Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Mach5, Jul 11, 2017.
Barbara also said there would never be a female Bond for as long as she's in charge. Bleah.
That's fair. I'll never buy another ticket to a Bond film as long as she's in charge either. I wish more people felt the same.
Progress is not being afraid to create a female secret agent in the Bond universe. Sticking a woman in the Bond role would be the stupidest idea ever. Just do what they did with Judy Dench. They were able to cast a female M but did it without retconning the previous actors.
When DC decided they wanted a strong female superhero, they didnt change Superman. They created Wonder Woman and Supergirl. And this was back in the 1940s.Not sure why this is so difficult for people of 2019 to understand.
I remember Michael G. Wilson talking repeatedly about trying to get a female-led spin-off movie (series) going, as early as with Barbara Bach's Anya Amasova from "The Spy Who Loved Me", and twice during the Brosnan-era, first with Michelle Yeoh's Wai Lin, and again with Halle Berry's Jinx Johnson. I'd have loved to see one of them materialized, especially Wai Lin.
Why do they need to drink from this drinking fountain when they can go put one in over there?
Well, I for one know that if the next Harry Potter, in the inevitable streaming adaptation of the books, isn't a woman and a little person, the discriminationists will have won again...
Dunno if that was just some weak attempt at a gotcha fallacy, but gender-swapping Potter is an inevitability, probably not long after Newt is done. As far as a little person, well the Potterverse is full of magical little people, so it's not a stretch to think the girl who lived could be one.
Nice try though.
On the contrary, I think you've proved my point: that some, like you, evidently believe that such basic character fundamentals as gender and extremes of height are always fair game for exchange/radical alteration. It's a valid opinion/personal aesthetic, but it's not the only valid opinion/aesthetic around, and holding it doesn't in of itself make you any more enlightened than the next person.
Personally, I have no problem with the Bond movies/franchise exploring the characters of female agents, but I view a female James Bond him/it/herself as an idea as pointless and unnecessary as Prince Daniel, the "Wonder Man" of Themiscyra. Not offensive or insulting or anything like that, but pointless and unnecessary.
Yeah I'm fairly relaxed about most casting but I don't want a female Bond (and I have a female friend who's a massive Bond fan and she's even less keen on the idea than I am!)
Not saying you couldn't make it work, but I think the amount of tinkering you'd need to do would radically change the character.
That said if they were going to do it clearly it'd need to be Emily Blunt
Bond is very much a reactionary male character, almost to the point of toxic masculinity (certainly as envisaged by Fleming). I mean, yeah, I guess you could have a woman play him that way (womanising, cold-blooded, hard-living) but I’m not sure what the point would be.
I think there’s a logic and an internal consistency to making eg The Doctor female. But making Bond female strikes me as a bit like making a Mr Marple or Buddy The Vampire Slayer; change for the sake of it.
Now, if someone was to make a revionist film showing that Miss Moneypenny was actually the real brains behind the scene, constantly rescuing 007 without his ever realising it (think Maid Marion and her Merry Men but for Bond), I’m in.
^Well put. You're just doing it for the sake of it rather than any narrative benefit.
Now a black or South Asian Bond, on the other hand, I have no problem with (hell I wanted Colin Salmon to get a shot after Brosnan was unceremoniously ejected out of the franchise's DB5!
Without doing another grounds-up reboot, a "female James Bond" isn't ever going to happen, and so it's pointless, IMO, to debate the point here in this particular thread .
And the same thing applies to discussion about a non-Caucasian male James Bond.
Just. Create. A. New. Character.
Five words. Five, simple words. Here's 8 more: Then. Give. Her. A. Franchise. Of. Her. Own.
Bond is a man. Bond is not a woman. Bond was never intended to be a woman, doesn't need to be a woman, should never be a woman. Period.
Just create a new female spy and give her a franchise of movies. Why change Bond? Oh, that's right...Bond has name-recognition and pedigree. That 60 years of name recognition gives you credit in the bank, because in the back of their mind, they're not sure if a "new female spy" can carry her own franchise. Pretty sexist, isn't it? Yeah. And lazy, too.
Leave Bond alone. And Indiana Jones, too. Leave them both alone, as they were envisioned.
So did I. Hell, he was Brosnan's stand-in during the initial Bond girl screen tests. He would've been awesome. So would Idris Elba, honestly. I don't know who's getting it after Craig and honestly I'd be okay with anyone at this point. Just not a woman. There is literally no point to it besides arbitrary woke nonsense.
I can think of numerous reasons why doing a full-stop reboot of the James Bond IP with a gender-bent version of the character might be done other than "wokeness" (whatever that actually means):
- Brand expansion
- New narrative avenues
- IP revitalization
I don't personally think this is something that will ever happen, but I can still comprehend the reasons why it might be done if they did decide to do it.
IP revitalization already happened twice in Craig's tenure. Casino Royale and Skyfall. Brand expansion happened with Skyfall....being the most successful of the Bond films since the original 1960's era (even adjusted for inflation). So neither of those points fly. "New narrative avenues," yes....that would happen. But again...why co-opt Bond when you could just create a NEW character and NEW franchise?
That, when it comes down to it, is the central point. Why co-opt Bond when you could just launch a wholly new franchise and character? One expressly created and meant to be female? So you don't have to move into a brand with 60 years of history (almost 70 if you count the books)? WHY?
There's no good answer. And they know it. It's far better to just create a new character, with her own space, her own universe, her own reason for being. But they'd rather peddle woke points because they're either lazy, or afraid to do it because doing it would mean finding a new audience rather than plugging into the existing Bond audience.
If you're going to use the damn word, use it properly.
Woke in the context you're using it in refers to awareness on matters of a racial matter, African-American in particular. Turning James Bond into a woman is not an example of "being woke."
But the very article you've linked to says:
Social justice and racial justice. I'd say gender equality falls under that heading, wouldn't you?
Um....they are. Daniel Craig will be playing James Bond, a man. Not a woman. Lashana Lynch will be playing a New. Character. who gets the code name 007 after Bond has retired/quit/faked his own death again/whatever other plot mechanics they use to take Bond temporarily out of service until he comes back and most likely takes 007 back, or retires for good (because Craig doesn't want to come back).
I guess that's one interpretation. I got the impression from the article that it was exclusively a racial thing, but maybe that's just me.
Those words are literally in the article. I’ve quoted a paragraph verbatim.
Separate names with a comma.