[email protected] - Discussing books and book-related things.
[email protected] - A place to discuss comic books of all types.
[email protected] - LW's home for all things MCU.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.
Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.
Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.
Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.
I'm not sure what I want more,
Smaller scale spy films that aren't so reliant on guns and explosions, or a return to the camp gadget-centric action romps?
The Craig era did revitalise the brand, but they were actively trying to distance themselves from the Austin Powers at the time, which did take it away from what it had been for decades.
This is peak society right here. Everyone's view is interesting.
Most people don't care about it Bond stays male or (let's face it white). However, and I'm in this boat, we do think there should be more women and PoC in movies.
Hollywood heard that and said "OKAY THEY WANT A BLACK WOMAN TO PLAY BOND".
To which most of us were like, way to miss the meaning, bond is already an established character. Maybe if you're picking a new role make them a woman or PoC?
And then moronic conservatives are incapable of seeing nuance so they think "LIBBRALLS ARE TRYING TO CHANGE MY JAMES BOND"
Which we all collectively eyerolled and said no go back to your corner.
But studios now think it's some justified thing that Bond will stay white and male. Congrats. You idiots. We've come full circle.
I care. I loved Bond since Dr. No, and I want him British, male, white, sophisticated, adventurous and throwing around one liners after a kill.
If anyone wants something else, develop a new character.
I'm tired of this, I don't want a white Shaft, a female Shakespeare or nonsense like that. Instead may I propose Oceans 8? New characters, free to do whatever you want. In that movie it worked great, and everyone is happy.
Cause "separate but equal" has always been a great solution.
I think you missed the point. On both of our comments.
No, I get it. It's been repeated ad nauseum for decades at this point, so it's hard to miss.
"The monolith of white characters in media is problematic, sure, but don't change any of them. That would be 'wrong' and 'ruin' them for all the white people that like them the way they are. Make your own characters and keep them separate. That way nothing gets ruined, yeah?"
Or, in short:
"Diversity is OK, but only if it doesn't touch 'my' media."
Look I don't exactly care myself, so you're not arguing with me. But I see what people are saying and like it or not they have a point, and the backlash that's happening is not exactly unpredictable. You don't make a whole lot of allies by saying "I refuse to understand your point of view and you're wrong for thinking it"
I do understand it and they are wrong. They don't "have a point". They just don't like the idea of not being the defacto archetype and lash out at anything suggesting change, pretending to offer "reasonable" alternatives as if that's not just perpetuating the same problems. Like I said, it isn't anything new.
The thing is, Bond isn't an established character. They've been recast so many times that fan theories exist that they're a Timelord (another "established character" that got people uppity when suggesting the same kinds of changes, though thankfully we've crossed that particular Rubicon, albeit roughly). Change is part of the character at this point, and extending that beyond the cis, white, and (problematically) hetero confines of its past provides greater opportunity for growth and improvement rather than languishing in a character that first hit screens 60 years ago and was penned even further back, with all the baggage that came with that.
It's just comic book time. It makes sense from one release to the next, and beyond that... don't worry about it. Peter Parker is always about twenty, Ash Ketchum has been ten years old for two decades, and oh god this comic was twenty years ago.
Frankly they might as well swoop under the Daniel Craig reboot and say this bond is explicitly the same guy as Brosnan. Who is the same guy who went to the moon, and was a sea captain in World War II. James Bond is kind of stupid and they should lean into it. He's a secret agent that everybody recognizes on sight.
In what way does "comic book time" justify not casting a non-white or non-male actor? You say "don't worry about it", but you're the one worrying. If it doesn't matter and is just stupid, why keep it so restrained?
... I'm sorry, is the question really 'how does a few years change your age but not your ethnicity?'
James Bond has been recast because real people get old. Characters don't have to. That is an example of not changing. James Bond is eternally forty-ish, even when he was played by men visibly pushing sixty. There's no in-universe explanation because that's not how humans experience stories.
I was worried they were going to make statements about hiring directors with a vision. Phew.
Was a transgender arc ever on the table?
I guess it could have been an outcome of the casino royal torture scene
Conflating genital torture with gender affirming care isn't a good look for you.
No, but 007 was a woman in no time to die, so this statement also implies it'll be a reboot that's not canon with the Craig era.
This is just pandering to right wing extremists (ie mainstream conservatism).
It's like if, say, Unilever bought out a company and then released a statement saying "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs will stay free of woke mRNA vaccine"
