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
David Allen Perrin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 15 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2777
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 1:14pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Well in a perfect world we would just be ‘people’.

But this world is kinda fucked up when it comes to stuff like this.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 10757
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 1:28pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

JB wrote “People of Color” is a currently acceptable
phrase that makes me really uncomfortable. When I was in
my formative years, “colored” was a term of
disparagement, as was “black.”

When i was a kid "Coloured" was the acceptable term,
"black" was considered disparagement. Now it`s reversed.
Benedict Cumberbatch, who is a similar age to me, had to
apologise a couple of years ago, for sing the term
"coloured"
He meant no offense, but it was drummed into us as
children in the UK.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jim Muir
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 26 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1235
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 1:45pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

We’re obviously of a similar age, Bill. ‘Black’ was HUGELY offensive when I was a kid, and we used the word ‘coloured’
I do find it strange that ‘coloured’ is now offensive, but ‘people of colour’ is not.
Funny how language evolves.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 10757
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Almost 56, Jim.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 1525
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 2:30pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Maybe the change was when James Brown sang "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud"? But of course in reality few come close to actually being black of skin, and I am pink anyway, not white. I can't figure out now why Native American can be a bad term according to some... for me it beats Indian which was based on Columbus or whoever thinking they were in India. Indigenous or Aboriginal would have to be combined with American as well too, so it's the word Native that is objectionable to people who go back the farthest in the Americas? I do know a shortened word for Pakistani is very un-PC, but if you think about it that doesn't really make sense either. Apparently the favored term now has gone from East Indian to South Asian.

I seemed to always have bigger fish to fry on the girl vs. woman business though... I just don't care, let the term you use speak for you however it will to others. I get dear, I get honey even, I get sweetie (yuck) from some really old folks. Yet I see men objecting on my and others' behalf and some tiresome fights occurring. Anyway, I know Trina Robbins who used to make a point of the word woman in her underground comics days titled her autobiography Last Girl Standing. :^)

Did I trot out the story here yet of an older relative who had a habit of saying boy to people's faces in conversation? It was like some women would say girl and was certainly not a problem, until one time a bit south in the U.S. talking to someone who was black.


Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 18 July 2019 at 2:31pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 11976
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 3:22pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

no one said anything about a modern setting until now. 
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
The idea of a 50s-set Bond has been mooted for many years. I remember Kim Newman mentioning it in Empire magazine at least 15 years ago.

Slice it up whichever you want, one of the key appeals of Bond was his lavish and exotic lifestyle in the context of frugal, post-war Britain. There is little special these days about someone who orders Champagne or vodka without thinking too much, or visits the Caribbean and New York and complains that the problem with caviar is not having enough toast (well, that last one would be a bit unusual). 

M castigating Bond as a Cold War dinosaur in Goldeneye must have been some kind of mistake since no one said anything about a modern setting until now.

Bond almost definitely is better set in the 50s or 60s. Some say Bond works best with a character called Bond as well.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jim Muir
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 26 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1235
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 3:43pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Bond as a period piece strikes me a little odd. He was written - at the time- as a modern contemporary character. As was Sherlock Holmes. Continuing the stories in the here and now seems perfectly valid to me.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8374
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 10:33pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Which is why his replacement can, in-story, logically be a Black woman. That Bond's Fifties-era viewpoints no longer keep pace with the times makes things a bit awkward in today's world. We could try trimming this view from his character, and that one, and everything he said about this... Make sure that he never repeats this whole bit that he said here... but then you wind up with a character who is very much not Bond.

So, since that is the direction in which we are headed, we may as well have the 007 designation fall to a character who is very much not Bond herself.

I am hoping the series retains that mordant sense of humor and ability Bond has to devise on the fly. There is no reason why this new agent can't be as agile and clever as Bond, if not more so, and leave her victims with a parting quip as well. 

Peter, I'm assuming there was some sarcasm in that response re: M's comment, but since I was referring to his critics and not to anything in-story, I don't think you're keeping up. You point out that there have long been calls to keep 007 as a period piece, but the films have never gone that way, nor have the novels. And no one outside of a small number of  purists have said "boo" about that. Until now, when the modern context allows for something a great many more people find unacceptable. Now, NOW, we need to discuss this being a period piece, apparently so THIS sort of thing can't happen again.

David, thanks for the kind words. I get that a great number of people don't like the idea of switching Bond out for anyone, but we can look at it from this perspective: Since the new 007 only comes in AFTER Bond retires, should film audiences reject this new premise, the films going forward can simply take place long before Bond is of retirement age. There we go. The new 007 is a phantom hovering out there in Bond's future, and not someone we need ever speak of again, until the film is inevitably made that contradicts her existence, and then, she will simply be dismissed as a continuity blip from some years past. 

In many ways, this new 007 is no more a "replacement" for Bond than Mary Russell is a replacement for Sherlock Holmes. So long as we never go into that part of Holmes' life where he is an aged beekeeper, we never have to account for her. A youthful Bond not yet thinking of retirement will never have to meet this new character and the producers will never have to mention her again, should they deem this experiment a failure. 

Koroush, you're just repeating yourself at this point, and still not making your points clear.

Please elaborate on the many film successes that exist proving that the producers are making an easy cash grab here. From where I sit, this is just as much a risk as any other film they might try with the franchise, and moreso of one in many respects. The casting switch generates a measure of controversy, but that does not guarantee box office. Where is your proof that this is a can't-miss prospect which is somehow the easiest, most cynically motivated path for the producers to take?

Also, a woman of color has been given the central role in an ongoing franchise which will receive top-flight promotion and support from the studio. Nothing about that speaks to condescension or, really, anything evil that I can see. Yet, you still continue to insist that it is a bad thing without saying why. Again, please elaborate. The condescension here seems entirely on your end, not theirs.


Edited by Brian Hague on 18 July 2019 at 10:35pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 10757
Posted: 18 July 2019 at 11:57pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Just a thought, Halle Berry`s Jinx, a woman of colour,
and original character was supposed to be in her own
spin-off.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1491
Posted: 19 July 2019 at 6:00am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

 Brian Hague wrote:
Koroush, you're just repeating yourself at this point, and still not making your points clear.


Fair enough. I'll just add these points and leave it at that:

Speaking as a Bond fan, I struggle to imagine where, when and how a black woman - even one ostensibly not James Bond but still in the 007 mold - fits into the clearly male fantasy inspired world of Bond. That's not the Bond world Fleming wrote about, it's not the same premise as the movies I enjoyed, it's something else. We can call it a 007 movie, except it's not (in my opinion). But hey, as you point out, they own the rights, so let them bastardize the franchise as they see fit!

Speaking also as someone who's technically a member of at least one minority (Iranian-born immigrant in Australia), but only speaking for myself, I have no wish to see an Iranian Bond, or Holmes, or Batman. If Iranians are given roles, let them be as Iranian characters, not repurposed western characters generously donated by studios which have run out of ideas.

Ironically, Disney didn't even see fit to cast a Persian actor in the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time movie! Yeah, the studios are involved in #MeToo for all the right reasons ;)

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 117252
Posted: 19 July 2019 at 6:58am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Speaking also as someone who's technically a member of at least one minority (Iranian-born immigrant in Australia), but only speaking for myself, I have no wish to see an Iranian Bond, or Holmes, or Batman. If Iranians are given roles, let them be as Iranian characters, not repurposed western characters generously donated by studios which have run out of ideas.

••

But that is exactly what they are NOT doing here. The point of my original post. This is not a "female Bond". This is a female 007.

It's sort of equivalent to William Shatner replacing Jeffery Hunter as captain of the Enterprise. Same job, but not the same character.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Hogan
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1844
Posted: 19 July 2019 at 11:55am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Shouldn’t she be a double-o-some-other-number?
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