James Bond as a Woman??

[newmodelarmy]

There sure are a lot of crusty old snowflakes here. This entire discussion could've been taken from r/conservative or one of the other echo-chamber subreddits.

What does this even mean?

[Den]

It means that you all are getting your panties in a twist about nothing. Who cares if "James Bond" is a woman? If you don't like it, don't see it, end of story. It's not worth all this hand-wringing.

[DrLitch]

It means that you all are getting your panties in a twist about nothing. Who cares if "James Bond" is a woman? If you don't like it, don't see it, end of story. It's not worth all this hand-wringing.

It's an Internet forum and folks like to post their two cents. You are reading way too much into it. I do not think anyone here truly cares if Bond was cast a woman - at least beyond a fleeting muse. Despite me casting my two cents and thoughts, in the grand scheme of things, I personally do not give a huge f*** what happens with Bond or Hollywood in general.

[newmodelarmy]

It means that you all are getting your panties in a twist about nothing. Who cares if "James Bond" is a woman? If you don't like it, don't see it, end of story. It's not worth all this hand-wringing.

Who are you to tell people how to think? I think James Bond as a women is incredibly stupid. However, you are quite right, I have no plans to see that movie, if and when it comes out. I don't think there is much "hand-wringing" going on at all, just people, most likely fans of 007, expressing their opinion. If anybody is getting their "panties in a twist"....it is you.

[Robotrek]

To me it just seems really dumb to criticize a movie over the race/gender of a character. Like, really? That seems viscously IDIOTIC to me. If you want to criticize an actor for their performance, sure, whatever. If you want to criticize a movie for it's writing/pacing, sure, whatever. Maybe the musical score didn't do it for you? Sure, whatever. But if you're bugged the entire movie because it stars a woman or black person in a role you don't think a woman or a black person should be in, sorry, but you're a jerk. The Ghostbusters movie, for example. It isn't what I'd call great, and certainly doesn't match up to the original, but it's a hell of a lot better than Ghostbusters II was! But so many people up and refused to see it. Why? Because women just don't deserve to star in a Ghostbusters movie, I suppose. Everybody got angry because they didn't hire a 66, 64, and 71 year old to retain their roles in a 32 year old movie at the time. Like, goodness gracious.

I could understand some legitimate criticisms of the Ghostbusters movie, I really really could. It had a good number of flaws. Not a SINGLE ONE of which I can attribute to the fact it had a female cast.

If you refuse to watch a movie because you don't believe the race or sex of an actor is worthy of a certain position in a film's casting, I'm sorry, but you're a real jerk and it says a LOT about the kind of person you are!

[VideoGameCritic]

On the other hand, if race and gender doesn't matter, why the call to change him at all? For political correctness?

Bond was created by writer Ian Fleming in 1953, and that character has a long history and distinctive traits which made him endearing to fans. Each actor who played him had a different angle but they are all cast of the same mold. You can just pull the rug out and expect people to go along.

[Den]

Each actor who played him had a different angle but they are all cast of the same mold. You can just pull the rug out and expect people to go along.

So changing the actor five different times is just fine, but only if the replacement is a white man?

Ian Fleming described James Bond in his books: he's supposed to have black hair, a scar on his face, and blue eyes. If Fleming's "vision" is sacrosanct, why is it OK to ignore these?

[DrLitch]

.....

This is supposed to be a light hearted conversation about purported changes in movie direction and you decided to ramp down the tone of the thread. I am all for open minded discussion but implying passively aggressively that some folks that post here are jerks proves you are closed for discussion. Go post on Reddit and score yourself some brownie points there.

This thread has run it's course in my opinion, conclusion, some people are welcoming to changes and some are not. If someone does not like the idea of a trans woman or person of color taking the lead role in a long running series, you could always pat your smug self on the back for being an enlightened soul. Films and videogames fall under the realm of art in my opinion and thus are subjective. Implicit biases, bigotry, and all the other nasty things in society - well console yourself with the concept that no real bigot will give enough of a f*** about what you have to say about things to mend his ways.

Most people will have their own personal opinions for casting and they do not necessarily have to come from racist or sexist bias. I would not be wrong to question the logic of the director if Adam Sandler played the role of Genghis Khan in a period piece, nor would I be racist or sexist if the Jarl of an ancient Viking tribe was portrayed by a Japanese actress, nor so if Vercingetorix was portrayed by Whoopie Goldberg. I also would not be wrong if I struggled to accept Sigourney Weaver's character Ripley being portrayed by Brad Pitt. It works both and all ways. Of course none could possibly make me right either - it is Hollywood's money, their director, and their vision that counts. If the public do not go to see it, too bad, gamble failed. If they do and it is a success, then nothing I can say or do will change the outcome whatever my biases are.

[MSR1701]

.....

This is supposed to be a light hearted conversation about purported changes in movie direction and you decided to ramp down the tone of the thread. I am all for open minded discussion but implying passively aggressively that some folks that post here are jerks proves you are closed for discussion. Go post on Reddit and score yourself some brownie points there.

This thread has run it's course in my opinion, conclusion, some people are welcoming to changes and some are not. If someone does not like the idea of a trans woman or person of color taking the lead role in a long running series, you could always pat your smug self on the back for being an enlightened soul. Films and videogames fall under the realm of art in my opinion and thus are subjective. Implicit biases, bigotry, and all the other nasty things in society - well console yourself with the concept that no real bigot will give enough of a f*** about what you have to say about things to mend his ways.

Most people will have their own personal opinions for casting and they do not necessarily have to come from racist or sexist bias. I would not be wrong to question the logic of the director if Adam Sandler played the role of Genghis Khan in a period piece, nor would I be racist or sexist if the Jarl of an ancient Viking tribe was portrayed by a Japanese actress, nor so if Vercingetorix was portrayed by Whoopie Goldberg. I also would not be wrong if I struggled to accept Sigourney Weaver's character Ripley being portrayed by Brad Pitt. It works both and all ways. Of course none could possibly make me right either - it is Hollywood's money, their director, and their vision that counts. If the public do not go to see it, too bad, gamble failed. If they do and it is a success, then nothing I can say or do will change the outcome whatever my biases are.

I concur.