What Would The Reaction To A Female Bond (007, that is) Be?

[Eri]

The idea of taking an established franchise and simply gender flipping it has got to be the laziest, most insincere, dumbest way to write anything. Especially if you're doing it to appear more politically correct and accommodating of other demographics.

Really, rather than writing new, interesting characters, people are just saying "screw it, let's just make the same thing again but with a chick instead of a dude. That will shut people up with very little actual work on our behalf."

That's what I think any time I hear people suggesting stuff like "hey, let's make Zelda with a female Link" or "Let's remake 007 with a woman". Just a lazy cop out, and bad pandering. People deserve more.

I agree on most counts... but there is a slight difference regarding the Link scenario. We're not playing as the same character in most Zelda games. They are all green-clad, sword-wielding heroes called "Link", but they live in different time periods (with a few exceptions like Wind Waker + Phantom Hourglass). They are all linked by destiny/fate/legend/whatever-you-wanna-call-it, but there is nothing which has laid down that all of them MUST be male. As Bob said, it can fit very easily into the canon. "On this occasion, the hero of time was born a woman" is all the justification in would need lore-wise.

James Bond on the other hand is an established character. Sure there have been several actors, but they all play the exact same James Bond written by Ian Fleming. The idea of gender-swapping him, or indeed any established character like him/her, does seem lazy to me and I'd just wonder "why do it", but Link is a unique case where it would fit with the story. It's why people are forever questioning whether/when Nintendo will do it with him and not Mario.

Quoted for truth. Stop trying to change already existing characters for the sake of "inclusion". Piss off with that.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Most wouldn't care and i doubt it would take off as a franchise.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I don't think Ian Fleming's James Bond was intended as a male power fantasy. Bond is a miserable human being who is consciously destroying his body with his lifestyle. That's what Thunderball was about. M send Bond to the health retreat, and for a brief period of time, Bond got a taste of what life could be like without the constant hangovers and self-loathing and general ill health. But when duty calls, he lurches right back into his destructive lifestyle because, I think, James Bond needs to drink himself into oblivion and eat large amounts of fried food as a coping mechanism to deal with the fact that Bond actually hates his job. Bond isn't actually having fun most of the time. It's this jaded slog where everyday James Bond pulls on his shoes and drowns out the negative thoughts with more alcohol.

In my view, GoldenEye is the best Bond film precisely because its story is so jaded and Bond is so unhappy and cynical about the world and his job and the people he works for and the people he doesn't work for. None of the other Bond films have such a bitterness underpinning them, I don't think.

I think female Bond is a bad idea. It has this nasty whiff of comic book logic to it. I'm unhappy enough with the dramatic writing changes in Craig-era Bond, where the British-centric material was stripped away to create something more "international".

 

[VanQ]

Leave Bond alone, people like that franchise for how it is.

Make a Kim Possible movie instead.

Then everyone wins. A Kim Possible Movie would be awesome.

 

[Battenberg]

I don't know about the general reaction but mine would be dependent on how good a job she does. After all my enjoyment of the Bond films is not in any way tied in to what genatalia Bond has.

That said I would kind of understand people being upset I guess. Kind of.

 

[Batou667]

...so a female Bond breaks suspension of disbelief, but all the other cartoony nonsense (invisible cars, moon bases, etc) in the series doesn't?

It's not so much a question of realism, but internal consistency.

I think it'd be an interesting way to explore the icon, explore gender roles, perceptions of gender associated sexuality, action tropes, and so on.

Yeah, it probably would be interesting. It also couldn't help but completely alter the tone and focus of the franchise though. I'm not at all opposed to the idea of a thought-provoking female spy franchise that plays with the issues you mentioned, but I wouldn't be prepared to sacrifice the established Bond series to that end.

My stance towards 99% of gender/race-swapped characters is: if it's such a great idea, it should be able to stand alone without hijacking some (usually) white dude's legacy.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

Slight difference in that Obama happens not to be a fictional character. And that Bond has been reinvented a few times already, but mostly the thing about him not being real.

It's really slight. Bond is Bond.Mug is mug. Obama is Obama. Each has certain definition. Change the definition - and you change an object, thus making this object not what it is.

Man, that goes against so many linguistical theories and established facts about how our language develops I don't even know where to begin. Not to mention the metaphysical implications a statement like that has.

 

[Rastrelly]

Next they should make Obama's biopic, but make him white. And woman.

Slight difference in that Obama happens not to be a fictional character. And that Bond has been reinvented a few times already, but mostly the thing about him not being real.

It's really slight. Bond is Bond.Mug is mug. Obama is Obama. Each has certain definition. Change the definition - and you change an object, thus making this object not what it is.

Man, that goes against so many linguistical theories and established facts about how our language develops I don't even know where to begin. Not to mention the metaphysical implications a statement like that has.

You did not understand what I mean or what? I'll give you an example then:
A chair is a piece of furniture with a raised surface commonly used to seat a single person. Chairs are supported most often by four legs and have a back; however, a chair can have three legs or could have a different shape. (c) Wikipedia
Now let's change this definition, won't we? Let's make it so (I made the only word I added bold):
A chair is a piece of furniture with a raised surface commonly used to seat a single person. Chairs are supported most often by four legs and don't have a back; however, a chair can have three legs or could have a different shape.
Now we have a definition of a chair. Which is in fact a definition of stool. Which is not a chair in the slightest!!

But it's sooooo contradictory to laws of whatever I don't care at all!

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Personally, I'm just tired of the lone Gun thing. I would really love to see a collection of 00's go at it. Playing off their strengths, seeing what other personality types leads to being a double 00. Seeing how the training works for different people.

I'm one for the camp of 00's being a code name. But I always liked the further idea is that you send a certain 00 for a certain job. James goes in for recon and sabotage. Ok. Show me the Wetwork 00. The MacGyver 00. The Chameleon 00 that you send to blend in and infiltrate. And show me the movie that needs all of them for one mission. You will get all of my money then.

Yeah, it probably would be interesting. It also couldn't help but completely alter the tone and focus of the franchise though. I'm not at all opposed to the idea of a thought-provoking female spy franchise that plays with the issues you mentioned, but I wouldn't be prepared to sacrifice the established Bond series to that end.

My stance towards 99% of gender/race-swapped characters is: if it's such a great idea, it should be able to stand alone without hijacking some (usually) white dude's legacy.

You see, that in lies the problem.

People don't want to Hijack legacies per se. They'd like to make their own characters. And if the character is female, a minority, or gay and is a leading powerful character... Fandom comes with the "PC ALARM! PC ALARM!". It's PC to make a character with some abilities that happens to be a minority/female/Non-cis normative. Like the only way the world can be good and pure is if we just only write our minority characters as second class.

Before Kamala Khan became the new Ms Marvel, there have been three other versions. All different women, but all white. We have one Muslim American and the world loses it's collective shit?

And Spiderman? Well... damn. Ok Gerald Drew [http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Gerald_Drew_(Earth-982)], Ben Reilly [http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Peter_Parker_(Ben_Reilly)_(Earth-616)], Kaine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaine], Mayday Parker [http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/May_Parker_(Earth-982)]... But the world stopped when Miles Morales came on the scene.

So the climate is thus: Have a powerful original minority character, the world accuses you of pandering. Have a good minority legacy character, the world vilifies you for changing what they love for PC... even if what they love has more iterations than the game of poker.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I dont understand the gender swapping thing. What would be the problem with making a female spy movie in the Bond style. Perhaps even the same universe? Why does she have to be 007? Its one of those hypocritical things that I just dont get. Anita Sarkesian complains about Miss Pac Man simply being "Pac man with a bow", but then we have people pushing for gender diversity by "putting a bow" on established male characters (e.g. "girl Bond" or "girl Thor")

 

[Cowabungaa]

But it's sooooo contradictory to laws of whatever I don't care at all!

If you 'don't care at all' then don't get yourself into linguistic-metaphysical discussions and don't fuck around with concepts related to that.

A 'chair' can be called 'gobblygook' and nothing about the actual object changes. Words have changed meaning more than once throughout history. 'Fag' used to just refer to a cigarette, now it's a derogatory term for gay people too. Same goes with Bond; the concept can change and you can easily still call it 'Bond'. Hell, it has done so before. The Bond in the novels is nothing like Sean Connery or Roger Moore's Bond characters. 'Bond' is not necessarily 'Bond' just as, in Dutch, a 'bank' (a sofa) is not necessarily a 'bank' (a place where you can do your banking). A 'crane' is not necessarily a 'crane' either, one can go on and on.

So it's a nonsensical argument for why the Bond character couldn't be played by a woman.

 

[silver wolf009]

The name's Bond...Jane Bond.

A question that popped up into my mind while at work today (I do criminal background searches for hiring purposes) as I came across a lady who had the last name of Bond was "Hmmm...I wonder what the reaction would be if Bond was gender-swapped."

Now I have no doubt they could have a female Bond pulling off all the sneaky-sneaky infiltration/espionage/sabotage stuff...but what about that other aspect of Bond? The fact that he ends up fucking pretty much every woman he meets? How well would that be received if Bond was gender-flipped? What would the reaction be to a female agent jet-setting around the world and bumpin' uglies with every handsome man she comes across?

First, foremost, and most importantly, it would basically cement the theory that in universe "James Bond" is a legacy character.

Screw whatever gender politics anyone might have, an expansion to the canon trumps all activism. Depending on when it's set, we might also find out that other characters are legacy too, what with what happened in Skyfall.

 

[Gretha Unterberg]

I guess the "This is more Jason Bourne then Sean Connery" critic
will be replaced by "This is more Black Widow then Sean Connery"

I think the bond francise "reinvented" itself beyon recognition years ago.
(Dosn't mean I didn't like Goldeneye)

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

"If it's not broken why fix it" is my main reaction.

 

[Rastrelly]

But it's sooooo contradictory to laws of whatever I don't care at all!

If you 'don't care at all' then don't get yourself into linguistic-metaphysical discussions and don't fuck around with concepts related to that.

A 'chair' can be called 'gobblygook' and nothing about the actual object changes. Words have changed meaning more than once throughout history. 'Fag' used to just refer to a cigarette, now it's a derogatory term for gay people too. Same goes with Bond; the concept can change and you can easily still call it 'Bond'. Hell, it has done so before. The Bond in the novels is nothing like Sean Connery or Roger Moore's Bond characters. 'Bond' is not necessarily 'Bond' just as, in Dutch, a 'bank' (a sofa) is not necessarily a 'bank' (a place where you can do your banking). A 'crane' is not necessarily a 'crane' either, one can go on and on.

So it's a nonsensical argument for why the Bond character couldn't be played by a woman.

Thanks for enlightening me! I was so stupid before! OK, mr. Metaphysics, let me ask you then... If a new Shadowrun game will be released, but it will be a GTA-clone set in real-life Brooklyn, will it still be a Shadowrun game? 'cause by your concept it sure will!

 

[Cowabungaa]

Thanks for enlightening me! I was so stupid before! OK, mr. Metaphysics, let me ask you then... If a new Shadowrun game will be released, but it will be a GTA-clone set in real-life Brooklyn, will it still be a Shadowrun game? 'cause by your concept it sure will!

It would be, yes. A very shitty and weird one and a million voices would ask what they'd done to our beloved Shadowrun, but yeah it would be. 'Shadowrun' is just a name, a convention we made, and that can change to refer to something else. Just like what happened to 'fag' or more recently with 'swag', meaning isn't a fixed thing.

And again, to stay ontopic, the same in a milder way happened to Bond. Movie-Bond (up until Craig) was way different from book-Bond. That doesn't make either of them less Bond.

There's no 'real' Bond as there isn't a 'real' chair, those names we have for things are just symbols we manipulate, symbols that have meaning thanks to convention. And conventions can change.

 

[Rastrelly]

Thanks for enlightening me! I was so stupid before! OK, mr. Metaphysics, let me ask you then... If a new Shadowrun game will be released, but it will be a GTA-clone set in real-life Brooklyn, will it still be a Shadowrun game? 'cause by your concept it sure will!

It would be, yes. A very shitty and weird one and a million voices would ask what they'd done to our beloved Shadowrun, but yeah it would be. 'Shadowrun' is just a name, a convention we made, and that can change to refer to something else. Just like what happened to 'fag' or more recently with 'swag', meaning isn't a fixed thing.

And again, to stay ontopic, the same in a milder way happened to Bond. Movie-Bond (up until Craig) was way different from book-Bond. That doesn't make either of them less Bond.

There's no 'real' Bond as there isn't a 'real' chair, those names we have for things are just symbols we manipulate, symbols that have meaning thanks to convention. And conventions can change.

Mmmmm, I cannot agree. While from philosophical (or even purely linguistic) standpoint it is so, from hardcore materialistic standpoint it isn't. An item is an item, whatever you call it. When someone gives you a piece of shite and tells it's a candy, while, yes, you can tell it's a very shitty candy, you supposedly won't. You'll say it's a piece of shit, not candy. (Or a piece of candy, if it's a historical moment when shit is called candy, and candy is called shit). Of course Bond changed, a lot. But there is a shark-jumping moment. For me it happened when Craig's movies came in, because at that moment Bond turned into a weak parody of Bourne and lost identity (BTW, it's not that close to book Bond as well; it's closer than any one of them before, but still). It's all subjective, of course, when media products come into play, but it's plain territory of nonsense with female Bond, because what definitely defines Bond it's his stereotypical masculinity of certain kind. Remember Doom movie? Well, it's obviously not Doom: there are no Demons or hell, but it's obvious Resident Evil, 'cause there are virus and mutants (and peak of cinematic RE popularity). We can dive into wordplay however deep we want, we can call whatever we want however we want, but objects are what they are, they don't care what we call them. Female Bond will not be bond, it will be something else. But suit-wearing martini-drinking expensive car-driving spy Joe actually WILL be Bond. IMO it's that simple.

 

[inmunitas]

We've already had a female Bond-esque video game series that did quite well, or are you specifically meaning altering the existing Bond franchise?

Spoiler

 

[BishopofAges]

I tried guys, I really tried to think of something serious to say about this idea. You guys beat me to all of it, six pages worth because I'm always late to the party.

Instead I am now going to list off the names of potential male sex icons for lady Bond to have in her movies:

Maxim Wellhung
Jordan Undereach
Deeptongue
Hannibal Fist
Steven Stroker
Gene Ryder
Shaft (damn right)
Sta'ev Un'dres (pronounced State of Undress)

Well that's all I got, and I hope its not derailing, but hey! This is my true reaction to a female Bond character.

 

[ServebotFrank]

They would have to completely rework her character. The whole point of Bond is that he's the "ideal man" from the fifties, I have no problem with him being a woman but he can't be the same character. She would have to different in some way and once you do that, you might as well not even call her Jane Bond or even 007. She's a completely different.

I would have to agree with Adam Jensen up above. James Bond's gender is central to his character, you cannot change that and have the woman act the same without it being weird. You can totally change his race and that's fine, it's not like only white men can be suave or something.

Just make a new character that's similar to him but is a different Gender and make a new franchise out of it. Sure would be a lot less controversial and you accomplish the same goals.