Chesterfield
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,287
- Reaction score
- 524
- Points
- 73
Valid points, perhaps, but those aren't the only reasons.
The character is white in the books and people are and were not happy about the change of ethnicity because of it. When they cast a black actress to play Hermione in the cursed child, the reaction was the same. Unless, you can provide some profound insights as to why people weren't happy about making her black that I missed.
As for James Bond, it's not surprising so many of you have the views you do because typically, you people subscribe to James Bond not even being a person but being a code name as even highlighted in the poll. Then there's a bunch of you who think he should be a woman. You're not serious people at all.
Now...
The Bond films are a global cultural institution, deeply rooted in SPECIFIC traditions and aesthetics.
Obviously, diversity is crucial but not all characters need reinvention. James Bond should remain white to preserve narrative continuity, brand identity, and literary authenticity. None of you can provide a single reasonable reason as to why he should (emphasis on should, NOT could) be a poc.
I mentioned Fleming's work in my previous post and I stand that by that, especially as the man is no longer living to say otherwise. Bond is white, British, with Scottish and Swiss roots. To change that core identity is to stray from the character’s origin and undermine Fleming's creative intent but then again, we are living in a world entertaining clownish identity politics so the respect to preserve Bond's core identity has no value to some people.
Furthermore, Bond has been rightly played by white actors for over 60 years. Changing his ethnicity would f*** up the visual and cultural continuity in these films that have evolved but also held on to its aesthetic history. Also, audience familiarity plays a key part in keeping long-term interest and immersion, which has been maintained consistently, longer than any film franchise in history. An unnecessary change like this can confuse and alienate long-time viewers. Especially certain people who couldn't understand the meaning of License Revoked so "brilliantly" resolved the issue by renaming it to License To Kill.
Why cater to a vocal minority who don't really care for Bond much to begin with? It's stupid. Bond's whiteness isn’t just visual, it’s cultural and contextual and you'd all know this if you bothered to look beyond the sex and martini-drinking.
Like I said before, give me a black Bruce Wayne etc first then talk to me about a poc Bond because rather than changing existing characters, studios should invest in creating new, original heroes of diverse backgrounds which you all should be supporting but never do. Representation should never come at the expense of legacy. Stop being so damn lazy. Forcing diversity into historically cemented roles is disingenuous when original stories would be authentic, more appreciated and better avenues for inclusion.
Lastly, the Bond brand is built on a very specific visual and cultural identity. Everything from marketing to merchandise to historical and global recognition. Changing this in such an unnecessary and extreme way serves what purpose exactly? From a practical business standpoint, this degree of rebranding is a terribly dumb idea.
Until we get a poc Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Zorro, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent and for good measure let's throw in a Chinese or bi-racial Harry Potter, not one of you people can say anything remotely sensible to legitimately justify making Bond a poc. Keeping Bond’s whiteness is not an act of exclusion, contrary to what you think. It's a component of creative, narrative and brand integrity and like I said before, I'm all for diversity in films but it should not be executed through hijacking and laziness but instead come from new creations rather than that of existing icons that have endured and put int the work to become established for decades on very specific and iconic identities.
