone asks him how he knows to do that. 'I have four sisters,' he answers. This is also how he knows how to fight while armed with nothing but a purse, a high heel shoe, and a can of hairspray. During this fight, he is, for no apparent reason, shirtless.

"The lead spy is Helen Mirren. She nails the Action Boy in the shower. There's a lot of lingering closeups on the way the shower spray runs across his breathlessly ecstatic face. We also hear every whimper of his climax, while out in the hallway Lucy Liu is smoking impatiently, a duffel bag of rocket launchers slung across her shoulder. The President isn't going to kidnap herself, here! Christ.

"Action Boy emerges in a small towel, sheepish yet radiant. Helen Mirren emerges in a tuxedo, also smoking, also with a duffel bag of rocket launchers.

"In one scene, the lead villain captures the Strong Male Lead. He is, once more, inexplicably shirtless as she ties him to the chair. He makes some quips about his sexual independence before he is rescued by a sweat-drenched Helen Mirren, who kicks down the door and nukes everyone in the room. Strong Male Character's hair remains perfect throughout.

"Strong Male Character is heartlessly slain in front of Helen Mirren's eyes despite all his skills and combat prowess. His body slumps to the ground, lifeless but supple. Helen Mirren makes a witty quip at Strong Male Character's killers before quickly and dramatically slaying them all. She steals one last glance at Strong Male Character. His beautiful eyes stare back from a handsome face with perfectly tousled hair, lips positioned as if in a gentle sigh. There's no bringing him back now. Helen Mirren walks away, stronger than before. Strong Male Character's death has hardened her, but given her the strength and resolve to complete her task."

I have no problem with genderflipping James Bond if it means I get to watch this movie.

This sounds like a pretty fun movie to watch. I'd enjoy it, but it wouldn't be Bond, it would be its own thing.

 

[Kolby Jack]

ITT: People take hyperbole meant to express a strong opinion at face value and treat OP like an idiot for saying it. Classy. Obviously you can genderbend any character. Don't be a smarmy dick like you've never seen someone say someone "can't" do something before. Jesus.

There's not much to respond to, otherwise. "I assert my personal standards and will not change them" provokes no conversation, so "Please tone down the hyperbole" becomes just about the only direct response to him.

Other than everyone who has contributed their own opinions to the topic. Did you even look to see what I was talking about before responding?

...You can genderbent anything.

Literally all that's required is swapping the gender of the character.

Well, yeah... he obviously can be.

You can "genderbend" anyone.

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

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

Anything can be gender bent.

Contrast the dozen or so people who were able to state their own opinions on the matter without snarking against obvious hyperbole, INCLUDING YOU. Why did you even try to call me out?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Contrast the dozen or so people who were able to state their own opinions on the matter without snarking against obvious hyperbole, INCLUDING YOU. Why did you even try to call me out?

The fuck...? I did what to the who?

 

[Wrex Brogan]

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

Contrast the dozen or so people who were able to state their own opinions on the matter without snarking against obvious hyperbole, INCLUDING YOU. Why did you even try to call me out?

...that's not snark.

No, seriously, it isn't. It's a disagreement. I disagree with what he's saying. Hence why I said 'you totally can genderbend Bond' and then gave my reasonings why it's not an impossibility. I don't think OP is an idiot, I just disagree with the statement 'James Bond cannot be Genderbent'. Much like his usage of that statement, me saying 'You totally can' frames the point I'm trying to make.

So... yeah, not really... getting what you were aiming for here.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

There's not really much I say that hasn't already been said, besides my own personal opinions. I'm not saying this is truth, just this is what I feel is the case.

See, I hate this idea of changing stuff just for the sake of changing things. To me, it almost feels like everyone is saying that you have to genderbend already established characters, or otherwise you're sexist, or hate change, or whatever. I had a problem with this when people were acting like genderbending Link from Legend of Zelda was the greatest thing to ever happen to Nintendo, yet if someone were to have suggested genderbending Samus, and everyone would jump down their throat.

I agree with the people that say to create new IPs instead of hijacking already established ones under the guise of being, "thought provoking." It's not, it's just a way to satisfy a certain group of people who simply dislike any character who doesn't tow their political agenda.

Again, it's personal opinion. Anything that I could really add to this has already been said by others.

 

[Nazulu]

Why not make a new IP about a super secret agent that's a girl instead of taking a Bond script and using find+replace?

Because name recognition to make easy money, I believe. It's exactly why I'm against these gender swaps, because it's another reason to do the same shit with the same names, only with a women.

Well, I'll praise it if it turns out in it's favour, but I haven't seen that happen yet, and I probably never will because the whole idea is just cynical. If they wanted to make a great female character then it should be from the ground up, not just thrown into an established characters shoes.

It's so pathetic! They have allllllllll these popular artists in one spot and not one of them can come up with anything new.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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

You bet your sweet ass they do!

Yeah Laurence, you go, boy!

We don't see it because taking like the 3 female characters that exist and turning them into more boring dudes wouldn't exactly be the most stunning thing ever

Now... that's interesting: why more boring? I thought we'd all established genderbending doesn't take anything away from the character, why would making a female character a male be boring? Can you rationalise that for me?