James Bond cannot be genderbent

[Callate]

Exactly the same, and anyone who threw a fit about it should then be invited to grow the fuck up.

...Can you think of any successful PR or advertising campaign in which "grow the fuck up" was the sentiment expressed?

One may personally believe that a scene is the same whether a man or a woman is the focus, all other factors being identical. Believing that that said perception applies to everyone who views it... Well, it pretty much demands a determined lack of awareness as to how people consume and react to media right now. Even if Bond films only played in the United States or the UK, there wouldn't be such a homogeneous view.

 

[renegade7]

Oh no, that bastion of totally serious business that is the James Bond franchise might have a woman play 007, who is almost by their nature a blank slate character, in the next movie. This is almost as bad as Ghostbusters!

Replace James Bond with a lesbian and you can have literally the exact same movie. I think it would be interesting.

 

[Jux]

Hopefully they'd make a female James Bond more interesting and less rapey...

Nope...
Can't even muster up the annoyance to deal with any more than that much of this monumentally stupid comment.
The term "rapey" alone tells me everything I could ever need to know about you.

Sorry bro, but Bond straight up rapes Pussy Galore.

edit: all in all, Bond (not just the character, but the franchise as a whole) is steeped in sexism and racism. Would love to see a different direction taken with it.

 

[Orga777]

Why is James Bond taken so seriously? Does anyone remember Moonraker as a whole? Or that idiocy of Live and Let Die? Or Roger Moore dressed as a clown in Octopussy? Or how about Die Another Day with the dumb plot and dumb invisible car? If James Bond can do all of those completely idiotic things and get away with it, I don't see a problem with Bond being a woman. Personally, it could be pretty interesting. Would it be good? Who knows. But it could be ridiculous enough to have some potential. Especially if they play it a bit tongue and cheek. And if it is bad? Who cares? It isn't like there haven't been stupid and terrible James Bond movies before... and it probably would still be better than Moonraker and Die Another Day.

 

[Breakdown]

Why is James Bond taken so seriously? Does anyone remember Moonraker as a whole? Or that idiocy of Live and Let Die? Or Roger Moore dressed as a clown in Octopussy?

Is it really that ridiculous that a spy might wear a disguise rather than wandering around everywhere in a tuxedo?

 

[Michel Henzel]

Who the fck needs a female James Bond when we already have bloody Cate Archer. What, she not good enough?

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I don't get why people want existing characters to be genderbent. It seems really lazy and cynical, like an admission that a female character will only work by appropriating the popularity and success of an existing male character.

This has always confused me. Very often "strong female character" just ends up meaning a woman who drinks whiskey and has a lot of sex and can fight. I just feel like there's something strange about creating a female character meant to be an icon of strong female independence, so they just give her a bunch of traits traditionally associated with male action heroes. The most recent thing that made me think of this is Jessica Jones. I'll admit, I only watched a few episodes, but she was just coming off as the typical hard-boiled detective type but with boobs. Drinking problem? Check. Meaningless sex? Check. Strong aversion to intimacy and due to troubled past? Check.

Surely there's a way to make a woman a strong character without just taking a male character and giving him the appropriate parts and pieces.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Surely there's a way to make a woman a strong character without just taking a male character and giving him the appropriate parts and pieces.

Counterpoint: Why is it okay for a Strong Male Character to be so stereotypical, but a female character shouldn't be the same?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Counterpoint: Why is it okay for a Strong Male Character to be so stereotypical, but a female character shouldn't be the same?

I hear a fair number of people saying that the strong male character should be less stereotypical. The whole "Rough and gruff brown haired white guy with stubble" stereotype gets a lot of criticism.

EDIT: And I don't have particular desire for James Bond to be genderbent. Not generally a fan of it except in situations where it makes sense, such as when characters are just filling some sort of role, such as Link or Thor.

 

[Something Amyss]

edit: all in all, Bond (not just the character, but the franchise as a whole) is steeped in sexism and racism. Would love to see a different direction taken with it.

I don't really see much of a point in radically reinventing James Bond. He is so steeped in those conventions that he might as well be left an artifact of the past. I'd realy like to see some new characters who aren't just reinventions of dinosaurs.

...and yes, I realise the irony of being a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and saying that.

 

[icythepenguin]

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.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service proved that Bond is his family name. It even showed his family crest with the motto "The World is Not Enough", which makes that movie title slightly less confusing considering the plot. He also married Tracy in that movie and book making her Tracy Bond. Considering the killing spree he goes on to avenge her death I don't think he would have married her using his alias. She dies because he uses his real name.

Also he is an arrogant moron. He handles every situation in the most aggressive and worst possible way imaginable. He's not a scalpel. He's a blunt instrument so of course he's going to use his real name. Most of his enemies work for SPECTRE and already know who he is so in his mind why bother playing games when he's probably going to die in a violent and bloody manner anyway.

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.

We know how M treats other agents. He doesn't send backup for 008 in Octopussy until after he's killed. The female M turned one of her agents into the villain for Skyfall. Also in Skyfall she orders Moneypenny to take the shot knowing full well that it could kill Bond and she lets Bond go back on duty after he failed all his tests meaning he could be killed easily. If M is that ruthless with her favourite than she clearly doesn't give a damn about the others. I mean do you really think Q goes into the field to assist every agent? He'd never have time to invent gadgets or build weapon-loaded cars.

As the previous poster mentioned 007 is the codename given by MI-6. As such you could make a female 007 and I would like to see one. Maybe the rise of Judy Denchs' M through the ranks of MI-6, earning the codename 007 and building the reputation of all agents given the 007 designation.

 

[DOOM GUY]

Might as well just make a new character at that point, bad enough there's like 6 different guys that play him, but they're "supposed" to all be the same person, unless you go along with that codename theory.

 

[Jux]

edit: all in all, Bond (not just the character, but the franchise as a whole) is steeped in sexism and racism. Would love to see a different direction taken with it.

I don't really see much of a point in radically reinventing James Bond. He is so steeped in those conventions that he might as well be left an artifact of the past. I'd realy like to see some new characters who aren't just reinventions of dinosaurs.

...and yes, I realise the irony of being a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and saying that.

Maybe. There's a certain nostalgic factor, even for problematic characters like that. I guess I kinda just like the idea of taking something I used to honesty enjoy as a kid, and have it redone in a way I can enjoy (more, beyond, oh look, fast cars, chase scenes and explosions) as an adult

 

[Michel Henzel]

Who the fck needs a female James Bond when we already have bloody Cate Archer. What, she not good enough?

Does she have a movie?

No?

She was in two videogames 14 years ago?

oh, right

In short, perfect time for her own movie ^__^

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Surely there's a way to make a woman a strong character without just taking a male character and giving him the appropriate parts and pieces.

Counterpoint: Why is it okay for a Strong Male Character to be so stereotypical, but a female character shouldn't be the same?

That's a good question, and I would say that I'm not arguing in favor of that generic archetype anyway. I think this line of thought is buzzing around in my head because I was listening to some of my old George Carlin albums. He has a bit where he asks if women wearing business suits and imitating all of the greedy, corporate, victimizing behavior of men is really what they want to do in their pursuit of equality. Does that really elevate them or just drag women down to the same shitty level men have been engaged in?

Anyway, as I said, I'm not saying that a male character with those traits isn't lazily designed or written; they frequently are and frequently aren't. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be this idea that if it's a person with a vagina possessing those traits she is automatically a strong independent woman who don't need no man. There's no reason a strong female character has to shun traditionally feminine traits. It seems like many writers are trying to get their female characters into the boys club and that seems counter intuitive to me. Women can be well-developed, independent, and inspirational characters without trying to conform to existing archetypes to be seen as the tough girl.

 

[Jux]

Part of the problem is that as far as American culture goes, 'male traits', that is, those stereotypically associated with men, are the traits that are lauded as 'strong', where traits most commonly associated as feminine are not (thats not to say feminine traits aren't put forth in a positive light sometimes, just that strength is not associated with them). Part of the fight, in the wider push to shift culture, is getting 'feminine' traits to be seen in a way that doesn't convey weakness in that strong/weak masculine/feminine dichotomy. Ideally, we would just do away with any kind of gendered association of strong and weak traits with masculinity or femininity all together, but we're not even close to that yet.

This push would help develop male characters too. By positiviely associating what are normally thought of as feminine traits with male protagonists, it helps lift the stigma that 'these traits are for men only, and those traits are for women only'. Overall, you'll see more well rounded characters.

edit: In this regard, I don't see anything wrong with making Bond a woman. Bond is a deeply flawed character when we look past the surface. He may be cool, smart, and be portrayed with irresistable sex appeal (total male power fantasy), but he's also kind of an asshole in a lot of his films (not to mention the books), and as Craig has portrayed him, a pretty damaged person on many levels too.

I find it all strangely possessive that people are so against a female Bond, or even a black Bond (not here specifically, but I think a lot of people remember the outcry when Idris Elba was floated as a possible Bond candidate). I don't understand what it takes away from people, having him reimagined as another gender, or color of skin. 'Because it's canon' is frankly a lazy argument, and nothing more than an appeal to tradition.

No one other than Fox News cries when Jesus or Santa are portrayed as black, what's the big deal here?

 

[THM]

I'm confused; they did try a 'female James Bond' a few years ago. It was called 'Salt', starred Angelina Jolie, and was damn good as I recall.

Why not make that into a franchise? Same 'name', different actresses, etc.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe. There's a certain nostalgic factor, even for problematic characters like that. I guess I kinda just like the idea of taking something I used to honesty enjoy as a kid, and have it redone in a way I can enjoy (more, beyond, oh look, fast cars, chase scenes and explosions) as an adult

That's fair, and on some level I agree. I mean, I watched the hell out of Sherlock, and even other versions of the character (House before it got boring, Monk). I think the problem here is that Bond really became popular FOR those rather racist, sexist, even rapey elements. Other than the martini, what's a character trait of Bond that's clearly defined that doesn't revolve around them? I grew up on Bond, and I'm kind of at a loss.

The difference I would say is that Sherlock Homes can be rewritten in a way that keeps his core traits without losing the flavour. Monk is obviously a Sherlock Holmes character, despite not being a racist, drug-addicted sociopath. House is a possibly racist, definitely drug-fueled sociopath, but still.

James Bond is...well, a spy. I mean, you could argue that he's kind of the ur example of the modern spy thriller, but nothing about the character endures. Jason Bourne is a frequent comparison, but what do they both have in common? Not much. If anything. I've watched the Bourne series less, so maybe there is some stuff. They're both spies? House is a doctor, and he's still identifiably Sherlock.