1096
Give me toxic womanizing female Bond (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago* by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
220 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Take the ambition, but not by stealing the name.

Most “female version of” media I’ve seen ends up being derided, in Marvel, in games, etc. Take the fun concepts you’d feel from seeing this Bond parody, and ideally use it to build up a fresh, cohesive character from scratch - an experienced spy who gets chewed out by her superiors for getting drunk on the job and banging too many women, but gets the job done well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    But why though? Bond is an essentially masculine character. If masculinity is what you want, may as well have a man play the part. If a fundamental change in the character is what you want, may as well just create another character. That then frees you up to form the character in the most honest and creative way instead of being tied to an existing franchise just to get those $$$

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Because the concept of "masculinity" and "femininity" is at its core made up, so by just swapping in a woman and keeping everything the same you're showing a massive middle finger to gender stereotypes and roles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Sure it would, but it wouldn't ring true. James Bond is a product of a patriarchal culture. I don't believe a woman in the same position would be treated the same and ultimately become the same person. I can see it as an exercise in what-if, like Bridgerton, but once again, that's a whole new world and hence new character in that case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Meh every bond is different, like talk about whiplash look at Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan. I think the formula works just as well with whatever actor you throw at it. Daniel Craig was probably more off tone than this idea imo.

    It's ok if you just don't personally like the idea of a woman bond. It doesn't have to be like a fundamental truth of film that Bond can only be played by Scottish tough guys or whatever.

    Personally I find the idea exciting and would love to see the attempt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah this sort of thing is just a bit annoying to me. Having thought about it more I think the real problem I have with it, is it's always sold with the idea of showing that women can do anything men can do, but then the result is crap and the whole franchise dies so the actual message is the opposite. You had a franchise made popular by men, it's handed over to a woman... aaand it's dead. Which isn't even a true picture because:

    a) it's usually a franchise that ran out of ideas anyway so casting a woman was just a desperate shark jumping moment that was the final nail in the coffin, and

    b) the reason it was crap is usually not because a woman did it, but rather a female version of male character type show/movie is warmed up leftovers, not the sort of project that gets handled by the best creative talent.

    I just wish there were more interesting and inspiring characters that were actually written for women in the first place, instead of trying to put women in the worn out shoes of men.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I agree stunt casting can be used to paper over a weak movie, I just don't view ethnicity/race/gender/sex as critical to most huge franchise movies.

    I agree that executed poorly it will be bad and unsatisfying. But if they're out of ideas and shark jumping going with the same sex again won't make the movie any better.

    I truly think we're in personal preference territory here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I don't know why, but if they make a Bond movie, make the entire script for a man and cast a woman into it I think it'd be just as good as with a man or better. Having a woman do Bond stuff is less expected so it'd feel fresh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The line, this line, I just see as arbitrary.

    We already cast different actors to play Bond. They're already quite physically different. They have different accents. Craig looks to me like he was hit by a truck, contrasted to Brosnan.

    Why exactly is it OK to cast across many dimensions but gender is the "bad line"?

    I have my own answer, and that whenever Hollywood does this, they just can't write the character as a woman. Like, thier idiot writers and algorithms and focus groups and marketing departments just fuck it up every time, just assfuck the source material with the express goal of buzz.

    But this post?? They GET it. If OP had creative control, I'm genuinely ok with it.

    I don't have issues with different actors playing characters. They just have to be written in a way that respects the characters and by extension the fans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent