Bond 25: No Time To Die

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

like Lashana Lynch's 005 (is she really 005? I had assumed she was taking over the 007 number).

I dunno! I read somewhere that Lashana Lynch's character would not be 007, but the 005 is just me giving her a random number.
Sorry about not making this clear.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The right approach for doing a Bond-inflected film with a female 00 is just to take a page from Marvel and create Bond Cinematic Universe with a spin-off character, like Lashana Lynch's 005 (is she really 005? I had assumed she was taking over the 007 number). I'd possibly even pay to see it (though I admit I haven't seen a Bond film in a movie theatre since Goldeneye) if it looked good. 

ETA x2: In fact, the perfect spin-off would have a female 00 get set up to look like a traitor, and have an implacable,   uncompromisingly merciless James Bond chasing after her until matters resolve in some climactic turn which emphasizes both Bond's deep flaws and also exhibiting those virtues fans usually adore, but making them even more problematic when he is used to do bad things rather than good things. But I feel like this film has been done before, just not with Bond... oh, Haywire I guess is kind of close, with Michael Fassbender basically playing a James Bond type...

Agreed. I like your scenario, and I think it's quite possible that No time to die will somewhat go in that direction. Anyway her character will certainly be used to emphasize James Bond's flaws.

Alternatively, as far as a good "female Bond" goes, I'd nominate Lisbeth Salander, she ticks many of the right boxes while avoiding the pitfalls underlined by kuenjato.

[john]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But I'm bored enough with my work to say that your (or John's or Raja's) disregard for fiction makes me uncomfortable to say the least.

For someone who has such regard for fiction you seem awfully concerned about limiting its possibilities.

[Ran]

12 hours ago, john said:

For someone who has such regard for fiction you seem awfully concerned about limiting its possibilities.

Does this mean that you would approve a non-British, non-spy James Bond? James Bond, Swiss Stockbroker? James Bond, Aussie Fry Cook? James Bond, Dominican Dog Walker?

If not, then you, too, are interested in limiting the possibilities because you define the character as having some specific core identifiers. Otherwise, there is little reason to want a "female James Bond" because "James Bond" is just a name that has nothing attached to it, nothing at the core of the character.

To me, a female James Bond is as paradoxical as a male Wonder Woman. Whereas a female 007 is fine. 

[john]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Does this mean that you would approve a non-British, non-spy James Bond? James Bond, Swiss Stockbroker? James Bond, Aussie Fry Cook? James Bond, Dominican Dog Walker?

I'm not sure approve is the right choice of word. I would almost certainly find those absurd story choices. Why would a stockbroker or a dog walker get in a knock down fistfight or jump from a motorbike into the cargo hold of an aeroplane? You've have to do an awful lot of work to maintain the suspension of disbelief. Whereas I think changing the gender is as little of a stumbling block as changing the ethnicity (why is this not a core identifier)? 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

To me, a female James Bond is as paradoxical as a male Wonder Woman. Whereas a female 007 is fine. 

I still haven't heard a satisfying reason as to what the difference is between a different but similar female 007 and a gender switched Bond. Incongruity is not reason enough in a series incorporating frequent soft reboots.

[mormont]

On 1/19/2020 at 3:50 PM, Rippounet said:

And yours is fallacious.

Which fallacy does it contain?

Let's just accept that it's a reasonable argument: the films featuring that Bond still exist, are still watched and sold and viewed on streaming services, and move on. To do otherwise would be to argue that the character must be set in stone, cannot evolve, and that is demonstrably untrue and undesirable. 

On 1/19/2020 at 3:50 PM, Rippounet said:

That's kind of a circular argument, saying that because adaptations have strayed far from the source material said source material can be almost completely disregarded in the future.

That's not a circular argument at all: again, it's a perfectly reasonable description of what happens to fiction in every culture. If it persists, it evolves. From ancient myths to bardic sagas to Bond, that's just how stories work. 

On 1/19/2020 at 3:50 PM, Rippounet said:

Yes. And let's stop tiptoeing around the issue, shall we? We're discussing how far more inclusive representation in fiction should go. Gender or race-switching is one thing when it doesn't change the core characteristics of a fictional character (like changing Hermione Granger's race), and another when it does change the very nature of a character or of the fictional work as a whole.

The problem with this argument is that there are substantial numbers of people who were willing to insist (and still insist) that changing Hermione's race would change the core of the character. Those people were wrong, of course. There are those, also, who insisted that allowing the Doctor to regenerate into a woman would do the same. They were also wrong. The burden is therefore on you to explain why you are right in this case. 

Besides, altering the core of a character isn't wrong per se. It can and does lead to interesting new takes. It's only wrong if it doesn't allow for an interesting story. Respect for previous stories is all well and good, but it should never be allowed to stand in the way of interesting new stories, IMO.

21 hours ago, kuenjato said:

Mewling about "representation" by this point is a pretty hollow argument. 

The point at which you decide to characterise the opposition as 'mewling' is really the point at which you highlight the hollowness of your own argument, I'm afraid. 

 

[Ran]

3 hours ago, john said:

I'm not sure approve is the right choice of word. I would almost certainly find those absurd story choices. Why would a stockbroker or a dog walker get in a knock down fistfight or jump from a motorbike into the cargo hold of an aeroplane?

So you're limiting him to being an action hero. How quaint.  And you don't seem to find his not being British a problem at all, as you don't address it. Is that true? If he were an American, that's fine? If he were a blue-collar working class person without even a pretense of being posh, is that okay?

Quote

You've have to do an awful lot of work to maintain the suspension of disbelief. Whereas I think changing the gender is as little of a stumbling block as changing the ethnicity (why is this not a core identifier)? 

He is British. There's Brits of all sorts of ethnicity. So long as he's an upper-crust Brit, it doesn't really matter. It's quite one thing to recognize demographics and political structures change and adjust, but as PWB indicates, part of the truth of his character is his misogyny and that can't just go away from the character. He is doomed to become ever more a dinosaur, a man out of step. He's literally treated like that in this new movie, it seems, bringing it back full circle to Vesper identifying and skewering his misogyny in Casino Royale.

The only way I could see the concept of a  "female James Bond" happening in film is if SPECTRE grabs hold of Bond and uses some woo-woo technology to transfer his mind into a woman's body. That feels like a premise of the Roger Moore-era, which borrowed more science fiction tropes, but there you go. This is more "James Bond in a woman's body" than "female James Bond", since the latter is an oxymoron, but it'd be a way to play with the character's masculinity and misogyny in a way that hasn't been done before.

[john]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

So you're limiting him to being an action hero. How quaint.  And you don't seem to find his not being British a problem at all, as you don't address it. Is that true? If he were an American, that's fine? If he were a blue-collar working class person without even a pretense of being posh, is that okay?

Is all this a likely consequence of changing the gender? As a message board admin I’m sure you’re familiar with reductio ad absurdum?  

2 hours ago, Ran said:

He is British. There's Brits of all sorts of ethnicity. So long as he's an upper-crust Brit, it doesn't really matter. It's quite one thing to recognize demographics and political structures change and adjust, but as PWB indicates, part of the truth of his character is his misogyny and that can't just go away from the character. He is doomed to become ever more a dinosaur, a man out of step. He's literally treated like that in this new movie, it seems, bringing it back full circle to Vesper identifying and skewering his misogyny in Casino Royale.

Why is his white privilege not worth skewering? But you’re right, the ethnicity doesn’t matter. The misogyny doesn’t matter either. What matters about a fictional character is that they reflect their fictional background and fictional experiences, the truth of the character as you put it. Bond is an orphan, attended posh boys boarding schools, was a military operative since he was a teenager. That’s the foundation of his character, that’s what makes him an alpha male misogynist. A black James Bond would have a different truth (you really think it would have no effect being the only, or one of the only, black boys at Fettes?) And a female Bond would have another different truth. Neither of which matters to the actual core of the character.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The only way I could see the concept of a  "female James Bond" happening in film is if SPECTRE grabs hold of Bond and uses some woo-woo technology to transfer his mind into a woman's body.

I'm decidedly ambivalent on this discussion - although I do think building up a female 00_ during the Bond series then trying to launch her own franchise sounds like a good compromise - but this is probably the least appealing idea I've heard.  Reminds of the Family Guy where Quagmire becomes a woman:

 

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, john said:

Is all this a likely consequence of changing the gender?

No, the point is that I'm trying to divine what the core traits of James Bond are to you, and so far all I can tell is that his core trait is that he's a lead character in action movies. You seem unwillingly to actually engage with the idea that there are core traits that make a character what they are, and if you remove them they aren't that any more. It's one thing to dispute whether his misogyny and masculinity are core traits or not (though the fact that he quite literally has a male name makes this nearly as absurd as a male Wonder Woman), but the idea that he has no absolutely no intrinsic core traits besides the action movie thing leaves me with little idea of how we can talk about this sensibly.

26 minutes ago, john said:

 

Why is his white privilege not worth skewering?

Does making him black or Asian "skewer" his white privilege? He's no longer white, ergo...

You skewer things by skewering them, not by replacing them with something else.

26 minutes ago, john said:

The misogyny doesn’t matter either.

That's where we disagree. It's one of the most famous things revealed or said about the character in the films, whether it's Judi Dench calling him out in Goldeneye or Vesper Lynde doing much the same in Casino Royale. 

26 minutes ago, john said:

What matters about a fictional character is that they reflect their fictional background and fictional experiences, the truth of the character as you put it. Bond is an orphan, attended posh boys boarding schools,

Have we accidentally gotten you around to my way of thinking? How can a female James Bond have attended posh boys boarding schools? A transwoman Bond would be potentially fascinating, I'd say, if you really explore it, but really stepping into some landmine laced territory and would probably not be commercial at all, sadly.

 

26 minutes ago, john said:

A black James Bond would have a different truth (you really think it would have no effect being the only, or one of the only, black boys at Fettes?)

I'm sure he would. He'd also be a womanizing misogynist because he's James Bond.

26 minutes ago, john said:

And a female Bond would have another different truth. Neither of which matters to the actual core of the character.

I think we're making progress, because different truths that exist don't necessarily mean the core is changed. The Roger Moore Bond suggests a different truth, a different way of doing things and interacting with the world, than the Connery Bond, than the Dalton bond (my favorite, by the by), than the Brosnan Bond, and yet all the Bonds have shared core traits, some of which are part of that male power fantasy, or express toxic masculinity. You can absolutely comment on these things in the films (and they have, increasingly), you can absolutely skewer these aspects (and they have, increasingly), but they are what make James Bond James Bond. At least to me, and seemingly the producers and writers.

 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm decidedly ambivalent on this discussion - although I do think building up a female 00_ during the Bond series then trying to launch her own franchise sounds like a good compromise - but this is probably the least appealing idea I've heard.  Reminds of the Family Guy where Quagmire becomes a woman:

 

I was thinking more of Ellen Barkin in Switch. What an image, though...

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

I was thinking more of Ellen Barkin in Switch. What an image, though...

Heh, yeah that's quite a contrast in frames of reference.

[Rippounet]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let's just accept that it's a reasonable argument: the films featuring that Bond still exist, are still watched and sold and viewed on streaming services, and move on. To do otherwise would be to argue that the character must be set in stone, cannot evolve, and that is demonstrably untrue and undesirable. 

That's not a circular argument at all: again, it's a perfectly reasonable description of what happens to fiction in every culture. If it persists, it evolves. From ancient myths to bardic sagas to Bond, that's just how stories work.

Reception theory is descriptive, not normative. That fiction is continuously evolving does not absolve you of justifying a specific change you want to happen.

In other words this is a minor variation on what is called the naturalistic fallacy.

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

Besides, altering the core of a character isn't wrong per se. It can and does lead to interesting new takes. It's only wrong if it doesn't allow for an interesting story.

Not my perspective (sounds like a sort of Theseus ship paradox to me), but a fair argument nonetheless.
Or it would be, if anyone had bothered to explain what kind of interesting story is allowed by a female Bond, what "new takes" it would lead to, how it can boost the franchise, whether it can offer anything on masculinity and femininity, or toxicity... etc.
Instead the gender switch has been presented as an absolute necessity and people who didn't quite buy it have been asked to justify their opposition, i.e. change was presented as a given (natural), and the burden of proof was placed on those who resisted it.
You're still playing this game too (arguing that others' previous mistakes somehow puts the burden of proof on me (sorry, it does not)).
No one has explained what's interesting about a female Bond. That question has gone unanswered for days and now we're almost losing sight of the fact that this is a change that's not popular and not going to happen anyway.
I get that you're disappointed, but it was never on me to explain to you why it's not going to happen. The longer this discussion goes on and the less it's going to be about James Bond. Where it's going is showing just how dogmatic people can be about inclusive representation.

[john]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

No, the point is that I'm trying to divine what the core traits of James Bond are to you, and so far all I can tell is that his core trait is that he's a lead character in action movies. You seem unwillingly to actually engage with the idea that there are core traits that make a character what they are, and if you remove them they aren't that any more. It's one thing to dispute whether his misogyny and masculinity are core traits or not (though the fact that he quite literally has a male name makes this nearly as absurd as a male Wonder Woman), but the idea that he has no absolutely no intrinsic core traits besides the action movie thing leaves me with little idea of how we can talk about this sensibly.

I'm not sure it's relevant, other than I clearly don't think being male is one of them. But all right, yes, I do think being British and posh are both traits that it'd be harder to change within the character.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Does making him black or Asian "skewer" his white privilege? He's no longer white, ergo...

You skewer things by skewering them, not by replacing them with something else.

I'm not the one who wants the films to skewer things (not sure why you're putting the word in quotes since it's your word). I just wondered why skewering his misogyny is worthwhile, or indeed necessary (thus he has to be male) but skewering his white privilege is not (thus he can be a different ethnicity).

2 hours ago, Ran said:

That's where we disagree. It's one of the most famous things revealed or said about the character in the films, whether it's Judi Dench calling him out in Goldeneye or Vesper Lynde doing much the same in Casino Royale. 

Have we accidentally gotten you around to my way of thinking? How can a female James Bond have attended posh boys boarding schools? A transwoman Bond would be potentially fascinating, I'd say, if you really explore it, but really stepping into some landmine laced territory and would probably not be commercial at all, sadly.

Well that's two times. For most of the films his misogyny is played absolutely straightfaced. Otherwise, it's maybe demonstrated but not commented on.

And I was describing male Bond there. A female Bond would have a different fictional truth, as I said. She'd maybe have attended girls schools. And become an alpha character because of keeping up with men in the army.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I'm sure he would. He'd also be a womanizing misogynist because he's James Bond.

But would he be an imperialistic patriot and casual murderer of dark skinned foreigners? Misogyny is not the only thing about James Bond. This is your conception of the character I'm questioning. You think being a woman changes the character, I'm wondering why you don't think being a black man would also change the character. 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I think we're making progress, because different truths that exist don't necessarily mean the core is changed. The Roger Moore Bond suggests a different truth, a different way of doing things and interacting with the world, than the Connery Bond, than the Dalton bond (my favorite, by the by), than the Brosnan Bond, and yet all the Bonds have shared core traits, some of which are part of that male power fantasy, or express toxic masculinity. You can absolutely comment on these things in the films (and they have, increasingly), you can absolutely skewer these aspects (and they have, increasingly), but they are what make James Bond James Bond. At least to me, and seemingly the producers and writers.

Well, we can definitely agree on something because Dalton is my favourite also. Bond is a flawed, troubled character. He's a raged fuelled alcoholic, resentful of authority while being slavishly loyal to some forms of it. He's a brazen maverick who takes unforgivable risks putting citizens and other agents in danger. There's a lot that makes Bond Bond other than misogyny.

ETA - oh yes, I meant to add that the name is awkward, I'll give you that. There's no easy way around that. But given the switch is not actually going to happen it doesn't really matter.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Instead the gender switch has been presented as an absolute necessity and people who didn't quite buy it have been asked to justify their opposition, i.e. change was presented as a given (natural), and the burden of proof was placed on those who resisted it.

Come on now, don't lump yourself in with Heartofice. Argue your point or don't, nobody cares.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, john said:

I'm not the one who wants the films to skewer things (not sure why you're putting the word in quotes since it's your word). I just wondered why skewering his misogyny is worthwhile, or indeed necessary (thus he has to be male) but skewering his white privilege is not (thus he can be a different ethnicity). 

I've got no particular dog in this hunt like I say but I feel like this one's quite easy- he and the series simply don't actively lean into his white privilege in the same way. Like clearly it's there underpinning the whole Rule Britannia fantasyland aspect but it's passive while Bond tends to be actively mysoginistic, and in any case this fantasyland Britannia fancies itself, if not egalitarian, than as a nation that invites in the world and is beloved by it, and therefore a PoC playing the role doesn't shatter the fantasy (and in fact could quite lean into it) in a way a female Bond would realistically shatter the male-power-fantasy aspect of the mythos.

[Heartofice]

I can buy the argument for making Bond female, for representation reasons. I happen to think that it's a deeply flawed one, but I get why people would want to argue for such a thing. Where I have to get off the bus is when someone tries to argue that  changing James Bond's sex or gender is just a minor flip. That for me is a real sticking point.

Just looking at some of the other variables that have been proposed to change:

Race
On the surface changing Bond's race could be seen as a big change, but in actuality it would probably be entirely cosmetic and make zero difference to any other element of the movie. We already have examples of this. Both Felix and Moneypenny have changed race seamlessly and it has had zero effect on the story or their character. 
Since racial dynamics are rarely brought up in Bond movies and also that race is far less politicised in the UK anyway than the US, you could bring in your Idris Elba without any real dynamic change. 
Viewers are seemingly able to handle the suspension of disbelief of changing actor for James Bond, and I'm sure they would be able to handle this change too. 

Background / Nationality
Changing Bonds nationality would constitute a bigger change. Supposing he was an American in the British Secret Service (if that is even possible) then there might be the odd jab at his nationality and it might potentially change some aspect of his nature, but not necessarily so.
Change it so that he's spying for some other nation and that changes most elements of the movies, they will lose their quintessential Britishness which is part of their charm and reason for existing. Much of the dynamics and recognisable elements of the movies would notably shift. However Bond's character could probably remain very similar, the things he does, the way he treats people, the way people treat him. 
You could imagine back in the day Hollywood insisting on a US version of Bond, they'd still call him James Bond and maybe people wouldn't even notice the difference. But it would be a big loss to the franchise.

Gender / Sex 

Ok so you change James Bond into a woman. Well the first thing you need to do is change the name, so it probably wouldn't be 'James' Bond, let's go with the obvious 'Jane' Bond. So from the very start it's not the same character because there is a different name.

Secondly, suspension of disbelief. Would audiences be able to switch over in their heads and say 'yep, this is the same character as the James Bond in all those other movies'. I really don't think they could. There is a clear delineation between men and women and audiences would struggle to see how this is supposed to be the same character. From the start then nobody is able to assume that this is the same Bond as other movies, it's a clean slate. Might be a positive, might be a negative. But it IS a big change.

Ok then, what about Bond's relationships with other people. That would clearly be a big change, especially romantically. We all recognise Bond as this suave sophisticated womaniser, able to seduce the most fascinating and beautiful women in the world, and that is one of the elements of Bond's character that people enjoy the most.
How does it work with a woman in the role? Is she seducing men? Would that work in the same way? Almost certainly not. Like it or not male / female dynamics are not symmetrical. Do men need the same level of seducing by a beautiful woman as the reverse? Do we believe that is the same thing or will seduction scenes consist of some bloke not believing his luck and hurrying to find a bathroom to make out with Jane. 

How will audiences react to a promiscuous woman? Will it be the same reaction as to James Bond. While it might be interesting to see that reaction, it doesn't mean audience reactions will be the same. You can at this point compare Bond to Killing Eve, where the main character is promiscuous, but she is a character with massive personality flaws who barely feels any humanity at all, and her promiscuity leads out of that. 

Who is she seducing then? Men? Who are these men? Are they dressed sexily? Are the opening credits filled with the dancers from Magic Mike waving their thongs in silhouette? Are these men a bunch of himbos? Badly drawn male models walking out of the sea?

Or is it women? is Jane Bond a lesbian? Well that's a change. How would that work? Will we get a bunch of scenes of women turning her down because they aren't gay. How does her sexuality change the dynamics of her character.

Then there is the misogyny. How does this work with a female? Does she become a misandrist? Is she dismissive of men, does she treat them as set dressing? Does she use her physicality to over power men in the bedroom? Or is she dismissive of women? That would be an odd change. 

Plus if you want to add in some more feminist points to the movies you might want to start bringing up how women are treated differently, how does she deal with authority, how does authority deal with her. Some people might be nicer to her, some might dismiss her. Every single interaction she has with people might have to reflect that she is a woman. But then would the nature of the movies change dramatically to become some political think piece instead of mindless fluff.

Then there is the physical element of it. Most Bond's are played by tall, physically imposing actors, people you could imagine could go toe to toe with the Henchmen of the world. Craig is shorter but really bulked up for the role. A woman would be much smaller than most of the people she fights, she would have to find other ways to take people down. Would audiences be ok with the amount of violence inflicted on James Bond if it's a woman. What about the notorious torture scenes,especially to genitals,  are we ok with those? 

Then what does Jane Bond look like. The iconic shot of Bond wearing a tux and holding a Walther PPK.. well that has to change. Will she wearing a tux? If so,  why? Is a woman wearing a tux and a man wearing a tux sending the same message? Does the iconic shot even exist any more?
Is she walking around in fantastic dresses all day by top designers? Does that mean the same thing. Is she allowed to wear skirts? Is she rough and ready looking like a Daniel Craig... if so how does that still stay glamourous and attractive if it's a woman.  Like it or not men and women are judged differently when it comes to physical attractiveness. 

Then there's the problem of Bond being a male fantasy figure. He is notoriously 'the man that men would to be and women want to be with'. Cast a female and suddenly that is flipped. Actually it's not flipped, because it's unlikely to work the other way around. So who is the movie now for?

---- 

So it seems to me that whatever the rights or wrongs of gender bending James Bond, it would always be a massive change, and I can't imagine anyone being able to accept that it is the same character as the James Bond they already recognise. It would always be seen as a different character.  So while you might be able to keep a number of traits of the character and tropes of the story, there would be so much that would have to change that nobody would be able to accept it. 

Also it would just be a deeply unpopular move. Nobody really wants to see a female Bond, except for Pierce Brosnan, and if we got one and then the movie dies on his ass and is an enormous bomb, what does that do for 'representation'. It would set back the cause by decades. So it's a movie that absolutely HAS to succeed. That's why it would never happen.


 

[john]

@Heartofice

Appreciate the long thoughtful post. Not much I can say to that other than that I disagree with your ultimate premise, that it’s unworkable. Much of what you suggested sounded fine to me. The fact that you can go into such detail shows that the idea is eminently conceivable. And, no offence meant, but the screenwriters and developers would be working on it a lot longer and might come up with something even better.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, john said:

@Heartofice

Appreciate the long thoughtful post. Not much I can say to that other than that I disagree with your ultimate premise, that it’s unworkable. Much of what you suggested sounded fine to me. The fact that you can go into such detail shows that the idea is eminently conceivable. And, no offence meant, but the screenwriters and developers would be working on it a lot longer and might come up with something even better.

I haven't said it's unworkable. The premise is that its a major change. I've laid out all the reasons I believe it a far greater change to the Bond movies and character than simply changing the race of Bond. 

You could probably make anything work if you wanted to. What I've always maintained is that there is a limit to how much you can change before it stops being recognisably James Bond. 

From that point I'd ask, what is the point of making such a fundamental change? There doesn't appear to be any real advantage over simply creating a new character and the potential risks and damage to the franchise (and possibly to female led action movies) means that it makes little sense to push for it.

[mormont]

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

In other words this is a minor variation on what is called the naturalistic fallacy.

Uh, no. The naturalistic fallacy here is surely on the other side: that Bond is 'naturally' male, that his maleness 'naturally' informs his character in ways that would be impossible if he were female, and that this is all just to be taken as read. I mean, the discussion has literally been: Bond has to be male because the core of his character is masculinity. That's an almost perfect illustration of the naturalistic fallacy. 

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Instead the gender switch has been presented as an absolute necessity and people who didn't quite buy it have been asked to justify their opposition, i.e. change was presented as a given (natural), and the burden of proof was placed on those who resisted it.

Apart from the last, none of that actually happened. As such, I am unable to address it. Turning to that last:

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're still playing this game too (arguing that others' previous mistakes somehow puts the burden of proof on me (sorry, it does not)).

It absolutely does, I'm afraid. You're relying on exactly the same arguments as were presented in other cases: it's therefore incumbent on you to make the case as to why they apply here, but not there. If you refuse to, we may reasonably disregard those arguments. 

 

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Apart from the last, none of that actually happened.

Except it did. You (and others) are basically coming at this with an argument from ignorance: it's no problem to have a female Bond until proven otherwise.
I get that if the main point is to challenge viewers' perceptions there is no theoretical limit to gender- or race-swapping. I still have a problem with this if it means dismissing the difficulties and treating all fictional characters as malleable, which is exactly what you and others here have been doing.
If from the start you'd acknowledged that James Bond is a bit more of a challenge to say the least (as the producers are clearly well aware) I would have had no objection whatsoever. But denying such an acknowledgment is part of your strategy ; to recognize that not all cases are equal would amount to admitting that you seek to use fiction to promote an ideological agenda and actually open a discussion about how to achieve your goals. Seeking a consensus would require time and energy. It's far easier to play dirty tricks with the burden of proof and thus let others do the thinking for you.
OTOH refusing to admit it means you can't go much further than virtue signalling and run the risk of antagonizing the viewership instead of offering them any food for thought. That might not be detrimental on an internet forum, but in the real world, such inflexibility doesn't achieve much. Whether you like it or not, at this point in time, screenwriters are realizing that audiences are lukewarm to simplistic virtue signalling and adapting. By contrast, you're not going anywhere. Well... Unless you just want to win the "argument," in which case I'll gladly concede that your default position is unassailable and bow to your rhetorical prowess.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Then there is the misogyny. How does this work with a female? Does she become a misandrist? Is she dismissive of men, does she treat them as set dressing? Does she use her physicality to over power men in the bedroom?

And there's the supreme irony here hiding since the beginning, and imho the deeper reason why you'll never have a female Bond... It's one thing to have a misogynist character that can be exposed and derided... But doing that with a misandrist one is far trickier. It's not that it can't be done, but doing it well AND hitting commercial success is an almost impossible equation to solve.
And of course, attacking misandry is not really on the table just yet (for understandable reasons).
Lisbeth Salander is the one character I can think of who would come close to a female Bond, though a female Bond would have a far more conventional wardrobe and use guns more. It would be interesting, but is it worth it when male Bond can already be used to denounce toxic masculinity and/or promote feminism? I'd assume that's why we're getting Lashana Lynch's character: she can be a 00 agent (perhaps even 007, that's still not clear) without the name "James Bond," without the same flaws (she can have flaws of her own), and be paired with male Bond to achieve double the impact.
It's more respectful of the source material and the audiences, and it makes for a better story. It's a win for everyone.

[mormont]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Except it did.

It didn't, I'm afraid: though that may be your characterisation of, and perhaps even perception of, others' responses, that does not change the facts of what was (and was not) said. Nobody has ever said that gender-switching Bond was 'an absolute necessity' nor anything that can fairly be interpreted that way, and to be frank, I can understand that that position is easier to argue against, but it isn't the position you are in fact arguing against. Indeed, nobody ever argued that the existing character should 'disappear', either, but you deployed that as an argument too. 

I don't defend positions I didn't take, basically, even if people for whatever reason insist that I did take them. Sorry. 

[Rippounet]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

I can understand that that position is easier to argue against, but it isn't the position you are in fact arguing against.

Right. Your exact words were that it "can and should be done" and that it would "achieve something that no alternative, 'new' property can."
You also dismissed all objections.
I'll gladly admit I made some possibly erroneous assumptions if you tell us what this "something" is.
Because no offense (and I mean it) but it's easy to claim people are in the wrong if you've remained vague about your own position ; that's also a rhetorical trick btw.
And at this point I'd be content to agree to disagree on something and just go back to more tedious matters.