Correct me if im wrong

This message has been deleted by the poster

why not a female though? maybe back your comment, otherwise you come off a touch sexist...
attractive enough? shes turning into quite a gorgeous girl pretty quickly.

This is just as stupid as the idea of a black James Bond. James Bond as written by Ian Fleming is a white MAN, and is between late thirties to early forties in age. Ian Fleming describes him as being tall, slender, with black hair and a scar down his check and that he bears strong resemblance to Hoagy Carmichael. His father was Scottish and his mother was Swiss. In 1953 being black doesn't fit with having Scottish or Swiss roots.

As for him being a woman, sorry no. He was written as a male spy, that's his character, the same as how he is not Arabic or Asian, or African (see where i'm going?). His character is very defined already and if you make James Bond anything other than male and white British then you may as well just make an entirely different character, because that isn't who Bond was written to be, the same as how he is not homosexual either.

Minor differences in looks and hair colour can be over looked, but not gender and ethnicity. There's nothing sexist, racist or homophobic about it. His character was neither black, female nor homosexual. He is quite simply a white British male and anything other than that is ridiculous and poor representation.

well man you are wrong and i will tell you why. i get your point and agree; but based on films of late... it does not matter how they were ORIGINALLY written...
black annie, black human torch, black karate kid, all black wizard of oz, latina Selena, and you know i could go on.
i know your not being racist, i was on boards making multiple logic complaints about such examples and was automatically colored racist. if they think she would be a good female Bond, they will cast her.

With your examples you can kind of get away with having for example a black karate kid, because his character isn't all that specific, but James Bond has a clearly defined character and background, and so it wouldn't make sense that he was black and it would be unnecessary to force a character change like that just to be "edgy".

I think if you stop paying attention to the way the character was originally written then you lose it's intrinsic appeal.

To me a female James Bond doesn't make sense either for that same reason, in that he wasn't written from a female perspective, and so making him a woman, would be basically making an entirely different character and so what's the point of that?

Some have even suggested there should be a gay James Bond, but again James Bond wasn't gay and his character is a womaniser, so how is that going to work?

So no I don't think Maisie would be a good James Bond because she's a woman and he isn't a woman. That doesn't mean she can't play a female spy or other secret agent role.

We don't need to destroy character traits in order to appease certain groups and people in society.

all of them were written specifically.... all of them. i agree it is shi tty to change it for no reason. but it doesnt matter. hollywood loves to be "edgy" in the stupid way of simply making The human torch black and now hes adopted and nothing like the Johnny Storm in the original comic. Jaden could have played a black kid who moved to wherever and Jackie chan helps him defend himself and they did not have to call it Karate kid but they do. just like Maisie could be in a different spy franchise but ehhh lets just make it the next bond movie, people will recognize that so f it. so yes they dont need to change character traits in order to appease certain groups in society, in fact it is downright unnecessary!... but we do it anyways.see what im sizzlin?

all of them were written specifically

No they weren't, for example Karate kid could be potentially any kid from any background and it wouldn't impact on the story, i.e a black kid wouldn't make any difference in that role. The remake of that film was bad for other reasons, not involving race.

And just because Hollywood can do something doesn't mean they should or that it makes sense, or that people will watch it and like it. You could go mad and make James Bond an alien from planet vagina with long tentacles coming out of his body, doesn't mean that it would make an excellent Bond film.

You could make him a woman but the vast majority of people wouldn't identify a woman with the character of Bond because he wasn't written to be female. You could make him black, Chinese, or Arabic and it wouldn't make sense considering his background and people wouldn't buy into it or accept that character change.

However making Moneypenny black (which they have done) made no difference to her role or the actresses ability to play that role convincingly, this is because we don't know very much about her background and she's not all that defined or specific.

Give you another example, the character of Ripley for Alien was originally written for a man, but they decided to cast a woman because they liked the idea of an empowering female role. That was a good decision and they were able to do that and incorporate her in that role, due to the role being fairly gender blank. All that was required was a tough persona. But Bond has an entire back story and there's no getting away from how he was written to be a British, white mature male, who is also a womaniser.

You can't just cast anyone for that role, or rather you could but no one would like it and it wouldn't be appropriate. For the same reason an obese person can't play Bond, it's just not going to work, is it?

lol its the exact same thing, just like any movie based off a book too; they are described a certain way. its the same thing but obviously you are blind to that and there is no convincing you.