James Bond cannot be genderbent

[NiPah]

...You can genderbent anything.

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

It doesn't change anything. it certainly wouldn't turn Bond into some feminist character. It just becomes a version of the character thats like "It's everything you loved about James Bond, but now he is a she, and she is pretty and you can imagine fucking her and it won't be gay! Not that there is anything wrong with gay fantasy you yourself just aren't into that, but you are waaayyyy into James Bond!"

And I'm for doing, just because. Fuck it. Why not? Are we really going to stand here and say James Bond is something so sacred it can't be fucked around with and toyed with?

Of course, I'm looking at this from an artistic lens. From a business lens, could be a different story.

Going to echo this, why the heck not? Gender bending a character is pretty much for the absurdity, offering interesting dynamics and challenging the status quo, if nothing else it would be a unique experience.

And now I know I watch too much anime.

 

[happyninja42]

Isn't a female Bond just that woman from Archer? Insanely capable, charming, yet also a drinker?

I do love The Dom's review of Bond, and how he compared the book Bond to Archer, and stated he was the most canonically accurate depiction of Bond there was.

 

[The Material Sheep]

James Bond is a character that is defined by maybe 5 traits at best(man, suit, vodka martini, british, cars, whatever). He is a vehicle for spy and action stuff. The fact that so many actors can pick up these key traits and become "the James Bond" speaks volumes.
He's "Spyman vs the enemy". He's an archetype. He's not interesting, his actions are.

A female british spy would work, it just wouldn't be James Bond.

I think that's a pretty reasonable take on it. He's not really a complicated character that needs deconstructd, he's just an archetype, kind of like Indiana Jones.

 

[sumanoskae]

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.

It's not that I don't know about how people will react, it's that I don't fucking care, and I am not obligated to care. Obviously this would piss people off, but why does that matter? Artists are not responsible for everyone else's irrational double standards and delicate sensibilities, in fact I would argue that one of the hallmarks of great are is being ABOVE those things.

That's the fundamental fallacy of trying to please everyone; you end up pleasing no one because you don't recognize people as individuals with ideas and feelings unique to them.

The idea that the masses are "Too dumb" or "Too close-minded" to put up with being challenged is precisely why nobody ever challenges them, and precisely why they are uncomfortable with BEING challenged in the first place; it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's like a band-aid, the more ginger you are with it, the more of a pain in the ass it is to rip off.

Besides, the purpose of a PR campaign isn't to get people to like you it, it's to make them curios enough to see the movie. You will draw a lot more attention if you're willing to break the mold and make a definitive statement than if you just fall in line.

Dogma doesn't survive because the unwashed masses are obedient, it survives because the exceptional few are silent. Not because of bad students, but bad teachers.

 

[Wary Wolf]

Would be better than Daniel Craig :3

Nah. Bond for me is about fast cars, gadgets and machine gun fire. So whilst gender bending is fine on that front, as long as the action is still kick ass then I'm ok with it.

I'd miss the Bond girls though, but that's only some extra icing on an already delicious cake. But it's also something that is reasonably iconic to the series. I guess we could absolutely have Bond men/toy boys

Unfortunately I don't think Bond would work as a straight gender swap. Sure give us a kick ass female protagonist. But a straight copy might come across as lazy really. You need to make a gender swapped Bond more than just a Bond with a vag because Bond does have this element of masculinity to him that might come off as a bit odd as a woman character.

Ie. will need a little bit of a rewrite. Lazy script writing on that front would burn *EVERYONE'S* ass.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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.

In most cases, it's just curiosity. Spider-Gwen can be understood to be a "genderbent" Spider-Man, same as the Clone Saga's resulting female Parker family member, whose name I've conveniently forgotten. You could also argue that Miles Morales is a "race-bent" representation of the same character.

Heck, head to DeviantART. A lot of folks just like to casually entertain the notion of popular characters having a different background than what is canonically presented. The whole "Gender-Benders are Feminazis!" nonsense is an absolute waste of time, and not every attempt at that can be construed as a feminist statement - much less as a "Character + Boobs" substitution.

While not gender-focused, I think the whole Black Heimdall kerfuffle is a good example of that. Idris Elba brought something to the role that other auditioned actors didn't, and his name being attached to Branaugh's Thor could have struck some of the actor's fans as a badge of quality; so there he was.

That said, Jane Foster being Thor's newest avatar kind of irks me slightly. I can understand her potential and I'll wait and see in which ways Marvel's scriptwriters are going to exploit the concept, but part of me sees that as a kind of sudden response to the more active rounds of criticism Pop Culture has gone through as of the last few years.

 

[Breakdown]

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.

In most cases, it's just curiosity. Spider-Gwen can be understood to be a "genderbent" Spider-Man, same as the Clone Saga's resulting female Parker family member, whose name I've conveniently forgotten. You could also argue that Miles Morales is a "race-bent" representation of the same character.

Heck, head to DeviantART. A lot of folks just like to casually entertain the notion of popular characters having a different background than what is canonically presented. The whole "Gender-Benders are Feminazis!" nonsense is an absolute waste of time, and not every attempt at that can be construed as a feminist statement - much less as a "Character + Boobs" substitution.

While not gender-focused, I think the whole Black Heimdall kerfuffle is a good example of that. Idris Elba brought something to the role that other auditioned actors didn't, and his name being attached to Branaugh's Thor could have struck some of the actor's fans as a badge of quality; so there he was.

That said, Jane Foster being Thor's newest avatar kind of irks me slightly. I can understand her potential and I'll wait and see in which ways Marvel's scriptwriters are going to exploit the concept, but part of me sees that as a kind of sudden response to the more active rounds of criticism Pop Culture has gone through as of the last few years.

I don't know anything about Marvel superhero comics but I'd guess that Spider-Gwen and Miles Morales are replacements for Spider-man, rather than Peter Parker, and so I'd see them as distinct characters in their own right, rather than a "new" version of Parker himself. With Thor it's a bit more complicated since it feels like he had his identity stripped away and given to somebody else. It's like the difference between getting fired at work and replaced by somebody else, and having somebody take your identity, job and even your appearance, leaving you as a non-entity.

I know somebody is bound to start going on about inscriptions on Thor's hammer or some other such nonsense, but save your energy, comic book nerds! I don't care.

 

[And Man]

is ripped/incredibly good looking

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, as this is a large topic, but the original idea behind Bond is that he was just average looking and wasn't particularly attractive, and that he was able to woo all of those women through his charm alone. Just something I wanted to point out.

 

[Jux]

You could also argue that Miles Morales is a "race-bent" representation of the same character.

I'm not so familiar with Gwen, but I'd argue that Miles isn't so much a 'race bent' spiderman. Different origin story, different motivations for putting on the mask. Peter was driven by the guilt of not saving Uncle Ben. What drives Miles exactly? There certainly are parallels between the two characters. The teenage awkwardness, learning to balance personal lives with the hero stuff. But I think Miles is too different from Peter to warrant the 'swapped' dismissal.

 

[Benny Blanco]

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.

I don't even think it's that. People mentioned the prospect of Idris Elba as Bond and I think that would work: he's British. A foreign (not from the British Isles or the Commonwealth) Bond probably would not. Not from OMG RACSM AND XENOPHOBIA but from the restrictions
which intelligence services place on foreign applicants. Not impossible, but...

I think that if you make Bond a woman, you radically alter the character of Bond and (equally important) the way in which other characters are likely to react to that character. This also affects the international feel of Bond movies. For instance, James Bond can swan around the world without being required to wear a veil or be accompanied by a male relative.

Although a Jane Bond vs. The Police of Vice and Virtue chase & fight sequence sounds awesome. Would watch.

 

[mduncan50]

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.

I don't even think it's that. People mentioned the prospect of Idris Elba as Bond and I think that would work: he's British. A foreign (not from the British Isles or the Commonwealth) Bond probably would not. Not from OMG RACSM AND XENOPHOBIA but from the restrictions
which intelligence services place on foreign applicants. Not impossible, but...

I think that if you make Bond a woman, you radically alter the character of Bond and (equally important) the way in which other characters are likely to react to that character. This also affects the international feel of Bond movies. For instance, James Bond can swan around the world without being required to wear a veil or be accompanied by a male relative.

Although a Jane Bond vs. The Police of Vice and Virtue chase & fight sequence sounds awesome. Would watch.

You can check any thread on any site that suggests a black James Bond and see the same reactions from people as you see in this thread about a female one. Even if we assume that the JBs are all supposed to be one person, I honestly don't see any distinguishing feature to the character that would prevent it from being any age, race, or sex. Whether or not it would do well in the theaters is another matter, of course.

 

[Wary Wolf]

You can check any thread on any site that suggests a black James Bond and see the same reactions from people as you see in this thread about a female one. Even if we assume that the JBs are all supposed to be one person, I honestly don't see any distinguishing feature to the character that would prevent it from being any age, race, or sex. Whether or not it would do well in the theaters is another matter, of course.

I'll argue some of that, just to niggle. I think James does exude that sort of confidence that goes with competence, which would make it difficult to be of any age. I mean you can absolutely have a very young looking James, but that confidence might come across as cock-suredness. Or at least make a younger James seem to be older than he is based on his actions. I suppose you could have an origin story, but I think that would again go to: would it do well in theaters?

I think in many ways the actual stereo-type of Bond is what limits his character from being perhaps black (Samuel L. Jackson as Bond? Be awesome but...), and more noticeably female. So there is a lot of imaginative work for studios to create something that breaks the mold if you will. And honestly I don't think there would be many that have the capacity to do it right or willing to take that risk.

I think some of the arguments here are more to do with, would the casting just be a catering to a female/black audience? Which would be actually perfectly fine. But with the important caveat that it remains a solid movie. I try to think Hollywood could do it, but that's just me being optimistic

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

If the movie goes through literally all the same beats as a Bond movie except for the inversion of penis to vagina ratio, then I think I'd be compelled to describe it as a Bond movie, because to do otherwise is to say that the only Bond characteristic that matters toward his definition is his penis. Bond stops being defined by his actions, and is reduced to his cock n balls.*

Do you believe, in defiance of biology, physiology and psychology, that the only difference between a man and woman is genitalia? If so, why?

 

[Jute88]

You can genderbend him (or anyone for that matter), but I feel that it wouldn't be James Bond anymore. I feel him being a man is somewhat integral part of him. Bond being a woman would feel a bit off, atleast to me. If you want cool female spies, there's Joanna Dark and, um.... frell, I'm drawing a blank.

 

[JimB]

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.

If the movie goes through literally all the same beats as a Bond movie except for the inversion of penis to vagina ratio, then I think I'd be compelled to describe it as a Bond movie, because to do otherwise is to say that the only Bond characteristic that matters toward his definition is his penis. Bond stops being defined by his actions, and is reduced to his cock n balls.

Do you believe, in defiance of biology, physiology and psychology, that the only difference between a man and woman is genitalia?

I'm not a hundred percent sure what's going on here. Do you think that's what I said? Or do you think I hold real people and fictional characters to similar standards?

 

[aeroblaster]

If you want to know what James Bond's character would be like if it was genderbent, just watch the Kingsman movie and observe the Lancelot character. She is essentially a female James Bond.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

There is no argument, the code-name's always been wrong. Skyfall was the latest nail in the coffin but there has been continuity between different Bond actors before - Moore laying flowers at Tracy's grace, for instance. It only exists because some people can't accept, for whatever reason, and almost exclusively for this one character, that different actors have played the same character, and that that character has undergone several soft-reboots.You would never bother arguing, for instance, that Christian Bale and Ben Affleck's Bruce Waynes / Batmen are 'codename' versions of Kevin Conroy's just to excuse the change in actor.

(I really don't know why but the whole thing really rustles my jimmies.)

 

[Vault101]

snip.

gender-bending bond at least as an "idea" makes us consider our veiws on how we veiw gender

just what is a "female bond" anyway? is it a highly femme heterosexual woman who goes after men? or is she a lesbain? can the dynamic of the former ever truly be the same as the original bond? my answer is no because its a subversion and subversion cannot have the same weight as what they are subverting

 

[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.

There is no argument, the code-name's always been wrong. Skyfall was the latest nail in the coffin but there has been continuity between different Bond actors before - Moore laying flowers at Tracy's grace, for instance. It only exists because some people can't accept, for whatever reason, and almost exclusively for this one character, that different actors have played the same character, and that that character has undergone several soft-reboots.You would never bother arguing, for instance, that Christian Bale and Ben Affleck's Bruce Waynes / Batmen are 'codename' versions of Kevin Conroy's just to excuse the change in actor.

(I really don't know why but the whole thing really rustles my jimmies.)

For me it's because the idea of a super secret agent using their own name while on missions just seems incredibly stupid. I also hate continuities that use different actors meant to be the same character. If each Bond was a different Bond in a separate universe that would be one thing but saying it's been the same guy since the 60's who hasn't aged with no mention of different technologies or why he looks different just seems like a massive plot-hole.

While Bale and Affleck play the same character it isn't the same Batman/Wayne. It's Batman/Wayne set in a different movie universe. If someone high up in the movie studio came out and said that each new Bond actor is a different Bond in a separate movie universe I could accept that. As a continuity though with the different decades that have gone by a code-name makes so much more sense than an ageless immortal that gets plastic surgery every so often.

 

[Silvanus]

can the dynamic of the former ever truly be the same as the original bond? my answer is no because its a subversion and subversion cannot have the same weight as what they are subverting

It can have greater weight, though, of the original trope is so ubiquitous as Bond's hyper-virility is.