Bond 25: No Time To Die

[Ran]

 

56 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm not sure you see the irony of having such a conversation about James Bond, a character whose core attribute is universally recognised as being toxic masculinity.

Right. The most straightforward and central thing about James Bond is that he is a British male power fantasy, and a rather adolescent one at that (a fact that Fleming himself cheerfully admitted). Changing the gender of Bond really is a fundamental change, on the very same order of changing Bond's allegiances and nationality. No one here would argue that Bond as a British agent is getting stale and maybe we should, say, break out of the Eurocentric mould by making him a Korean NIS secret agent, or perhaps an Israeli Mossad agent.

Better to deliberately set up a female agent in a Bond film who would be spun-off into her own franchise with occasionally crossover appearances, and have her own story and her own quirks rather than being shoved into the role of "James Bond with tits."

 

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

her own story and her own quirks rather than being shoved into the role of "James Bond with tits."

Yeah, again, no one is arguing that. The mind boggles that this is what you're taking away from what has been said so far - you can have a person of colour or a women play Bond that has their own story, quirks etc and still be Bond - those things are not mutually exclusive. Yes, that is a reinvention of what the character has been historically, but I see no issue with that.

 

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

Yeah, again, no one is arguing that. The mind boggles that this is what you're taking away from what has been said so far - you can have a person of colour or a women play Bond that has their own story, quirks etc and still be Bond

Anyone can be called James Bond but they are not James Bond if they are not a male power fantasy.

Now, if we  were literally talking about the idea that a woman play a male James Bond, ala Cate Blanchett playing Bob Dylan in I'm Not There... it'd be an amusing and controversial experiment, I suppose.

 

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, Raja said:

Yes, that is a reinvention of what the character has been historically, but I see no issue with that.

Completely disregarding what a fictional character is to promote a specific vision shows a complete lack of respect for fiction itself. That alone can be a problem for anyone passionate about fiction (which we all are on this board, presumably).
But since no one here seems to be a hardcore Bond fan, in this case the issue is that there may be far more to learn and show with a "bad" character or fiction than to "reinvent" it. Making a toxic character disappear is dangerously close to pretending that his toxicity never existed in the first place. In other words, the irony is that James Bond is a perfect character to show what toxic masculinity looks like, and that changing his gender would rob the franchise of the one good thing it has to offer: making people react to that.

Fiction is at its best when main characters have problematic traits, so the reader or viewer can obtain more than mere entertainment. That is how, by contrast, we can recognise what virtuous characters look like. You and others want to destroy the character of James Bond who is, at its core, a complete dick to women, because you focus on the most superficial uses of representation.

I can't help but think about Tyrion Lannister. Isn't the character interesting because among other things he also shows us a form of toxic masculinity? I am one of those who think the show made a grievous mistake in choosing to "whitewash" him. But if in the far future another adaptation of ASoIaF chose to make him a woman that would only compound the mistake and be an insult to everyone vaguely interested in the series.

[john]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

And yet there still isn't a coherent reason as to WHY there should be a female James Bond. Where is the lack of representation that needs to be addressed? 

Blockbuster franchises, the film industry, storytelling in general.

What’s the coherent reason why there shouldn’t be one? I’m the only one giving specific examples of things James Bond does, all of which can be done by a woman. Inherent maleness is not something easily discerned from a digital image.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Anyone can be called James Bond but they are not James Bond if they are not a male power fantasy.

She wouldn’t be your grandfather’s James Bond, that’s true.

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, john said:

She wouldn’t be your grandfather’s James Bond, that’s true.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, john said:

Blockbuster franchises, the film industry, storytelling in general.

Well except that isn't true is it. We've just had the Star Wars franchise led by a female lead, we have marvel movies and comic book movies led by female characters, there are tons of action movies with female leads. It's simply not true that there is an issue with representation in those types of movies. Crying out about this seems to defy reality. 

11 minutes ago, john said:

What’s the coherent reason why there shouldn’t be one? 

Again, you are the one asking for change.. and so its on you to come up with a good reason for doing it. So far 'representation' is a vague answer that doesn't hold any water. So what else is there? 

Quote

 Inherent maleness is not something easily discerned from a digital image.

You do seem to be coming at this from a position of men and women being the same, and wanting to say there is no discernible difference between them. That would explain why you seem to assume that it's just a minor cosmetic change. Unfortunately that simply isn't the case. 

[john]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Well except that isn't true is it. We've just had the Star Wars franchise led by a female lead, we have marvel movies and comic book movies led by female characters, there are tons of action movies with female leads. It's simply not true that there is an issue with representation in those types of movies. Crying out about this seems to defy reality. 

Who's talking about "those types of movies?"  I'm talking about James Bond.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again, you are the one asking for change.. and so its on you to come up with a good reason for doing it. So far 'representation' is a vague answer that doesn't hold any water. So what else is there? 

Sorry, you'll have to update me with the correct procedure for arguing on an internet message board. I wouldn't want to be found in contempt.

I've given you reasons for my point of view, as you admit yourself.  You've given no reason for yours.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

You do seem to be coming at this from a position of men and women being the same, and wanting to say there is no discernible difference between them. That would explain why you seem to assume that it's just a minor cosmetic change. Unfortunately that simply isn't the case. 

We're not talking about mean and women. We're talking about a fictional character.  James Bond is no more a man than are Harry Potter, the Terminator or Wurzel Gummidge. And I hope I'm not breaking your Internet forum argument etiquette if I ask you to give some examples of these fundamental differences that would be displayed onscreen.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, john said:

Who's talking about "those types of movies?"  I'm talking about James Bond.

Soooo.. you are asking for more representation in 'James Bond' movies... because? Because women have historically been prevented from getting jobs as James Bond in the past? Because the field of James Bonds has a sexist recruitment policy?  

 

3 minutes ago, john said:

I've given you reasons for my point of view, as you admit yourself.  You've given no reason for yours.

You've given a really weak reason which seemingly defies all known logic. 

4 minutes ago, john said:

We're not talking about mean and women. We're talking about a fictional character.  James Bond is no more a man than are Harry Potter, the Terminator or Wurzel Gummidge. 

This is where reality seems to be something you struggle to get to grips with. You might not have noticed butJames Bond was written as a male character, it's right there on the page. It's right there on the screen. He is a male in the same way that Harry Potter is clearly male. So lets just agree that making James Bond a woman is changing James Bond... because James Bond isn't a woman. If you want to do an alternative version where there is a character 'like' James Bond that is a woman then sure...

...oh do you know what.. this is just.. 

[Rippounet]

30 minutes ago, john said:

And I hope I'm not breaking your Internet forum argument etiquette if I ask you to give some examples of these fundamental differences that would be displayed onscreen.

Shit, I must be mightily bored to bite...

Quote

And then there was this pest of a girl. He sighed. Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them.

Quote

Bond saw luck as a woman, to be softly wooed or brutally ravaged, never pandered to or pursued. But he was honest enough to, admit that he had never yet been made to suffer by cards or by women. One day, and he accepted the fact, he would be brought to his knees by love or by luck. When that happened he knew that he too would be branded with the deadly question-mark he recognized so often in others, the promise to pay before you have lost: the acceptance of fallibility.

Quote

The doctor had talked often to Bond about his in- juries. He had always told him that there would be no evil effects from the terrible battering his body had received. He had said that Bond's full health would return, and that none of his powers had been taken from him. But the evidence of Bond's eyes and his nerves refused these comforting assurances. He was still painfully swollen and bruised, and whenever the in- jections wore off he was in agony. Above all, his imagination had suffered. For an hour in that room with Le Chiffre the certainty of impotence had been beaten into him; and a scar had been left on his mind that could only be healed by experience. [...] And now, when he could see her again, he was afraid. Afraid that his senses and his body would not respond to her sensual beauty. Afraid that he would feel no stir of desire, and that his blood would stay cool. In his mind he had made this first meeting into a test, and he was shirking the answer. That was the real reason, he admitted, why he had waited to give his body a chance to respond, why he had put off . their first meeting for over a week. He would have liked to put off the meeting still further, but he explained to himself that his report must be written, that any day an emissary from London would come over and want to hear the full story, that today was as good as tomorrow, that anyway he might as well know the worst.

Of these three extracts, the most interesting one is the third. See, in this last extract, our super-masculine character has just been tortured by being repeatedly kicked in the genitals, and he's afraid he won't be able to have an erection anymore.
And it's not like this is just a minor detail in the book, Bond's relation to masculinity is central to the entire story, and his experience with Vesper will determine his relationships with women for the rest of the series.
And both the torture and the sex are in fact visible on screen... This is the story.
So I'm curious to know how you imagine this kind of theme with a female character. Should your female Bond worry that she won't be able to get wet after being reeaptedly kicked in the vagina? Or should her femininity be affected by being disfigured perhaps? Should she express contempt for the men she always has to take care of? Or imagine luck as a man with an erect penis to jump on?
Do tell us how you would represent this story of toxic masculinity with a female lead...

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Should your female Bond worry that she won't be able to get wet after being reeaptedly kicked in the vagina? 

To be fair here, fear of a lack of physical desire after trauma (such as rape or physical damage) is probably analogous to Bond's dilemma above. But yes, the books are quite concerned with Bond's masculinity, and the films as well. 

[Nictarion]

 

[john]

45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Soooo.. you are asking for more representation in 'James Bond' movies... because? Because women have historically been prevented from getting jobs as James Bond in the past? Because the field of James Bonds has a sexist recruitment policy?  

In the role of Bond, yes. Clearly.

46 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You've given a really weak reason which seemingly defies all known logic. 

And you’ve given no reason, logical or otherwise.

48 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This is where reality seems to be something you struggle to get to grips with. You might not have noticed butJames Bond was written as a male character, it's right there on the page. It's right there on the screen. He is a male in the same way that Harry Potter is clearly male. So lets just agree that making James Bond a woman is changing James Bond... because James Bond isn't a woman. If you want to do an alternative version where there is a character 'like' James Bond that is a woman then sure...

So if you write her as a woman and depict her as a woman then she’ll be a woman. It’ll be right there on the screen.

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Shit, I must be mightily bored to bite...

You know you want to.

I think I’ve made it clear that I don’t see gender switching as mightily changing the character or behaviour. Why can’t she be a woman that’s a dick to men?

Also I doubt that Fleming or any of the screenwriters (at least up to Skyfall) set out to make any commentary on toxic masculinity.

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

xXx and Hobbes and Shaw are not spy franchises. One-off movies aren't examples of franchises.

 

 

Fast and Furious,  of which Hobbes and Shaw is a part, is by now a spy franchise to be fair.  Like they're not literally spies but neither have Bond or MI been really for a while now.
You could equally quibble about whether xXx counts but given it's quite deliberately an answer to Bond complete with a Bond-expy getting killed at the beginning of the first film, so Vin Diesel can do his job instead, I'm not sure why you would. 

 

To the broader point- yeah it is difficult to launch a new series rather than reuse an old one, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't try. Like I wouldn't wild out if Bond was a woman but I don't really see the point, it's not like Doctor Who.

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, john said:

Also I doubt that Fleming or any of the screenwriters (at least up to Skyfall) set out to make any commentary on toxic masculinity.

 

Better not to bet money on that, this clip is from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEujAIjTldk

As for Fleming, I don't think he was a feminist, but here's a few quotes from him that should make you think twice about his character...

I don’t think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy.” Fleming remarked. “He’s got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway.”

 

Fleming wanted Bond to be “an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened,” and selected the name James Bond specifically for its dullness, he told the New Yorker in 1962.

9 minutes ago, john said:

Why can’t she be a woman that’s a dick to men?

Ah, yes. But wouldn't that be just a woman trying to imitate men rather than a truly female version of the character?
Surely a female power fantasy should be more than that, don't you think?

[john]

29 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Better not to bet money on that, this clip is from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEujAIjTldk

Not sure the fact that they adequately characterised M as different from Bond means that they set out to write a commentary on toxic masculinity.

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, yes. But wouldn't that be just a woman trying to imitate men rather than a truly female version of the character?
Surely a female power fantasy should be more than that, don't you think?

Power fantasy is not my words. But in any case, I don’t see how she’s imitating anyone. She’d just be behaving in character. What would a truly female version look like? I’d probably be fine with that too, I just don’t think it’s necessary.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Nictarion said:

 

Probably the most apt usage of that clip in a long while!

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, john said:

 I don’t see how she’s imitating anyone. She’d just be behaving in character.

So you're saying a woman treating men as commodities ("recreation") is toxic then.

[john]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

So you're saying a woman treating men as commodities ("recreation") is toxic then.

Am I? I didn’t bring up that word either. I suppose it wouldn’t be as problematic with a female character so it would lose the educative aspect you were looking for.

Probably they will try and keep sexual interactions as untoxic as possible regardless of the gender anyway.

[HexMachina]

Well seems like they want to (rightfully) change one of those so-called key characteristics of Bond anyway by making him less of a chauvinistic misogynistic dinosaur, at least judging from Daniel Craig’s comments (its why he wanted PWB brought in). So Bond is ruined i guess, someone please fetch my fainting couch and pearls