its the same thing but obviously you are blind to that and there is no convincing you.
You aren't really addressing any of the points I've made as to why casting James Bond as either a woman or a different ethnic background isn't a good idea and doesn't make sense for the character.
Essentially you are saying that any actor/actress can be cast to play any role. That's a bit like casting a 40 year old woman to play Harry Potter.
James Bond is described in detail yes, but more than that he has an entire back story, which can't be overlooked. I think you are blind in claiming potentially anyone could play that role and that we shouldn't pay attention to how the character is written and if we don't pay any attention to the details, then why even bother to begin with?
I don't think you have really taken on board the points I made and you're looking to push some kind of agenda, even if it doesn't make any sense.
Disregarding original material and roots of a character is basically just crap writing, crap depiction and ultimately a crap story resulting in a crap movie.
Characters can be altered and changed when appropriate, as I pointed out with the Ripley character in Alien. By casting a woman it empowered that character, which resulted in a tough female, with depth and substance. Something which hadn't been done much at that time. They were only able to do that because the role was gender blank, it wasn't based on anyone and the character could evolve and grow from a foundation.
That doesn't apply to James Bond in anyway. He was very specifically written, with a specific background, age, education, looks, etc. He's not a new character he's well established and there isn't room to incorporate nonsensical character depictions and traits within his character/role. In doing so would likely destroy the franchise.
reply
share