Jane Bond? -- "Mulder, it's me, Bond."

Coronation Street. I think.

James D. Macdonald said:

James Bond in the books was also overweight, so let's not get hung up on that.

Click to expand...

Come again?

Name: Bond, James. Height: 183cm, weight: 76 kilograms; slim build; eyes: blue; hair: black; scar down right cheek and on left shoulder; signs of plastic surgery on back of right hand; all-round athlete; expert pistol shot, boxer, knife-thrower; does not use disguises. Languages: French and German. Smokes heavily (NB: special cigarettes with three gold bands); vices: drink, but not to excess, and women. Not thought to accept bribes.’

Click to expand...

Interesting that drinking and women are vices, but not smoking...


ETA: Damn, Cass already posted this. FWIW, I looked it up in the actual book (I have all of the original paperbacks), then sought an internet source so people would accept it.

mirandashell said:

Oh! Ok I've got you now.

And going back to the Cold War relic thing.... the Cold War ended in 1991. Which is 25 years ago. So any agent working during that period ... let's say Bond has a minimum age of 30. He was in the Cold War for what? 10 years? That makes him 50. 15 years later he is 65. So coming up for retirement as a kickass, firefighting all-around hero, no? So the whole Cold War relic argument? Not so much......

Click to expand...

In the books, Bond remained in his mid to late 30s and did not age. (Same is true for Nero Wolfe, by the way -- though the books span a period of some 30 years, at least, Nero is always in his 40s, his sidekick Archie Goodwin eternally 32.) It's an odd convention, perhaps but one that seems to be followed in a lot of series.

I do not mean the plot must remain in the cold-war era. But the description of the character is very much out of that era. And if you change the character altogether, how the hell is he still James Bond? Isn't he/she now a brand new character who for some reason (*cough*marketing*cough*) bears James Bond's name?

In any case, as I mentioned above, I'd recommend giving the Bond character a rest and moving on to new spy characters.

CassandraW said:

And if you change the character altogether, how the hell is he still James Bond? Isn't he/she now a brand new character who for some reason (*cough*marketing*cough*) bears James Bond's name?

Click to expand...

This is really all there is, imo. Why the desire to recreate Bond as a woman? What's the point? The character will be almost completely different, necessarily. The movie could still be good (as I said a ways back, I'd see it), but it would only be a Bond movie because of the those four letters. And to what end? There are other super spies out there. Why does Bond need recreation? Seriously, at the end of the day the books are hardly literary masterpieces, imo. The character is just locked down because of the movies.

But we have gone way beyond the books in the films. Bond is using modern technology. Satellites, smart phones, CCTV.... so to argue that he should still be the same Cold War relic doesn't really wash for me.

mirandashell said:

But we have gone way beyond the books in the films. Bond is using modern technology. Satellites, smart phones, CCTV.... so to argue that he should still be the same Cold War relic doesn't really wash for me.

Click to expand...

Why worry about Bond at all, then? Why does this new order spy--whether male or female--need to be named Bond? That's my question. Because if the character is going to be completely different, it loses the linkages to the books and the past movies, so it's a new thing. Give it a new name.

And again, I know Hollywood is looking to make money, so if this kind of angle is one the folks there think will lead to more dollars, then they'll probably do it. Fair enough. I'll probably see the end product. But I'll never think of such a reimagining as a Bond movie. Because it won't be, imo. It will just be a naked attempt to cash in on the name.

There is also the argument that Bond needs to change as society changes. If you want audiences in the future, he has to change. A mysognistic relic is not really going to appeal to younger audiences who don't remember how sexist society was other than as a history lesson. Keeping him as a Cold War relic will seem more and more outdated and ridiculous further away from the Cold War we get. I think if the Bond franchise wants to survive, it needs to start updating now.

mirandashell said:

But we have gone way beyond the books in the films. Bond is using modern technology. Satellites, smart phones, CCTV.... so to argue that he should still be the same Cold War relic doesn't really wash for me.

Click to expand...

Yes. See what I just said above about the Bond character and the Nero Wolfe character. In the books, the era did NOT remain constant. The age and character did.

Again -- if the character of the character is different, then how is it still the character? (Forgive the repetition, but what can I do.)

And I've already said -- in my view, we should leave Bond where he is rather than tamper with him, forget making new Bond movies, and come up with new characters. I don't get changing him into a new character and calling him the same name.

cornflake said:

Remember the endless angst about Craig and how he shouldn't have been cast because he's blonde?

Click to expand...

See above, we just discussed it.

I wasn't crazy about that either, to be honest, but it wasn't such a huge change that I was ready to rant about it.

As for cashing in.... seriously? Hollywood does nothing but cash in on old glories these days. When is the last time they made a movie that wasn't a reboot?

mirandashell said:

As for cashing in.... seriously? Hollywood does nothing but cash in on old glories these days. When is the last time they made a movie that wasn't a reboot?

Click to expand...

Yes, you'll see me bitching about that in other threads.

This is why I rarely go to the movies anymore.

cornflake said:

Remember the endless angst about Craig and how he shouldn't have been cast because he's blonde?

Click to expand...

No.

I mean, I'm sure there was some, but I didn't pay attention to it, anymore than I paid attention to the whining over casting a black actor as an Asgardian. Or the casting of Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing. But those changes didn't alter the characters in any significant or impactful way.

Well.... Keanu Reeves being unable to act had a fairly strong impact.....

cornflake said:

I think it does and has updated. If a female Bond isn't Bond, and a Bond who uses modern technology isn't Bond, what is Bond?

Click to expand...

A person who lived in the era before cell phones and the internet, but who now uses cell phones and the internet, is still exactly the same person.

The character is all of the essential character traits that made that character...that character.

I suppose they could make Gillian be womanizing, misogynistic, cruel, suave and somewhat sociopathic, but, well, I don't really see the point. Why not make her her own kick-ass spy character rather than James Bond with a vagina?

mirandashell said:

As for cashing in.... seriously? Hollywood does nothing but cash in on old glories these days. When is the last time they made a movie that wasn't a reboot?

Click to expand...

Seriously what? You're not saying anything different from me here. Again (my boldface):

...I know Hollywood is looking to make money, so if this kind of angle is one the folks there think will lead to more dollars, then they'll probably do it. Fair enough. I'll probably see the end product.

Click to expand...

CassandraW said:

Why not make her her own kick-ass spy character rather than James Bond with a vagina?

Click to expand...

No, goddamitt! Because, because...well no one is really giving a reason, are they?

I still like my idea of Bond getting killed (I decided retiring doesn't work), then having a new agent get the 007 designation. That keeps all of the backstory in place and allows a new persona to develop.

It's possible to riff off a well-known character and create a new one. I'm all in favor of that.

E.g., Clueless, the take on Jane Austen's Emma. The character made many sly fun nods to the Austen's plot, but the character of Cher frankly wasn't much like Emma at all (nor were the other characters much like their counterparts in Austen's novel). But that was OK, because she wasn't Emma. She was Cher.

(For that matter, I'm doing something similar in my narrative poem I'm shamelessly hawking in my signature. I have characters that are loosely based on Odysseus and Penelope, but I'm taking some pretty seriously huge liberties with both characters and plot -- which is why I never refer to them as Odysseus and Penelope. They're my characters, though I'm riffing off the Odyssey.)

I say play on the James Bond spy concept, absolutely. But make Gillian someone new. Don't just call her James Bond and pretend it's the same character.

- - - Updated - - -

robeiae said:

No, goddamitt! Because, because...well no one is really giving a reason, are they?

I still like my idea of Bond getting killed (I decided retiring doesn't work), then having a new agent get the 007 designation. That keeps all of the backstory in place and allows a new persona to develop.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, too.

But the Bond name is what people want and keeping paying for. So I see no reason why that shouldn't be used. Yes, the character can change in the way that Emma became Cher but the the Bond brand needs to be kept. It's Hollywood. It's all about the dollars.

People went to see Clueless without Cher being called "Emma"...

mirandashell said:

But the Bond name is what people want and keeping paying for. So I see no reason why that shouldn't be used. Yes, the character can change in the way that Emma became Cher but the the Bond brand needs to be kept. It's Hollywood. It's all about the dollars.

Click to expand...

If that's your take, fair enough. Remember it when Hollywood gets around to remaking the Alien movies in full.

But most people knew what it was based on, no?

If you are going to use the Bond idea, you may as well call her Bond. It's all about using the franchise. Using something that brings in the box office. Do you really think that a female spy just like Bond but not using the Bond canon will be a hit in the world's biggest market? Don't think so.

CassandraW said:

I suppose they could make Gillian be womanizing, misogynistic, cruel, suave and somewhat sociopathic, but, well, I don't really see the point. Why not make her her own kick-ass spy character rather than James Bond with a vagina?

Click to expand...

What I don't really get is why not?

I suppose they could case another male actor to be womanizing, misogynistic, cruel, suave, and somewhat sociopathic, but, well, I don't really see the point.

If they do, I'll probably continue ignoring Bond films. If they make a random female spy movie that isn't Black Widow, I'll probably ignore it, too.

But I'd probably see Gillian Anderson in a Bond film, because inserting a woman into that mythos and that archetype is interesting to me in a way that generic spy film #? isn't.

Remember it when Hollywood gets around to remaking the Alien movies in full.

Click to expand...

Of course they will! They've remade everything else. And I will hate it and refuse to pay to see it. And Hollywood won't give two shits about me as I am not their target market.

Bond has to adapt or die. It's all about the dollars.

mirandashell said:

Of course they will! They've remade everything else. And I will hate it and refuse to pay to see it. And Hollywood won't give two shits about me as I am not their target market.

Bond has to adapt or die. It's all about the dollars.

Click to expand...

I don't think reimagining Bond as a woman is a requirement for adaption. Why would it be? Nor do I think Bond has to fundamentally undergo a change in nature, at all. And unless I'm not following, you seem okay with changing Bond but not okay with changing Alien (regardless of Hollywood realities). So I'm not sure I understand your point of view.