Jux said:
The character elements that I would say define Bond and are intergal to his character are that Bond is a spy who uses cool gadgets, is a lone wolf sort of character who rarely relies on any kind of team work (equal teamwork, having 'helpers' is as far as I'd say his teamwork goes), is suave (probably what most separates him from Bourne, along with less emphasis on martial arts in the fight scenes), and has a pretty dry sense of humor/wit.
I'd say things like "spy" and "cool gadgets" are more genre-defining than Bond-defining. Dry wit seems to be optional, and I have trouble separating "suave" from "rapey" in this context. Though it could probably also be argued that "suave" is another genre trait. Not everyone has it, but it seems a commonality.
While no doubt I'm sure plenty of people are attracted to the character for the male power fantasy, and all the sexist, rapey shit that comes along with it, I don't think that needs to define the character. You can still have a sexually open Bond without all that stuff. Though 50:1 says that if we ever do get a female Bond, all the sex stuff will still be titillatingly played for the male gaze.
I want to see a female Bond who unapologetically fucks with the same level of criticism Bond tends to get. None. But you're right there, odds are it would just be basic posturing for the camera.
I just honestly have trouble seeing Bond without those traits, though, because he pretty much becomes any other spy. I mean, he likes British cars and Martinis, but these are traits you give to background characters in a Roland Emmerich movie, not defining traits of a main character.
For House, it's flip a coin, either a rare tropical disease, or cancer.
And if it lands on its side, it's Lupus?
(hey, it was Lupus that one time, improbable though it seems)
The angle is played different for Bourne too. Bourne is sort of an unwilling participant, trying to fight against his own government while looking for his identity. It plays to that anti government streak of individualism where as Bond is more than usually an us v them, cold war kind of set up.
Fair enough. I bring up Bourne because I'm not really a big spy thriller fan and Jason Bourne is the guy people compare to Bond. He was the franchise who revitalised the spy thriller and people called him the James Bond for whatever generation. He probably saved the Bond franchise in the way that Star Wars made a continued Star Trek franchise possible.
TBH, the closest I've come to James Bond in a long while is I read the first Destroyer novel when it was reissued. Created: The Destroyer is very much steeped in classic Bond. Like, Casino Royale. Remo Williams is a slightly more sociopathic Bond, recruited against his will. but by book 2, you already get into the pseudo-Asian mysticism of Chiun (the first book describes things in terms of Judo and the like. I'm not sure Sinanju was even in their minds at this point). And...if the whole series was like that, I'd probably never read another. It's interesting watching Remo grow from Bond Clone to borderline superhero, though. because he's so much cooler when he's fighting ghost ninjas and all-consuming monsters.
Granted, some of Bond's gadgets got pretty freaking crazy, and that's probably the best parts of his movies. But you can get the same from a ton of spy movies. Hell, XXX had a lot of the gadget spectacle. Hell, the Fast and Furious franchise does that now. Hell, I don't even need to leave Vin Diesel movies, apparently.
Again, I do chalk part of this up to Bond[footnote]James Bond[/footnote] likely being the ur example for many if not all of these tropes. But that's the thing about brands. They're only valuable as long as they remain distinct.
Still, we're down to "suave" and "willing participant."