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.
So now we need to worry about it? I’m getting mixed messages here. Why does “just go with it” only work for maintaining a problematic status quo? Why is ethnicity a problem, but not the multitude of other things you brought up? Now we have to have a reason for it? “Don’t get so wrapped up in details. Except for these details that you want to change. Those are ‘important’.”
Like you said, it’s just nonsense. Lean into the chaos.
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.
So now we need to worry about it? I’m getting mixed messages here. Why does “just go with it” only work for maintaining a problematic status quo? Why is ethnicity a problem, but not the multitude of other things you brought up? Now we have to have a reason for it? “Don’t get so wrapped up in details. Except for these details that you want to change. Those are ‘important’.”
Like you said, it’s just nonsense. Lean into the chaos.
This is stupid and I’m not interested.