See, I can totally understand this argument in situations where the *character* was male/white. But in the "James Bond" case, "James Bond" isn't even one guy. It's a code name that travels. And in the Ghostbusters case, A) they didn't use the same characters, and B) There's pretty heavy-handed hints that Venkman and Co. exist, are in the movie, and are separate characters from the current Ghostbusters. The original actors' cameos correspond neatly to where the characters went at the end of the video game, when they were convinced that the astral plane could no longer connect to our plane. There's a reason why a taxi driver would suddenly spout *original* Ghostbusters classifications.
What about the bit where he's reminiscing on the surreality of the Service destroying his old service record and reassembling it with the Bond name after the previous Bond died?
Even IF James Bond is one guy, and even IF we leave out the novels- Hames Bond has been played by many actors spanning decades. He isn't the same character with the same history unless he's a universe jumping immortal or something. The movies continuity do not all fit together nor do the character arcs of all the bonds. James Bond is British. He's a British secret agent. How much Melanin he has isn't really pertinent to the character. There are in fact black Brits. There are black brits in the service. There's no reason that a black brit couldn't be top of class and be taken in by MI:6. So really it's moot. Everyone flipped a lid over blonde Bond and said Craig was a stark departure- and he revolutionized the franchise. So I wouldn't rule out a bond that doesn't look like... which one? Connery? Craig? Dalton? Brosnan? Come to think of it Bond hasn't really had the closest family resemblance has he.....?
James Bond is one of the few characters that a random race change wouldn't bother me, however they would have to confirm the "James Bond is a code name" theory for it to properly work. I personally really like the idea of that theory, especially when you extend it to include Sean Connery's character in The Rock being his version of Bond having been captured by the US Gov. and being burned by Britain.
Select few other characters make sense to have this kind of change work. Roland Deschain from the Dark tower doesn't really work well due to the in-book descriptions stating him as a blue-eyed white guy (based off of Clint Eastwood). The Doctor from Doctor Who could easily have these changes apply due to the whole regeneration thing. April O'Neil becoming a black teenager makes no sense to me, nor does Hermione. However a black/hispanic/asian/etc... Rick Sanchez could work because of the many multiverses explored in the show.
It really is best to create NEW interesting characters for what
The James Bond movies stray far from the books, as do most movies based on books. So "staying true to the source material" is a weak justification to start- and unless the traits that made you like a story or character were skin color, there's no reason to not change it. No matter what a movie will likely stray from the fiction we imagined while reading. As for the code name- who cares? Are we supposed to believe that the James Bond in each movie is the same guy that has been kicking butt since WW2? Is he like a shape shifting vampire then, or is it like altered carbon? Either way there's still no reason we need to explain why James Bond is black Amy more than we need to explain how Rodger Dalton morphed into Pierce brosnan and then jumped to a blue eyed blonde Daniel Craig. The looks and styles of the turtles jumonaround like crazy- in a world full of retcons, alternate realities, conflicting franchise cannon, and mutant turtles the thing that makes no sense is a black April?
Partly the fact that we are supposed to either ignore the changes without questioning why an established character is suddenly so different from what everyone knows and loves- an Asian "Shaft" with no explanation and he is supposed to be the some/only Shaft wouldn't make sense to anyone; or it is supposed to be accepted as the new "main" cannon; and in some extreme cases it seems that if you prefer the pre-change version there must be something wrong with you or you're just stuck in the past and have to "get with the times."
As I mentioned above, with multiversal changes I'm fine with, but it needs to either be addressed as such or have a reason, otherwise we're the bad guys for wondering why a character we've known about for years as one thing is now something completely different when a newly introduced character with these new traits, while requiring a little more effort, would both make more people happy and provide more marketing opportunities.
Shaft isn't a very good example since behind the scenes and in cannon a prinary part of his character is that he is a black American. April O'Neil has "New York journalist" as hers- unless the setting and in universe is rebooted. Reboots do not require an explaination by the way- although one can be provided. Considering that Bonds character tenant is simply he is British- and there are black people in Britain- and nothing a white bond can do a black one can't- there goes that. Considering pretty much every single James Bond is a reboot, without any explanation as why M or Q or bond change genders, faces, past history, and so on- that goes out the window. Liking the old version over the new isn't backwards. Most people prefer what they are used to. What's backwards is not liking the new version simply because your favorite character got a tan, and trying desperately to think of any justification that doesn't make it sound like your criticism is about other things but focusing on race.
I remember when Legend of Tarzan was coming out and the advertising said that Samuel L Jackson was playing George Washington, except that was wrong and he was actually playing JAMES George Washington
Jurassic Park had two strong female leads, Sam Neill was irrelegated to a maternal role and Goldblum was the sex symbol.
But none of this matters because the point of the movie was dinosaurs running wild on an island, they didn’t hit the audience over the head with identity politics bullshit.
Blade wasn’t a BLACK superhero, he was a superhero who happened to be black. Somewhere along the line we stopped caring about relatable protagonists and started trying to give everyone a characater that looks like them.
Disney is the worst for this. Instead of trying to convince me that interracial amputee lesbians can be fighter pilots; just find something that interracial amputee lesbians would actually be good at and write their contribution to the plot that way.
We don't even have to make it about groups, at this point fresh stories at all are welcomed. That said, these franchises were largely created and shaped by certain POV. We need story tellers of a different perspective giving us their takes and experiences through their ideas. Diversity in media isn't just about putting a "different face" in the same context, or playing a few nods to the supposed culture of a character. There's no reason you can't change the details of a fictional character, there's no reason it can't be better or as good as before. In many cases of long standing franchises, there were decades where making other types of characters either wasn't done, or was insulting. Going forward by adding some diversity can allow others to feel included and even improve and refresh a franchise- if done well and thoughtfully. But that isn't the end all, there are more stories to be told, and just like characters for a long time many perspectives have been left out of the creation too
So, uh, y'all are aware that the name "James Bond" does not refer to one "character," right? "James Bond" is just whoever has the 007 designation at the moment.
But it's a very good theory and if enough people accept it, the writers may even acknowledge it and make it confirmed cannon, thereby opening the role up without as much controversy because it is no longer the may adventures of this ONE dude it's the many adventures of the 7th deadliest men throughout the years of the organization.
Maybe we make art that bleeds into mainstream like Get Out. Like Atlanta like Mudbound. Being mainstream is not bad. It's helping minorities tell their own original story. Stand up Academy and take notice.
Select few other characters make sense to have this kind of change work. Roland Deschain from the Dark tower doesn't really work well due to the in-book descriptions stating him as a blue-eyed white guy (based off of Clint Eastwood). The Doctor from Doctor Who could easily have these changes apply due to the whole regeneration thing. April O'Neil becoming a black teenager makes no sense to me, nor does Hermione. However a black/hispanic/asian/etc... Rick Sanchez could work because of the many multiverses explored in the show.
It really is best to create NEW interesting characters for what
As I mentioned above, with multiversal changes I'm fine with, but it needs to either be addressed as such or have a reason, otherwise we're the bad guys for wondering why a character we've known about for years as one thing is now something completely different when a newly introduced character with these new traits, while requiring a little more effort, would both make more people happy and provide more marketing opportunities.
But none of this matters because the point of the movie was dinosaurs running wild on an island, they didn’t hit the audience over the head with identity politics bullshit.
Blade wasn’t a BLACK superhero, he was a superhero who happened to be black. Somewhere along the line we stopped caring about relatable protagonists and started trying to give everyone a characater that looks like them.
Disney is the worst for this. Instead of trying to convince me that interracial amputee lesbians can be fighter pilots; just find something that interracial amputee lesbians would actually be good at and write their contribution to the plot that way.
Original