• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So we never explore any other Double 0 agents?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Veelk said:
How do you mean, exactly?
Click to expand...

The James Bond franchise revolves around, well, James Bond. Bond, contrary to what certain people with only a passing interest in the series believe, has actual character beyond being another action hero in a suit who chugs martinis and bangs babes. This character, for better or for worse, wouldn't make a ton of sense if he were a lesbian minority woman.

And maybe you're fine with that. But at that point I'd wonder why, if you'd write it so that the main character of a character-driven franchise bears zero resemblance to their appearance in previous films and the novels they're based on, you wouldn't simply make a completely new movie.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
But at that point I'd wonder why, if you'd write it so that the main character of a character-driven franchise bears zero resemblance to their appearance in previous films and the novels they're based on, you wouldn't simply make a completely new movie.
Click to expand...

Marketing
Name recognition
Forced controversy

A female James Bond would get a lot more attention than another 007 release. Not saying it's a good idea or a bad idea, but it's pretty easy to market.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
The James Bond franchise revolves around, well James Bond. Bond, contrary to what certain people with only a passing interest in the series believe, has actual character beyond being another action hero in a suit who chugs martinis and bangs babes. This character, for better or for worse, wouldn't make a ton of sense if he were a lesbian minority woman.

And maybe you're fine with that. But at that point I'd wonder why, if you'd write it so that the main character of a character-driven franchise bears zero resemblance to their appearance in previous films and the novels they're based on, you wouldn't simply make a completely new movie.
Click to expand...

The wonderful thing about fiction is that you can make anything make sense because you, as the writer, control the context. Explain why James bond wouldn't be a character if he did all the things he did except as a female? This hypothetical bond wouldn't be a significant deviation from the source material. She'd be a hyper competent agent with alcoholic tendencies that enjoys a healthy sex life with perhaps an unhealthy romantic life in her dayjob as a professional killer.

Oh, she'd feel different, true and the nuances of her character would be different. However, that can be said about any of the male james bonds. The Sean Connery Bond isn't the same character as the Timothy Dalton Bond, who isn't the same as etc, etc. She would indeed be different in the details of her character. But to argue she can't be James Bond in essence implies ttat Bond's penis is far more integral aspect of his identity than literally any other characteristic. I don't believe that to be true. If your at the point where Fem-Bond is a functional twin James bond in all aspects other than gender, then it's laughable to say that she's not James bond while simultaneously arguing all the other deviations of the character are.
 
Two 00 agents die during a training exercise in the beginning of the Living Daylights. James Bond chases the assassin and blows him up mid air then parachutes onto a rich woman's yacht. I guess no one remembers the Dalton movies :(

the_living_daylights_timothy_dalton_opening.jpg
 
I'd much rather see some good James Bond films like Casino Royal than them trying to liberate the franchise with a female bond.

Spectre was about ten steps backwards.
 
sarcastor said:
Two 00 agents die during a training exercise in the beginning of the Living Daylights. James Bond chases the assassin and blows him up mid air then parachutes onto a rich woman's yacht. I guess no one remembers the Dalton movies :(
Click to expand...

How are the Dalton movies generally regarded? I am reading that Dalton's bond is a darker, more psychologically realistic version of the character which would probably appeal to me more. But are the actual movie's qualities up to snuff?
 
Veelk said:
How are the Dalton movies generally regarded? I am reading that Dalton's bond is a darker, more psychologically realistic version of the character which would probably appeal to me more. But are the actual movie's qualities up to snuff?
Click to expand...

All of the cool kids (i.e. me) think he's secretly the best and that it's a tragedy his tenure was so short.
 
Veelk said:
How are the Dalton movies generally regarded? I am reading that Dalton's bond is a darker, more psychologically realistic version of the character which would probably appeal to me more. But are the actual movie's qualities up to snuff?
Click to expand...

They're both fantastic, especially License To Kill.
 
Veelk said:
How are the Dalton movies generally regarded? I am reading that Dalton's bond is a darker, more psychologically realistic version of the character which would probably appeal to me more. But are the actual movie's qualities up to snuff?
Click to expand...

License to Kill was amazing, TLD was completely forgettable
 
Vilam said:
You're missing the point of the series. It isn't about the other agents - they don't matter. It's about a male power fantasy as James Bond.
Click to expand...

As I said before, this is one of the biggest misconceptions of the power fantasy there is.

A power fantasy is strengthened by the inclusion of other similarly powerful players. Any fish is big if the pond is small enough. Being a large fish in an ocean of other large fish and still coming out on top....That is the far more satisfying power fantasy.
 
I don't really see what is there to explore. James Bond movies are already kind of standalone movies (in any case, you can just jump in without seeing another) and they already switch actors from time to time which changes the character a bit.

So if you follow another 00 agent, you are basically following someone on James Bond type missions. Might as well be James Bond then, who we all already know. If it is something completely different, why use the James Bond universe (if there is such a thing, since there isn't really a set timeline or whatever).

The only upside would be more James Bond type movies, since now you can have different teams working on different movies.
 
Veelk said:
The wonderful thing about fiction is that you can make anything make sense because you, as the writer, control the context. Explain why James bond wouldn't be a character if he did all the things he did except as a female? This hypothetical bond wouldn't be a significant deviation from the source material. She'd be a hyper competent agent with alcoholic tendencies that enjoys a healthy sex life with perhaps an unhealthy romantic life in her dayjob as a professional killer.

Oh, she'd feel different, true and the nuances of her character would be different. However, that can be said about any of the male james bonds. The Sean Connery Bond isn't the same character as the Timothy Dalton Bond, who isn't the same as etc, etc. She would indeed be different in the details of her character. But to argue she can't be James Bond in essence implies ttat Bond's penis is far more integral aspect of his identity than literally any other characteristic. I don't believe that to be true. If your at the point where Fem-Bond is a functional twin James bond in all aspects other than gender, then it's laughable to say that she's not James bond while simultaneously arguing all the other deviations of the character are.
Click to expand...

I feel there's probably a pretty accurate way to judge people's exposure to the franchise going by their posts in threads like this. Something like:

Has concerns about how well the character functions as anything other than a white male: Fan of the series, has seen/read almost all the films/books
Thinks the character can swap race without much worry: Has seen a few to most of the films, probably not all
Thinks the character could easily be a woman: Has played Goldeneye, possibly multiplayer only

Bond's character is that of an imperial relic, a flawed representation of the Victorian black-and-white morality that prevailed when Britain was still a global force to be reckoned with. He's a privileged, misogynistic snob, desperately clinging to his outdated, 1940s values while his world (the empire) collapses around him. Regardless of your opinions on his character, suddenly changing him to a black lesbian woman would have reaching implications on it to say the least.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
I feel there's probably a pretty accurate way to judge people's exposure to the franchise going by their posts in threads like this. Something like:

Has concerns about how well the character functions as anything other than a white male: Fan of the series, has seen/read almost all the films/books
Thinks the character can swap race without much worry: Has seen a few to most of the films, probably not all
Thinks the character could easily be a woman: Has played Goldeneye, possibly multiplayer only

Bond's character is that of an imperial relic, a flawed representation of the Victorian black-and-white morality that prevailed when Britain was still a global force to be reckoned with. He's a privileged, misogynistic snob, desperately clinging to his outdated, 1940s values while his world (the empire) collapses around him. Regardless of your opinions on his character, suddenly changing him to a black lesbian woman would have reaching implications on it to say the least.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it seems your trying to use your position as longer term fan than me to imply a higher authenticity or authority on what should be done with bonds character, and it simply doesn't work like that at all. There is no "real fan" "fake fan" dividing line and your greater history with the franchise doesn't give you greater claim. Largely because whatever bond was or is, he can change. Because he already has.

Personally, I didn't get any of that other than a slight rapey feel from Skyfall and Spectre, but even that doesn't necessarily imply misogyny or even sexism. Maybe what you describe is what bond used to mean, but he doesn't anymore and I doubt you'd find many people who agree with that assessment going off the latest movies. He'll, from what I'm reading, Daltons bond specifically rebels against much of that alone.

Besides, you are making the assumption that only white British men can hold those values. Hardly true. A woman can objectify women as much as men, for example. As a matter of fact, a black lesbian can hold all those kinds of ideals, both in spirit and in letter if need be. All that it would make her is an unusual character, which is last I checked a good thing for a character to be. Makes them more interesting. And if your worried about how it'd work on a micro level, that would be up to the writing to determine how she came by that sort of viewpoint. But, again, that's the burden of every story.
 
Veelk said:
The Sean Connery Bond isn't the same character as the Timothy Dalton Bond, who isn't the same as etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are the same character. You don't know what you're talking about. Bond isn't a code name, it's a singular person.


Veelk said:
I'm sorry, but it seems your trying to use your position as longer term fan than me to imply a higher authenticity or authority on what should be done with bonds character, and it simply doesn't work like that at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he is. And he's correct. You don't get to watch a few movies and decide to co-opt the character from long term fans.
 
Vilam said:
Yes, they are the same character. You don't know what you're talking about. Bond isn't a code name, it's a singular person.
Click to expand...

No, he's in essence a different character, even if it's the same continuity. He had a different attitude, different values, all fit within the same template of what is generally known as James Bond. All the James bonds are characters and they may all fit the same continuity of stories as the same body, but they are not identical characters or else there would be no differentiation between the bonds.


Yeah, he is. And he's correct. You don't get to watch a few movies and decide to co-opt the character from long term fans.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I do. Because co-opt in this case means offer my opinion on what should be done with the character because as a fan, that is literally all you are allowed to do. Offer opinions. And opinions value are determined by factors on what would be a good idea, not by how long the giver of that opinion has been watching bond.

Understand this. I don't own bond. Neither do you. Neither does redshirt. And you can watch the series all your life, that won't get you any step closer to doing that. The only thing any of us can do is write stories that do his character justice. And a female bond or a black bond or an alien bond or a cyborg bond can do just that in the hands of the right writer. That's the only way we can perhaps say you have some legitimate ownership of a character, by writing them that way and advancing their story. But as fans? No, none of us own bond, however much we watch him. Discussion is equally legitimate and not dependant on individual fan history.
 
Veelk said:
I'm sorry, but it seems your trying to use your position as longer term fan than me to imply a higher authenticity or authority on what should be done with bonds character, and it simply doesn't work like that at all. There is no "real fan" "fake fan" dividing line and your greater history with the franchise doesn't give you greater claim. Largely because whatever bond was or is, he can change. Because he already has.

Personally, I didn't get any of that other than a slight rapey feel from Skyfall and Spectre, but even that doesn't necessarily imply misogyny or even sexism. Maybe what you describe is what bond used to mean, but he doesn't anymore and I doubt you'd find many people who agree with that assessment going off the latest movies. He'll, from what I'm reading, Daltons bond specifically rebels against much of that alone.
Click to expand...

It is not at all unreasonable to assume that you are unfamiliar with the character when your entire view of him comes from two movies and some forum posts.

Anyways, one does not need to read between the lines of the movies to see what I'm talking about. In Casino Royale he's called a "maladjusted" man who "thinks of women as disposable pleasures." In Goldeneye, he's straight-up called "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur" and "a relic." Both these movies are post-Dalton, incidentally.

Besides, you are making the assumption that only white British men can hold those values. Hardly true. A woman can objectify women as much as men, for example. As a matter of fact, a black lesbian can hold all those kinds of ideals, both in spirit and in letter if need be. All that it would make her is an unusual character, which is last I checked a good thing for a character to be. Makes them more interesting. And if your worried about how it'd work on a micro level, that would be up to the writing to determine how she came by that sort of viewpoint. But, again, that's the burden of every story.
Click to expand...

You're unable to look past the superficial traits and see the actual character underneath. Bond's character is a glamorized early-1900s archetype who travels the globe, shooting evil foreigners in the face and sexing up their women, but is struggling to keep his place as the old world falls (this theme is prevalent is Spectre and especially Skyfall, so you should easily be able to see where I'm coming from here). It's hard to imagine that a black, lesbian, female Bond would be able to have that character, with the ridiculous, guilty pleasure anachronism it should be when you take into account that the era in question is one of imperialism for white men and one of oppression for gays, minorities, and women.
 
Veelk said:
I'm sorry, but it seems your trying to use your position as longer term fan than me to imply a higher authenticity or authority on what should be done with bonds character, and it simply doesn't work like that at all. There is no "real fan" "fake fan" dividing line and your greater history with the franchise doesn't give you greater claim. Largely because whatever bond was or is, he can change. Because he already has.

Personally, I didn't get any of that other than a slight rapey feel from Skyfall and Spectre, but even that doesn't necessarily imply misogyny or even sexism. Maybe what you describe is what bond used to mean, but he doesn't anymore and I doubt you'd find many people who agree with that assessment going off the latest movies. He'll, from what I'm reading, Daltons bond specifically rebels against much of that alone.

Besides, you are making the assumption that only white British men can hold those values. Hardly true. A woman can objectify women as much as men, for example. As a matter of fact, a black lesbian can hold all those kinds of ideals, both in spirit and in letter if need be. All that it would make her is an unusual character, which is last I checked a good thing for a character to be. Makes them more interesting. And if your worried about how it'd work on a micro level, that would be up to the writing to determine how she came by that sort of viewpoint. But, again, that's the burden of every story.
Click to expand...
The point isn't that there are "true fans" vs "fake fans", it's that there are people who are more aware of the character's traits who may have a different/deeper understanding of what makes the character, the character. Beyond this, these contexts create different experiences for us as viewers: I saw numerous implications on race, colonialism, gender and sexuality in Skyfall that many apparently did not. This isn't because I'm smarter, more pretentious or paid more attention than them, but because I inevitably re-contextualise anything from the franchise that I watch/read to accommodate/reference other works from the series and their contexts.

You could have a film about Jane Bond, but such a character would be a "female Bond" in the same way that a white Venetian could be "Italian Othello". Unless you go all "I don't see race/gender" and completely ignore social context, the characters are going to be pretty different. Obviously if they wanted to make a film about a female 007 they would emphasise that it's the same character, just gender-swapped, for the sake of marketing, hype, controversy etc... I'm not going to play the "just make a new franchise" card. But the idea that it's a fundamentally new/different character holds merit. I mean, there are a number of Bond plots that could theoretically work if the protagonist was an American. Hell, he could still be white, still be a male, still be James Bond, right?
 
Veelk said:
After that, I'd have a female bond, and anybody that tried to argue against it would have to explicitly side with bigotry, not just underlyingly.
Click to expand...

How to always get what you want:

Step 1. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bigotry.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Profit!
 
I always assumed it was one of those military things where you don't number them sequentially, and instead skip a bunch of numbers, that way the enemy can't guess hown many you actually have with probability as easily.
 
I don't think I would care too much about any others. James is supposed to pretty much be the only interesting one.

I wouldn't mind them in an opening scene or something once in a while, but he is usually someone who likes to work alone and goes off the map all of the time.
 
TheRedSnifit said:
It is not at all unreasonable to assume that you are unfamiliar with the character when your entire view of him comes from two movies and some forum posts.

Anyways, one does not need to read between the lines of the movies to see what I'm talking about. In Casino Royale he's called a "maladjusted" man who "thinks of women as disposable pleasures." In Goldeneye, he's straight-up called "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur" and "a relic." Both these movies are post-Dalton, incidentally.
Click to expand...

You've mistaken my meaning. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to assume I'm not as familiar with the character as you. I said as much in the OP. I'm just unconvinced that that fact has any bearing on the legitimacy of my (or anyone else's) suggesting a direction for the character.

You're examples of what Bond is characterized as only serves to prove my point. You can have a female Bond who is maladjusted, sexist, misogynist dinosaur relic. All it would make her is unique. It's literally that simple.

You're unable to look past the superficial traits and see the actual character underneath. Bond's character is a glamorized early-1900s archetype who travels the globe, shooting evil foreigners in the face and sexing up their women, but is struggling to keep his place as the old world falls (this theme is prevalent is Spectre and especially Skyfall, so you should easily be able to see where I'm coming from here). It's hard to imagine that a black, lesbian, female Bond would be able to have that character, with the ridiculous, guilty pleasure anachronism it should be when you take into account that the era in question is one of imperialism for white men and one of oppression for gays, minorities, and women.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how we can use the same example to find support in both our argument. Yes, the old soldier struggling to keep maintain his relevance in society is a prevalent theme of both those movies.....because of technology, nothing related to 1950's social norms. And that is precisely what I'm talking about. The essence of Bond, as you describe him, is that he is a man who is struggling to keep his place in a world that is outgrowing him, but the tools the writers use to depict this are modern. I'm guessing the NSA themes weren't part of many past Bond films because it wasn't a concern for the audiences of those times. So they took the general concept of a world outgrowing you and reformed it to fit a new utility.

If you consider Skyfall and Spectre legitimate takes on the bond character, then there should be no reason to resist a female bond, because all that would be required is to find some sort of value that that bond has that the world is outgrowing.

As it for it being a difficult subject matter to work in, that's fine. Trust me, I hear you on that front, it's a tough concept to work. What I'm not hearing is it being impossible. If the cost of a female, black, gay bond is making the writers have to actually work for a living, so be it. In those cases, regardless of the failure or success of the project, the results are usually interesting in any case. Also, if you want to make it easier to swallow, you don't have to have each of those elements at once. You could just have a black bond, or female bond, or gay bond, so he fulfills the required norm of what is valued in the old world society in some ways but not in others. Hell, that's an interesting dynamic right there. Black Bond misses the days where women were traditionally submissive, but not the days of blatant racism used against him, therefore being torn between the old world and new. Simple as that. Not easy, but simple.

A More Normal Bird said:
The point isn't that there are "true fans" vs "fake fans", it's that there are people who are more aware of the character's traits who may have a different/deeper understanding of what makes the character, the character. Beyond this, these contexts create different experiences for us as viewers: I saw numerous implications on race, colonialism, gender and sexuality in Skyfall that many apparently did not. This isn't because I'm smarter, more pretentious or paid more attention than them, but because I inevitably re-contextualise anything from the franchise that I watch/read to accommodate/reference other works from the series and their contexts.

You could have a film about Jane Bond, but such a character would be a "female Bond" in the same way that a white Venetian could be "Italian Othello". Unless you go all "I don't see race/gender" and completely ignore social context, the characters are going to be pretty different. Obviously if they wanted to make a film about a female 007 they would emphasise that it's the same character, just gender-swapped, for the sake of marketing, hype, controversy etc... I'm not going to play the "just make a new franchise" card. But the idea that it's a fundamentally new/different character holds merit. I mean, there are a number of Bond plots that could theoretically work if the protagonist was an American. Hell, he could still be white, still be a male, still be James Bond, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think your example is analogous. If you change Othello, in order to maintain the plot, you'd have to change the rest of the cast to be a different people prejudiced against italians. Part of the essence of the play is prejudice. Race changing isn't a two way street. You can change a majority representative to a minority representative without much loss because the majority, by definition, have ample representation as it is. For example, I would have no problem with batman being black or gay or female, but I would take issue with making Black Panther anything but black because black people are not adequately represented in media as it is. To make Female James Bond isn't making Othello a white italian, it would be making Othello, say, gay. Italian society is okay with interracial marriage, but not same sex. Different dynamic to be sure, but the spirit of the story is maintained. Or hey, maintain that the society is against interracial marriage, but okay with same sex marriage. Even less about the story is changed, but still the theme is different.

The message that is being lost here is that you think I'm doing this to be careless about depicting race/gender/sexuality and being all "I don't see race" when I'm not. I'm saying use these things intelligently to progress the character to broaden the representational circle that has no reason to be as closed as it is.

As a matter of fact, it's interesting you mention shakespeare. I just recently saw a version of Romeo and Juliet that reimagined Romeo as a woman. The conflict and feel of the play were altered, obviously, but the essence of it remained: starcrossed lovers separated by the mutual hatred of their family ending in tragedy. The same can be true for Bond.

darkbanjo said:
This thread is a fascinating document of someone going from 'noob' to authority.
Click to expand...

I'm a James Bond noob, but I know a good deal about how stories work. The complaints people are bringing up are, at best, concerns that can be addressed through the writing.

Vilam said:
Plenty of other movies coming out that may cater to your tastes better, I'd recommend trying those.
Click to expand...

Well....no, there aren't. Write up a list of high hollywood spy flicks that feature a gay protagonist. Female or black you'll do better with, but not much.

And in any case, even if you can find a few, Bond is the biggest and most well known. Getting Bond to be female/black/gay/whatever would be a far bigger step than having a half dozen middling examples.
 
Hi Sean, it's Mr Smith calling. I run the Bond franchise. As you've probably heard, we're rebooting with a new movie and...
omg omg omg omg
We're looking for a charismatic and dashing actor to...
AM I DREAMING
Play the new Double 0...
I AM CUMMING RIGHT NOW
Six.
...
Sean? Hello?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Moltbook | Reddit for AI Agents
43
1K
bitbydeath replied
Other than gaming, what’s your other big hobby?
2
92
821
xrnzaaas replied
  • Locked
I'm never really one to cheer on someone getting fired, but..
2
86
844
Esca replied
I think I’ve listened to this song more than any other song in the world
5
395
I collect VHS tapes replied
Alien III - any good?
37
926
m14 replied
Top Bottom