Point is that the franchise is "007 is James Bond" and all the shticks for that: fast cars, the drinks, the (ridiculous) plots, the villain exposure, the womanizing, the "good bond chick", the "bad bond chick", the suave barbarian... changing that and keeping the name? Sure way to kill the franchise, because it would be something else, using the brand that has been deeply and firmly stablished. It would be like GW suddingly leaving all of their IPs aside and start selling children plush toys of a generic, non-warhammer-esque looks, yet still calling that a Warhammer IP. Or like Corvus Belli leaving the Infintiy Universe for a Tolkienesque miniature game, still called Infinity the game.
I have to agree here. It's less a matter of allowing persons of colors in roles without backlash (and the opposite too), and more about keeping what is well known and continuity. It's also a matter of respect for the original author. What if Steve Roger was suddenly asian, and without saying it's a different Steve while the other exist? At the same time, I wouldn't want Cyborg to be white, as the character is establish as african-american. It would be ignoring the legacy of the creator. Some characters are well known and changing it will most often weird out people and leads to a drop in popularity. Not out of racism (although it's sadly sometimes the reason), just because it destabilize what people are used to and it's not what they expected. Of course at times the change turns out to be positive. It's a problem today in many medias. Why not, instead of casting a person of color in a well know role, create a new and compelling black or indian character that is important to the story? 009, Ted Woodrows(TM), black agent, who turns out to not only be a part of the plot, but also just as competent as Bond? It's like people can't be creative anymore and rather than create, they replace.
Except we still have James Bond in this James Bond film... It's not like we haven't seen this plot before in the franchise either. Bond retires, then gets dragged back in against his will, of course they're going to have a new 007, they don't retire the numbers like hockey jerseys, they find someone else to fill the role. Just like they did with M and Q. Just like if I retired my boss would find a new Support Engineer. Besides, people always complain when you change things, there was outcry that Daniel Craig couldn't play Bond because he's blonde and looks too "brutish". My fear is that they make the new 007 incompetent, justifying Bond's return and moving the series nowhere. We know that Craig has said he'd like this to be his last Bond movie. If the follow up to this film is a female led 007 movie with fast cars, drinks, ridiculous plots, charismatic supervillain, and steamy romance, that sounds pretty good!
It always depend how they make it. In the case of 007, maybe it would work, who knows, since she's not Jane Bond, so it's not a complete rewriting and reboot. Still though, I believe it to be a bit of an unnecessary change which mostly serves to be politically correct. It's like there's something wrong with a white male in a major role these days. Also, bond boys doesn't sound as good.
Nothing wrong with it at all, but there's a sizable population that would like to see more balance and representation. We've had, what, 20 Marvel movies and all but two of them have had white males as top billing. Maybe not to you, but I know plenty of people it'd appeal to. Besides, who says a female bond has to be only interested in boys?
It's just a matter practical choices based on the necessity of the situation. Just remember how Craig's Bond react to Bardem's Silva in Skyfall.
The real question, is not what color is 007? but will it be a good movie? A cursory search shows that the movie has already been plagued with a lot of problems. I am skeptical the quality will be very good, and by adding in a contentious move like changing 007 to a non-Bond agent, I would be surprised if this movie does very well in the box office. Maybe that is just my pessimism though.
You,re not entirely wrong. It's a lot of change all at once and it could push people (even pro-new actress) people away. It's a lot to take in. You,re kind of turning a joke into a semi-political statement but okay. If she's also into women, or green people or anything, it's another change added to the pile, thus going back to how it could be just too much and overwhelming. Change is good, but change is dangerous too and too much change can be bad.
One of the most popular films this year was about a bisexual singer born in Africa to Parsi parents, who died from Aids in the 90s. I think audiences will accept more than you give them credit for :)
You're all raising very good points and the bottom line seems to be: Replacing the Bond actor by another still makes it a Bond movie, but here we're switching from a Bond movie to a 007 movie which is slightly different in the end. It could even move to a 00 serie. I'm not saying it will be bad. It will be different. We'll see how different and how good/bad it will be. I have to admit that I was initially reluctant when Craig arrived one the franchise but he ended being one of my favorite Bond. I would love to have a counter-Bond licence too, where we see Spectre's operation succeed (after all there's plenty of them or Spectre won't even be a threat).
There is a note to make here. That movie isn't inserted into a well known and popular franchise. As a standalone, the public will accept a lot of things, which is good. As part of something large, well known and popular, change is harder to manage. And lot of change makes it even harder. That's why piling up changes can be dangerous for a franchise. That is actually a VERY good point. Why is she 007, an iconic number associated to many characteristics? It would work very well, better even, to move to a 00 series instead. She could use a different number and isntead of seeing the MI6 as basically "One Man Army Swiss Knife Bond and nothing but minor agents and a few traitors", we would see another side of the agency. That would bring the franchise up, actually. Going that way, the next movie could be about another agent, or even another agency. Create a larger spyverse of a sort.
You know you are talking about comic book charakters that have been writen more than 50 years ago by white men? How much can you divide from the source material without offending your fanbase? Sorry if you do a high budget movie you have to look for customers in the cinema so you have to go mainstream. There is an unwritten rule for movies in Hollywood, one movie must make enough money for the next 2 or it isnt successfull. Sounds like all the needless outrage from Ghost in the Shell again.
Aquaman is a blonde Caucasian in the comics, for the film they cast the mixed ethnicity Jason Momoa and made a movie that grossed more than any other DC movie ever. Black Panther is the highest grossing solo superhero movie ever made. I'm really interested to see how the new Little Mermaid performs.
That might be all true, but a little misleading. I think the movie might have been popular because it was about a rock star from the 80's. It would like be saying the Lion King was a very popular movie about an orphan killing the king so he can be romantically involved with his cousin. The real problem with the Live Action Ghost in the Shell was it was a different movie wearing a Ghost in the Shell skin. It looked good, it was semi-coherent, but it completely missed the nuance of all the characters and setting. I might have enjoyed the movie if it had been called 'Mira' or something besides Ghost in the Shell. (sorry bit of sore spot) Now this one really confuses me. The Disney version of Little Mermaid was popular and has a fan base. Tying things as closely as possible to the original animation release would seem like a marketing gold-mine. Creating a new look, would just make it more difficult to push old merchandise. But one thing you can't accuse Disney of is being bad at making money, so I am sure smarter folk then I have figured out how to make bank on the new movie.
Grossing more than any other DC Movie is quite simple with an actor of GoT Fame and not doing mistakes like in any other DC Movies. The other question is, if Black Panther grossed that much if it werent tied in with other Marvel Movies. Cant say much about that movie, cause i didnt see it and i am having no interest to watch it, just not my cup of tea. I was refering to the outrage that happend for casting Scarlett Johanson for a character that never was shown to be of asian heritage, neither in the Mangas or any of the Animes. Thats why i dont read movie critics. I all i can read is "It didnt match my vision, so its bad". Personly i think they got the setting right, they even got stuff from the movie and both GitS SAC series in there.
They got stuff from the movie, and GitS SAC in there, the director clearly had watched the source material. The problem was they got it all wrong. Sometimes a nearly shot for shot recreation of scenes, yet entirely missing the point of those scenes. The major was far too moody and uncertain, even if it was an origin story. Kuze too psychotic. Togusa too old. Aramaki too Japanese ( I mean Aramaki needed to be very Japanese, but it was odd he was the only one who spoke Japanese in an otherwise English language movie.) Batou might of been the closest, but he just felt too small. If the whole thing was meant to be an origin story, why recycle scenes from established cannon? It was derivative, and derivitave wrong. GitS SAC 1&2 was an example of how to do the series right. The live action was not. The whole thing was very off-putting to me. Maybe being a major fan, my expectations where too high. I guess it didn't match my vision, so its bad.
