I’m compelled to point out (EDIT: @generic_name beat me to it in a subsequent post) that James Bond is a fictional character. It’s like when my son asks me why something happened in a certain way, that didn’t make any sense to him, on The Simpsons. My standard reply is “you mean in the fictional, comedic cartoon universe?”
I had a co-worker about 4 years ago that got really wound-up and pissed off about Captain America, although I believe he had anger management issues beyond that.
Yeah; the people who get bent out of shape with regard to Star Trek, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, a superhero, etc. get a little to invested in something that just isn’t real.
I’m perfectly chill. And you have totally misunderstood my point. I’m simply pointing out the fact that this character change is entirely based on trying to rope people into giving them more money based on nothing but the novelty of the lead character’s skin color. It can’t possibly be worth the price of admission because they have no real ideas other than a paint job. I personally don’t give a damn what they do with the character because almost every James Bond movie since Connery quit doing them has sucked. I just don’t like this Hollywood “let’s paint the dead horse a different color and then we can beat another dollar out of it” approach.
They aren’t changing the character, they’re introducing a new one while presumably also exploring how Bond adapts to his new life outside of Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
The new movie might suck and it might be great, but either way the new approach is the exact opposite of just rehashing the same story with a played-out character.
I hate to break it to you, but Daniel Craig’s Bond had more resemblance to the Bond that Ian Fleming wrote: Britain’s blunt instrument, a killer who may or may not do the right thing. His shares a kinship with the literary Bond.
It’s counter-progressively cynical to say that the only motivation for casting women or POC (or both) in big-budget films is pandering.
You know what? There’ve been so many problems with Hollywood casting and under-representation of minorities, that it’s perfectly fine for Hollywood to pander this way. They should probably dial it back some in about 100 years or so.
Dear Manbabies: Of special interest are the diversity links on the SIS’s (MI-6) third page for DEUCE, KALEIDOSCOPE, The Cultural Diversity Group, and SCOOTER. Practically anybody could be made of the right stuff to go out and fuck shit up for Queen and Country.
Yes, because because those of us who aren’t white men and might enjoy to see a bit more representation in pop culture are all mindless dupes… unlike the white men pitching a bit over the race and color of a character. They are the true connoisseurs of the art that is Jame Bond…
And if they rolled out yet another paint by numbers James Bond action film with another white male lead this would then be entirely based on trying to rope people manbabies into giving them more money based on nothing but the novelty tired trope of the lead character’s white skin color.
But see, it’s only pandering if it’s not white men! Get it now? The rest of us are dupes, and the only REAL art is made by and for white men, with nothing but white men… the rest is just icky, crass commerce. /s