Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | Movies << Prev Page of 10 Next >>
Topic: 007 Gender Swap Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5121
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 8:26pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Since 006 being a baddy in Goldeneye, I always thought
about the separation between the numbers and the names.

It was announced that she will be the new 007, but also
announced that Bond was coming out of retirement.

One can concluded she will die in the traditional
opening credits action scene. And Bond will be back to
solve the case, taking his number back from the dead
agent.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12953
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 9:03pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

One can concluded she will die in the traditional opening credits action scene. And Bond will be back to solve the case, taking his number back from the dead agent.

-----

I doubt Phoebe Waller-Bridge or Lashana Lynch would be that tone-deaf. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Whiting
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 22 April 2004
Posts: 1954
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:36pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Now this is how you add diversity.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8374
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:46pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

This sounds like Hollywood's method of dealing with female action heroes and high-dollar franchises in the era of the #MeToo movement.

We've already seen 2017's WONDER WOMAN starring Chris Pine as action hero, Steve Trevor!

More recently, we've had CAPTAIN MARVEL starring Samuel L. Jackson as action hero, Nick Fury! 

Now it looks like we'll be getting 007 starring Daniel Craig as retired action hero, James Bond! 

Hollywood will do big budget, politically appealing female characters, it seems, only so long as they spend 1/2 to 2/3 of their screen time standing next to an established male hero.


Edited by Brian Hague on 16 July 2019 at 11:50pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1499
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:49pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

 Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle wrote:
Since 006 being a baddy in Goldeneye...


Good point. Well call her 005 or 004 or whatever (as long as it's not perceived as being numerically inferior to 007).

While I'm not blind to the commercial realities of movie-making, again, I wonder why - if they truly wanted to empower women - they couldn't just create an entirely new character, say Agent 63, with her own background, her own world, her own villains, etc. and not the hand-me-down and (in my opinion) entirely inappropriate world of Bond.

Who exactly is this movie aimed at?

Now if you really want to add diversity organically, I call your attention to the character of Walter White Jr. in Breaking Bad, who has cerebral palsy. He was included as a main character without his disability being a central plot point, or being a stereotypical "handicapped person". He was a part of the household, but happened to have a disability.

Is that too hard to do with female characters? A good character that happens to be female... ?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8374
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:56pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

The downside to an Agent 63 movie, and there are a lot of female super-spies out there, is that it is not 007. It is not the next thing to happen to the globally popular, massively successful James Bond franchise. It is not news. This is. 

Just as with Doctor Who, we could have had a woman with a magic clock or a hand-me-down tea cabinet travel through time. She could have been the world's leading authority on space travel and temporal manipulation, using her research to force back the boundaries of ignorance and discover the truth behind history's many fictions and answer the mystery of what lies ahead. 

But that wouldn't be the Next Big Thing to happen to DOCTOR WHO, an established, well-loved franchise with appeal around the world. It wouldn't be news.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12953
Posted: 16 July 2019 at 11:56pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply


 QUOTE:
While I'm not blind to the commercial realities of movie-making, again, I wonder why

You answered your own question. Why is Disney doing live-action remakes of their animated fairy tale movies instead of being original and finding other old fairy tales to adapt?


 QUOTE:
Now if you really want to add diversity organically, I call your attention to the character of Walter White Jr. in Breaking Bad, who has cerebral palsy. He was included as a main character without his disability being a central plot point, or being a stereotypical "handicapped person".

Walter White Jr. wasn't a main character by any measure.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1499
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:05am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Guys, I get it, it's about the dollars. But I did add the proviso "if they really wanted to empower women". If it's just a #Metoo cash grab, then I don't see why it's worthy of any praise.

As for Walter White Jr., he certainly played a key role towards the end, and on his character page he is described as a 'secondary tritagonist" (supposedly defined as "a character whose actions drive the plot just as much as those of the protagonist.").

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12953
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 12:20am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Guys, I get it, it's about the dollars. But I did add the proviso "if they really wanted to empower women". If it's just a #Metoo cash grab, then I don't see why it's worthy of any praise.


-----

I wouldn't characterize it as a #MeToo cash grab. Hollywood is currently very risk-averse, relying on remakes and franchise films. Why would they be any different about this issue?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1499
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 2:21am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

That's a reason, not an excuse. I fully understand their aversion to risk, it's their money after all. I just don't wish to reward them for it with my money :)

It's not as though it's a foregone conclusion that empowering women by providing original stories centered on entirely new and interesting female characters, and making money, are mutually exclusive propositions; it just takes more effort - and yes, greater exposure to risk. But that's what separates the people who want to gender swap for a genuinely positive reason, from those who just want to gender swap because "Hey, it's the flavor of the month and we can make some quick bank off of it!".

Otherwise, why does Bond, or Dr Who, or any other character, need to be gender swapped?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12953
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 2:31am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

But that's what separates the people who want to gender swap for a genuinely positive reason, from those who just want to gender swap because "Hey, it's the flavor of the month and we can make some quick bank off of it!".

----

No, it separates the people who don't want to take risks from the people who risk a project failing and having naysayers point and say, "See! No one wants to see a film with empowered women." I mean, ATOMIC BLONDE did slightly better than the first JOHN WICK, but I don't think anyone's angling for a sequel any time soon.

So why not just reward or condemn the final execution instead of worrying whether a production's motives are pure or not? In the end, all big Hollywood productions are about making money. If that bothers you, there's indie art house films.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8374
Posted: 17 July 2019 at 3:51am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Pretty much every single film that's ever been made, including the art house projects, was made to generate profit for someone. Even if this person didn't get paid, or that one didn't, some one did. By far the overwhelming majority of films were made to make money. Psycho. Gone With the Wind. Wizard of Oz. Whatever your favorite film is. Bambi. It's a Wonderful Life. Whatever. You can just throw them in a fire, because, baby, end of the day, it was all just a great big cynical cash grab. No movie is pure. Not even close. Forget 'em all. Junk the entire industry. Not a one of these things was made to make the world a better place for you and me. It was always about the money.

There we go. Case closed. No need to talk about film AT ALL anymore. If it's all just for money, we don't need to discuss it one bit further.

If we do decide that maybe these sh*tbag cashgrabs have some value after all (and really, I don't see how we can) but if, mind you, IF there's some small value to their existence beyond their venal profiteering, then maybe, again just maybe, there could be something to their using their huge, multi-billion dollar franchises to make what's on-screen resemble the world around us a little bit more closely.

I mean, movies make us feel good, right? Or feel something. We relate to the characters onscreen and allow them to take us places we may not have gone before. It's easier when they look like us, or rather, what we think we look like on our best days. They tend to feature idealized versions of who you and I think we are. Steve Carrell is THE FORTY-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN because, psheesh! Yeah. THAT guy can't get laid. Matthew McConaughey suffers from FAILURE TO LAUNCH because, oh, yeah, sure. THAT guy isn't going anywhere in life. 

A key element of the alchemy that makes the storytelling happen is the sense that's US up there onscreen somehow. What's happening may be fantastical, but you can relate. Now imagine never seeing yourself up there. Or least not in some way that isn't insulting, mocking, or at best, secondary. Why would the film industry do that to large swathes of their audience? How many people are being left out of the loop? 

Hey, what if we actually put someone onscreen who DOES look like someone the previously disenfranchised people out there can get behind? We'll hedge our bets of course. I mean, hell, of course we will. There's money at stake here. But y'know, if 007 is a call sign, and if the previous holder of it has retired, do we HAVE TO make the next agent a young, clean-cut White guy? Isn't there some potential benefit in this particular place in time to trying something else? 

There's guaranteed backlash to be sure, but might those benefits outweigh that effect? We won't really know until we try, and hey, worse comes to worse, it's still Daniel Craig up there on that screen next to our new 007, the same guy we've been betting on for ten years or more now. Why not do this? Generate some buzz. Put some butts in the seats that might not have gone to a 007 movie before. Give a few more people someone to root for. 

Of course they're in it for the money. Everyone before them was too. GOLDFINGER was made to make money. DR. NO. Every single Bond film ever. 

How is this worse for that? 

007 and Dr. Who were chosen for this sort of re-imagining because the character concepts allowed for it. 007 is a designation, not an individual. Dr. Who becomes different people. Very different people. Why is this iteration so much worse? 

I recently had a lousy discussion with a twerp who insisted that Miles Morales needed to have a separate identity in order to be a viable character. But, as I pointed out to him, multiple iterations of existing characters sell, and have since the beginning of the super-hero genre. Why wouldn't you want your new Black character to have that advantage? Why is this so very much worse than when Spider-Woman was created? Or the next Spider-Woman? Or the ones after that? 

Was that all so terribly degrading to women, to be dressed in Spider-Man costumes and made to serve their corporate masters in male drag, putting on "minstrel shows" to appease the dull-witted perverts out there? Or did those characters do well enough that they earned back their money and gave some good stories to their readers? 

No? That's impossible? It was all just ugly, seedy profiteering? Whatever. Miles has earned the Spider-Man suit in-story, and he doesn't need to justify it to anyone online. It's was Marvel's decision to make and it was a profitable one. More than that, it was a good one. 

Hey, whattayaknow. It's both.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 10 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE