Pierce Brosnan thinks a female Bond would be "exhilarating," so make it so, you cowards
Aux Features Pierce Brosnan
Is it more than a little infuriating that we’re still asking whether or not women should be allowed to do things in 2019? Of course it is. However, we’re still dealing with large swaths of fandom that believe a female, Black, or, heaven forbid, a Black female bond would spell the end of a decades-long cultural staple. So now we’re at the stage of discourse where former Bonds have to step in and verbally, explicitly point out that misogyny is bad because—surprise!—they actually have a better shot of being heard.
Brosnan recently chatted with The Hollywood Reporter and naturally, the discussion landed on subject of whether or not Bond could be played by woman. Brosnan’s response was pretty enthusiastic:“Yes! I think we’ve watched the guys do it for the last 40 years, get out of the way, guys, and put a woman up there. I think it would be exhilarating, it would be exciting.” Still, he doesn’t think such a change will take place anytime soon. “I don’t think that’s going to happen with the Broccolis. I don’t think that is going to happen under their watch.”
If you’re looking for a counterpoint, never fear: Perpetual disappointment Piers Morgan has already spewed his predictable dissent during Good Morning Britain, where he is still somehow employed, dismissing Brosnan’s opinion as “virtue-signalling nonsense.” And though his hot takes often resonate like a dying foghorn sandwiched between a pair of angrily squawking parrots, he’s likely not the only one who feels that way. So we just want to take a moment to remind everyone that Bond, in all its raucously fun glory, is a.) fictional, and b.) designed in a way that allows anyone to take on the famous 007 identity—and yes, that should totally include women.
108 Comments
How about we just stop making Bond films?I used to love them back in the day, I still like a lot of them, but the modern ones are so tired and out of ideas it’s not even interesting now. They’re failing to remove the tired old cliches, many of which are just sexist, and do something different so instead it’s a piss-poor imitation of the Bourne franchise.
Oh, it goes beyond that. The Craig films have ripped off (in order) Batman Begins, Bourne Identity, The Dark Knight, and Captain America: Winter Soldier.
The thing that kills me? You don’t need to overthink James Bond. He’s a guy the British government sends to assassinate super-villains. He doesn’t need a grand calling or tragic backstory. He gets paid to do this! He has a license for it! Flying off and killing a bad guy is James Bond’s 9-to-5. Just presenting that, no bullshit, is more than enough for a film franchise.
Considering Britain’s demographics and social issues and what the actual problematic stereotypes and typecasting are (and Bond’s traditional description as a tan gentleman with straight black hair), it’s always very interesting how the idea of an Asian James Bond never seems to get must traction in the self-identified-activist set. It definitely suggests that the things being pushed for are more about showing you’re on the “right side” of coastal American wedge issues than achieving any sort of actual betterment for the population.
I, for one, imagine the perfect Bond to be a Frankensteinish multicultural creation composed of body parts from every race, religion, creed, gender, and non-gender designed to be the perfect spy, able to blend in everywhere and nowhere. A true super human of demographic universality, beyond reproach from the internet and representing a true cultural mosaic for the world to model itself after as we mindlessly fuck and fight our way to a better tomorrow, which never dies.
Like Serpentor?
Exactly.
The Greendale Human Being would make a GREAT Bond.
That would make for a very effective spy, yes, but I was more noting that Asians have historically had trouble getting masculine action lead roles (although one could definitely argue that Mr. Moto helped create the spy genre if you’re using the American definition of “Asian”) and that they’re highly underrepresented in depictions of British society compared to their actual numbers. Also, Bond could actually be played by an Asian without contradicting the books or movies (definitely being less of a departure than Craig, who I remember being fairly controversial).
I guess, if I have a serious take on it, I’d have a problem with an intelligent Asian man fighting for the British government instead of against it considering the UK’s history of colonialism in Asia. It’s like someone suggested Jameela Jamil earlier in the comment section, and as much as I’d enjoy the movie, seeing a half-Indian/half-Pakistani actress working for the British government to advance their foreign policy concerns would make the parts of my brain I do my best to turn off during action movies rebel against my conscious desire to suspend disbelief.Additionally, I love movies with strong Asian leads. Wolf Warrior 2, for instance, is probably my favorite action flick of the past few years, and it’s about a Chinese guy kicking the shit out of Americans in Africa. I’d love to watch Wu Jing direct and star in a Bond movie. I think it would be the most entertaining movie in the franchise if whatever studio was awesome enough to consider it didn’t meddle with it until it sucked.In any case, I’m just not highly emotionally invested in the character, and wish they’d gone with Patrick McGoohan’s vision of the character in the 60’s instead of what we ended up getting. My version of the “ideal man” isn’t a promiscuous murderer, it’s someone who doesn’t take the easy path of violence and does the right thing in the right way. It doesn’t matter who you cast, the movies are still mindless fuckin’ and shootin’ fests. I don’t personally identify with the guy, I just like watching stuff blow up.
Like, for me as a McGoohan fanboy, the casting problem started with Connery.
I was thinking Sacha Dawan and Ray Panthaki both look pretty tough on their IMDB South Asian Brit list headshots.
Do you mean Asian in the sense that includes Indian/Sri Lankan/Pakistani peoples? Because that’s where my mind has gone since the talk of gender/race switching Bond has entered the mainstream. I imagine Mr and Mrs Bond having a diplomatic posting in India and adopting an orphan they name James. I can see it playing as a commentary on the way the British colonise and stamp their culture all over the world, by essentially taking this boy removed from his own heritage by the loss of his parents and making him into the quintessential young Englishman, until he eventually joins the secret service and becomes a living tool of British interests.
I was playing a bit coy with whether I meant it in the American or British way, but yeah.
I’m soooooo over the whole James Bond franchise thing. Especially now that our national leaders are intent on becoming real life James Bond supervillains.
That dude Joe Don Baker played in Living Daylights was more financially, politically and strategically savvy than anyone in than Trump White House. That dude Joe Don Baker played in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies is more personable then anyone in the Trump White House.
That dude Joe Don Baker playedMITCHELL!
Remember when Jonathan Pryce played a media mogul who was making billions blackmailing and spreading disinformation, working towards his ultimate goal of domination?
Remember when that seemed like an outlandish scenario?
Easy for him to say. He already got to be James Bond.
I don’t know that I’m totally on board for this, but I’d like to see it if only to make Piers Morgan’s head explode.
I think it’ll take a little more to kill Morgan. Bond will need to be female, black, gay, disabled and a vegan. It’s the only way to be sure.
This isn’t the time to be going easy when it comes to Piers Morgan. Let’s throw in a scene where Bond converts to Islam at the end, and throw in some gender neutral pronouns, just to make sure.
“The deadname’s Bond, James Bond. Now I prefer to be called Bettina.”
“I’ll have a martini with locally sourced olives, all sustainable served without a toothpick, not too shaken as to not trigger anyone’s misophonia”We should write this ourselves and send it directly to Piers.
I kind of feel like when people say they want a “female Bond”, what they really mean is they want a “female badass super-spy”. Because while I’m totally down for the latter, ultimately James Bond is such an avatar of male privilege that making him a woman is changing the character in such a fundamental way that, really, you might as well just create an entirely new character. And frankly, coming up with an entirely new character would be a far more interesting and bold choice anyway since these debates mostly seem to be just an excuse to dress up rehashing the same old IPs and giving us the same old stuff we’ve always had in a way that lets us feel more progressive and self-righteous for enjoying them rather than just culturally treading water.
I’m just in it for the gratuitous sex and violence anyway.
refreshingly honest.
There in raises the conundrum.
I’m all for a female bond but if we make her slick, athletic and a man’s lady or even a lady’s lady, would that constitute as being progressive or would it still be sexist and misogynistic, aimed toward men?If we change the character completely to suit a less so-called ‘objectified’ badass, female super spy and make her a sexless, no-nonsense agent to check a bunch of boxes and pass the Bechdel test, do we disconnect and bore the audience, whether they are male or female?The Bond films were, at their core, fantasy films, both sexual and of an exciting life so wild and unrealistic.
Actualy, this response was more meant for @ScottyEnn but for some reason Kinja chose you. So I’ll just leave it here.
I’d really enjoy a totally gender-swapped version of 70’s “slap the hysterical woman” Bond who fucks male models until they can’t help but fall in love with her and betray their loyalties, and a female super villain who does shit like drop her scanty-clad male sex slave into a vat of sharks and shit.
Go ahead an camp it up. Turn the whole thing on its head and go for it. If you’re making a Bond movie in the first place you’re tacitly embracing the history of the character as being relevant to the modern world no matter how much you update the character.
Oh okay, you also added to your post after I made mine and I’m too lazy to edit my post to reflect that.
Yeah, sorry about that. I have one of those conditions where I have to put everything down before I forget it and then once I hit (Publish), more shit comes pouring in.
That’s okay, I like to intentionally edit my posts after people respond to make the respondent look like they’re totally insane.
Don’t worry Cooking with Cranston! I’ve found you!And yeah, I agree with your points there; the whole conundrum of Jane Bond is that she’s either James Bond but female (with all the problematic tropes of Bond still baked in) or she’s, like I say, a completely different character, in which case you lose everything that makes Bond Bond and might as well just make a completely new character to begin with.It’s a tricky circle to square, and I can see the clickbait already.
The kiss kiss bang bang, in other words.
Yeah at the risk of have left leaning card revoked (or should that be Licensed to Killed?), I don’t see what’s so wrong with keeping James Bond be the arrogant white post WWII influenced male that Fleming created.Created scores and scores of female super spies or non-white males spies (for me and other people of colour). I don’t need James Bond to be black, I’d rather Hollywood greenlit untold stories centred on non-white males and to keep doing it.Hiding behind “well people aren’t going to watch that, so we going to change an existing property” is lazy and cheap. It means that I have to make do with carbon copy/perceived inferior versions of someone else’s original idea.I’d rather have Shaft as dreamt up in 1970’s as a response to Bond, than have a token attempt at diversifying concepts.
I could see Bond as another race, while still being culturally British. There are plenty of Britons who have had families in the UK for generations but ethnically are black/south asian/Jewish/other european country
I nominate Cate Archer — I think the rights to her character are in inter-company limbo, but if someone can untangle them, maybe we’ll get more NOLF. I realize I might be the only person hoping for this.
So what you’re saying is that we need to make Atomic Blonde a franchise?
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
It’s like you’ve seen inside my mind and scooped up all the goo within.
Just add sugar.
In the past 18 months we’ve had the following female spy/thriller type movies:Atomic BlondeRed SparrowThe Girl in the Spider’s WebOcean’s 8PeppermintWhy do we need to change James Bond when there is clearly an interest in original female action heroes? Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who has more Woke Points than most of us, looked at the character and recognized that contrasting Bond’s innate privilege with a changing world was actually pretty intriguing narrative ground.
I didn’t love The Girl in The Spider’s Web, but Salander is a great character that needs more and better movies.
It can be two things? The fact that there’s an appetite for female-led action movies doesn’t in any way suggest that one of them should be Bond. The problem with “Why do we need to change James Bond” is that you are still basing your conclusion on the politics of exclusion. Like it or not James Bond (or Doctor Who or whatever) is a significant part of the (pop) cultural landscape over the last half-century and more, and when you say “you can’t/shouldn’t be a part of this” you are not just excluding the minority in question from the role, you’re excluding them from being part of that cultural dialogue. Should there be more female action movies like (but hopefully a bit better than) Atomic Blonde? Definitely. But that’s not an argument against Bond being a woman. She absolutely should be.
You mention the politics of exclusion, but isn’t taking a character away from one group and giving it to another group also saying “you can’t/shouldn’t be a part of this”? My understanding of feminism was that women wanted to be treated equally and given the same opportunities of men, and I’m all for that, but in this situation it feels more like a zero sum game where we’re told we have to give something up because it’s no longer our turn.The gender switch of Doctor Who never sat well with me for the exact same reason.
In most cases I’m happy to see new female heroes and protagonists (especially if they’re in original films or properties) because it’s adding to level the playing field and not subtracting. But I can’t think of another area outside of the entertainment industry where the fight of equality involves taking away like this.
You mention the politics of exclusion, but isn’t taking a character away from one group and giving it to another group also saying “you can’t/shouldn’t be a part of this?”Well no, because nobody’s saying the character can’t ever be a white heterosexual man again, just that maybe this time out it might be nice if the character wasn’t and we tried something else. White heterosexual men aren’t being permanently excluded from the role – a role that’s now been occupied for getting for sixty years – but if you fail to allow non-white or non-male actors to take on the role you are permanently excluding them because those people have never had the chance to be in that role. Giving others a chance is inclusive, not exclusive, and you’re not being told to give it up indefinitely – just maybe hang on a bit while someone else sees if this works. In Doctor Who, even if Season 11 wasn’t terribly good in terms of much of its writing, Jodie Whittaker was and is an outstanding Doctor. Maybe the next Doctor will be a white man again, maybe not, but having Jodie as the Doctor now doesn’t preclude the possibility that it could be… oh I don’t know Robert Carlyle next time out. Or Idris Elba. Or Meera Syal. Suddenly all options are open, and that can only make the show more interesting and give it new places to go. And there are plenty of other examples outside the entertainment industry where this happens. Some political parties, for example, will enforce 50:50 gender equality when selecting candidates. That’s not acting in a way that excludes people, but it does function as a corrective to centuries of power imbalance.
Well no, because nobody’s saying the character can’t ever be a white
heterosexual man again, just that maybe this time out it might be nice
if the character wasn’t and we tried something else.
But James Bond was specifically created to be a white, heterosexual man. Why should this established, fundamental part of him have to be taken away? I am very sympathetic to the idea that straight white guys have caused a disproportionate share of the world’s problems, but this feels less like equality to me and more like some weird, vaguely communist redistribution program.
. White heterosexual men aren’t being permanently excluded from the role
– a role that’s now been occupied for getting for sixty years – but if
you fail to allow non-white or non-male actors to take on the role you are permanently excluding them because those people have never had the chance to be in that role.
It’s a role, but also a character that was specifically written to have a certain identity. How is that adhering to that identity exclusion and not respecting the author’s creative decisions? Scarlett Johansson has gotten a massive amount of criticism for claiming she should be able to play any part she wants, and I’m not sure I see how your argument is different.
In Doctor Who, even if Season 11 wasn’t terribly good in terms of much of its writing, Jodie Whittaker was and is
an outstanding Doctor. Maybe the next Doctor will be a white man again,
maybe not, but having Jodie as the Doctor now doesn’t preclude the
possibility that it could be… oh I don’t know Robert Carlyle next time
out. Or Idris Elba. Or Meera Syal. Suddenly all options are open, and
that can only make the show more interesting and give it new places to
go.
I will admit that the Doctor Who comparison is a bit different because the character was designed to be a shape-shifting alien and that lends more flexibility. But if we need to alter a character’s identity in order to keep the stories fresh or interesting then maybe that character needs better writers.
And there are plenty of other examples outside the entertainment
industry where this happens. Some political parties, for example, will
enforce 50:50 gender equality when selecting candidates. That’s not acting in a way that excludes people, but it does function as a corrective to centuries of power imbalance.
Again, I don’t have a problem with adding representation. I was excited to see Captain Marvel, Valkyrie, Wonder Woman, Jane Foster Thor etc, and there a tons of female-led movies and shows that I enjoy. My issue is the rare cases when something has to be taken away in the name of fairness or equality.
Scarlett Johansson has gotten a massive amount of criticism for claiming she should be able to play any part she wants, and I’m not sure I see how your argument is different.My argument isn’t different, I basically agree with Johansson. Although with the admittedly massive caveat of “in an ideal world” which, obviously, we don’t live in.I think the fundamental difference we have is that you think something is being taken away from the character(s), whereas I think something is being added. While I don’t imagine those positions are ones we will be able to reconcile, I do at least thank you for a civilized debate despite our differences of opinion.
I appreciate the reasonable discussion too (although I’d expect no less from a fellow MSTie).
Good points. Why not just expand the franchise? Win/win.
Set up the next movie to introduce 008 (or whatever) and then let her take it from there. Fury Road shows how it can be done. Furiosa didn’t replace Max, but she was just as awesome and I would totally see a Furiosa movie without Max.
I would watch a Pam Bouvier movie. In a heartbeat.
They attempted that in Die Another Day but unfortunately that movie sucked so Hollywood scrapped any idea of doing a spin-off Bond movie wit her a female lead.
Yeah….I don’t get how they’d divorce Bond from his toxic-maleness. I could see a female 007, which is different and they’re actually doing that in the upcoming film. But the James Bond name wouldn’t make any sense in any other context, unless it was something like Jane Bond. Which seems a bit silly, as it’s still deriving from a male character.
Atomic Blonde 2, ffs.
Yeah, I think people are talking about two related but distinct ideas here. “A woman should be James Bond” is the stupidest goddamn idea ever, because James Bond is a man. But “they should make a spy movie with a female lead” is a great idea, and why not? Set in the Bond continuity, give her an operator named M or whatever, give her the cool gadgets, shit, even give her the 007 code name. But don’t call her James Bond because that is moronic.
Here’s how I see this; the female super-spy is not a new idea. As pointed out further down, there have been several such films just in the last year or so. And of course, Black Widow’s role for the last 11 years.Now, the thing is that each of these has met with differing amounts of success. That doesn’t mean they aren’t good. (I thought Atomic Blonde was terrific, for example)The trouble is, it’s hard to establish a new franchise. James Bond is an established franchise with nearly 60 years of history. It’s a franchise among franchises. Bond movies are hits whether they’re good or not. There’s tons of engendered goodwill. This has not, of course, resulted in any spin-offs. If Halle Berry’s Jinx spin-off had happened, we may not be having this conversation.Female Bond is the same idea as each new actor; placing someone into something already intrinsically successful and continually culturally relevant, much like the female Doctor Who. It is then up to the actor to be good enough to keep people coming back, same as always.I completely agree with your point on establishing a new character. In a perfect world, that’d be the way to do it. or even a 008 or 009 spin-off. As it is, until something can measure up to what Bond is, Bond is the best chance for the female super spy to become a real cultural thing(again, Black Widow notwithstanding).
It is tough to establish a new franchise, acknowledged. But not impossible. Like you say, Black Widow is a thing now. Atomic Blonde is a thing. Saying that there’s little point in trying out a new character unless they immediately have the cultural cache of James Bond just seems kind of like giving up before you even start. That said, I’d have little problem with a 008 female spin-off (beyond a milder version of my gripes about culturally treading water, admittedly), which to my mind seems like the best approach of squaring this particular circle. And the thing with Doctor Who is that there’s a built-in narrative engine that makes it entirely logical that you could have a man or a woman play the Doctor that isn’t there with James Bond. While there’s obviously tons of baggage baked into the character that comes from typically casting a male actor, once you accept that the character can change his appearance from person to person it’s just a relatively small step from that to a person with internal reproductive organs and/or darker skin.
If the Broccolis were smart, they would introduce a bad-ass female or POC or two different characters as 003 & 006 (or whatever numbers you like), then spin those characters off into their own movies. If they really created great characters that connected, they could have three different “Bond” movies going at once. Representation is important and good, but just gender-flipping every thing is boring and lazy at this point.
Black Woman should consider making their own James Bond. Don’t wait for Hollywood to give you permission. If you have a better idea, make it.
And who’s providing the $150,000,000 budget? You? Did you ever consider that people have been trying to do just that for decades? Or are you just the Typical Commenter who figures that you just came up with an original idea – “Why don’t they make a movie with a black female lead? Someone should try that!”
It worked for Melvin Van Peebles.
I’m not sure Melvin van Peebles’ example proves the point you want it to.
I’m sure it does.
They had a black female co-lead in an actual Bond film. Unfortunately, it was one of the suckier ones. Maybe have a good script ready before you worry about the money.
What a weird deflection. “This one time there was a black woman with a speaking role in a Bond film and the movie was bad.” What is the point you think you’re making, exactly?
What I wrote was not remotely complicated, but you seem like the sort who needs to have things spelled out.
They had a black female co-lead in an actual Bond film. I don’t know how you got from “co-lead” to “speaking part.” Are you being purposely dense?
Unfortunately, it was one of the suckier ones. But you probably don’t even know which one I’m talking about. Hint: It came out 5 years after the (good) one which had an Asian female co-lead.
Maybe have a good script ready before you worry about the money. Unless you’d rather Hollywood just makes some xXx-level dreg as long as that dreg meets a quota. Who cares what it actually is, just throw 150 mil at it. Which is 5 times the production budget of Atomic Blonde and 2.5 times that of the first Bourne film (not adjusted for inflation, admittedly), but hey, let’s unilaterally decide that the only way to make this film is with the sort of money studios only spend when they’re certain they’ll make back every last dime.
I’m sure you won’t require anything else explained to you.
I’m sorry, after reading your first post I assumed we were playing the Purposely Dense Game.Because surely you didn’t miss the general point of the difficulty in funding blockbuster spy movies instead of latching onto the $150M figure specifically, as if the problem wasn’t the first million, it was the next 149.And that’s before we get into the incredible strawman where somebody somewhere must have said “black female superspy + big budget = profit!!!” in a true-life underpants gnomes scenario. I didn’t see that person in this thread, but I’m glad you brought their hypothetical opinion to my attention, it’s very valuable and not at all contrived. I assume your next post will be emphasizing the importance of a top-notch cinematographer, as they are traditionally undervalued.No, you definitely didn’t come storming into the first thread you could find with your pre-formed anti-quota arguments ready to go. You are just Concerned™ that people simply haven’t considered the nuances of producing a profitable film. Thanks, Pops!
No, my next post is just me shaking my head at what an arrogant fucking idiot you are and deciding I should encourage you.Continue as you were. What else am I actually doing?
I will only accept a female Bond if her first name is still James.
We don’t need another Michael Burnham.
Okay, but her last name has to be Bondette.
God anything to refresh the Bond franchise is welcome at this point. I get that they wanted to get away from the tongue-in-cheek style that’s defined the franchise since the 60’s but these Daniel Craig movies are so fucking bland. When you take away all the Bond tropes (ie., gadgets, spycraft, suave dry humour) there’s not much left except spy-themed action set-pieces and the Mission Impossible movies have been doing those *way* better than the Bond movies have (mostly because you can tell Cruise actually wants to be there while Craig is just waiting for the cheque to clear).
If you don’t think a woman can play Bond in this day and age, then maybe you shouldn’t be LIVING HERE!!!
I say go all fucking in! She’s so classy she’d be a spectacular Bond. I can’t believe she’s not already leading a international spy thriller/action movie franchise already!
What we need is a female-led Mission Impossible. Let’s see Jolie or someone chuck herself out of a plane for our entertainment.
What we need is a female-led Mission Impossible. Let’s see Jolie or someone chuck herself out of a plane for our entertainment.
Apparently Haley Atwell is going to co-lead the next Mission Impossible with Cruise so you may get your wish.
Don’t care. Just keep the name. No Jane Bond or Jamie Bond. A woman named James. It’s fine.
they could do away with the first name altogether and go with, “Bond, just Bond.”
brought to you by
“The name’s Bond. I also have a first name but that’s not really important right now.”
Nah, I say to hell with tradition and name her Linda Fleischmann.
Or Charles Fleischer and have him speak exclusively in the Roger Rabbit voice.
Or maybe a Jameela Bond?
Genius…
I would purchase a ticket.
Samantha Bond. And bring back Samantha Bond to play her as Moneypenny who changed her name and is out to avenge Brosnan’s character
This is absolutely the worst idea, just the worst. The one thing they should *not* do is name the character “James Bond”. Just write a cool lady spy and give her a new name for fuck’s sake.
You make a new series? OK, but different topic.
It’s not unprecedented for a woman to be named James. Actress Jaime King’s first few acting credits were under the name ‘James King.’
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454809/
Meanwhile, Daniel Craig doesn’t give a fuck who plays Bond so long as it’s not him anymore, and Sean Connery just wants to make sure she can take a good hit.
Yeah, could I be anymore of a house?
It doesn’t look like it takes much to “exhilarate” Pierce Brosnan.
Pepper seemed to do it.
The only problem I have with a female Bond is that Bond is a whore. He’ll have sex with any good looking woman at any time to get information or just because he wants to. I don’t know how well it would work to have a woman jump from bed to bed as Bond. A female Bond whore is a stereotype that I’m not sure the masses will support. And if you remove that aspect, you’ve changed the character in a very fundamental way. Halle Berry (who has already been a Bond girl) would be perfect for the part. A better writer than me will have to work out the sexual stuff.
Just do a (good) friggin’ Modesty Blaise movie!!!!!!!!!!
(Why the hell would you even think about Bond, etc., when Blaise exists? MB is better on every level.)
Suddenly we’re supposed to care what Pierce Brosnan thinks?
Kevin Hart & Halle Berry have already done a ‘Bond-type’ opening for one of his concert movies:And now, the conclusion:
While I have a soft spot for “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” (I mean, Diana Rigg…) the Bond films peaked at “You Only Live Twice” and have been floundering ever since. They really are rooted in their era and the premise doesn’t age well.Sean Connery himself admitted as much in the nineties and said the only way to keep doing Bond movies would be to radically reinvent them (he thought Tarantino should have been given the reins).I’d be all for a female Bond of mixed ethnic heritage. Call her James or call her Bond and keep Q and maybe a few gadgets along with a nod to the theme music but toss out everything else and really go nuts. Sadly, Brosnan is right about the Broccoli family who are their own inbred Disney with the one IP to cling to. It’ll probably never happen so for that reason I’m all in favor of someone else (meaning a mostly female creative team) creating their own badass spy gal franchise.
Ever read the Gunsmith Cats manga? The main character, Rally Vincent (a young girl of Indian heritage), is meant to be named Larry Vincent (blame Japanese translation convention). She took the name because she felt people would be more inclined to hire a male bounty hunter and she kept the name even after all her clients found out she was female because “Larry Vincent” had all the respect.
So the same thing with a female Bond. She takes the code name, contacts and villains are surprised when a woman shows up, but otherwise they just roll with it.
I’d echo the sentiments of others and say I’d rather see new and interesting IPs featuring a range of voices and characters we haven’t encountered before. I don’t know, seems regressive to me to be like ‘hey ladies, here’s one for you’ after like 50 years or something.
Just make a new action movie with a female lead. It’s not hard. They didn’t make a female Indiana Jones, they made Tomb Raider. Go watch Atomic Blonde. Great movie.
Meh totally disagree, I never understood the point in putting random people in old roles. I understand what we are trying to do. But the reality is that it’s just a cheap way of selling movie tickets. Just make new characters and new IP’S instead were here saying “Hey look, girls can also be James bond” Where we should be like we don’t need just stick a chick in a random role. We can make our own shit that’s better than James Bond.
If this happens, I nominate Rebecca Ferguson. She more than held her own in the last two MI movies and I think would be a welcome addition to the franchise.
I’m all for a female superspy and she can be the equal of Bond in whatever capacity (the female equivalent of misogyny, what would that be?) and be as violent and vicious as possible.But – sorry, I think James Bond is a guy. I think he could be a black guy or an Asian guy or whatever. It’s not like Dr Who. “James” isn’t his title or job description.
“…a female, Black, or, heaven forbid, a Black female bond…”Heaven forbid? Some of my favorite videos involved a Black female bond.
How about a Bond version of Into the Spider-verse? But only if you can get Nicholas Cage in it somewhere.
Nicolas Cage as an alternate James Bond who is still somehow Spider-Man Noir.
Try this for a deep dark secret: the great spy, James Bond? He doesn’t exist. I invented him…The show is so very 80’s, and we’ve come a long way (in some ways, anyway), but for the time it was pretty good, and I still enjoy it. Honestly though, something along these lines also wouldn’t be the most terrible premise for a period-set James Bond movie.
Casting: Gugu Mbatha-Raw or Natalie Dormer. Whoever loses out on 007 plays the Bond Girl.Give this to me now.
Why is this discussion being had? It’s a silly one, and since it’s never going to happen, let’s move on.