I guess that would depend on how you make the statement, as to whether or not I would be into it or not. When people say they want to change James Bond around to make a statement about how men suck, it sounds like these people, don't even like James Bond and are just using it to do something that comes from a negative place perhaps. It just sounds negative, like they are not real fans, when people say things like that.
Bond himself has misogynstic qualites, but I never thought of the moves as making a political/philosophical statement though.
But with this kind of talk it feels like people who say this don't want to make a real movie with a real story, and are just using a movie as a vehicle for a 'screw men'. Where as I want the filmmakers to make a movie because they actually want to. But that's just what it comes off as.
Bond himself has misogynstic qualites, but I never thought of the moves as making a political/philosophical statement though.
But with this kind of talk it feels like people who say this don't want to make a real movie with a real story, and are just using a movie as a vehicle for a 'screw men'. Where as I want the filmmakers to make a movie because they actually want to. But that's just what it comes off as.
Our comedy, for another example, has shifted somewhat from "laughter" to "clapter." The comedian says something politically edgy, but also virtuous relative to their audience and the audience dutifully applauds the observation. Thus, it's more of a mini-homily than an actual joke. Consider, for example, whatever the hell this is...
Bond's casual misogyny was just as political, but it was rather lazily comfortably political. It was comfortable and casual, in part, because patriarchy enjoyed a rather comfortable privilege which was only beginning to be challenged. Bond's manliness was the status quo being a little naughty and viewers enjoying a "real man" being a bit of a "cad" or "heel." These movies weren't trying to change the world, but this does not mean that they weren't politically freighted, its just that the political coding was not evangelical, on the front end, preachy, and presented with blinking lights.
The problem of moralizing in artistic writing is not a new problem. See, for example, this essay by Albert Maltz way back in 1946.
https://www.unz.com/print/NewMasses-1946feb12-00019
If this is TLDR, then check out this video by Razorfist.
There is right-wing clunkiness in putting Atlas Shrugged on screen (and then begging for donations to help make the other installments, which seems to be a rather non-Randian thing to do). Also, Godsploitation films are also very "on the nose." And I think this comparison is probably the most apt, because we're witnessing the birth of a secular religion which has strong parallels with the moral enthusiasms of the French Revolutions evangelical zeal for secular enlightenment values, but with methods similar to those used in China in the 20th century. And it is not just in art. We have protestor/activists chasing senators into bathrooms now.
In short, times are changing and our art reflects this. We are in a tumultuous age and thus having uncomfortable experiences with art. This isn't to say that anyone is right or wrong, but rather that we're a house divided and that the new working to displace the old. It's always happening, but it is usually more like gradual sedimentation in geology. But there are also catastrophic events which are sudden in the geological record, volcanoes, Earthquakes, meteor strikes, etc. Today's art reflects the fast-changing time or more catastrophic geologic change - culture-quakes and painful and pronounced discontinuities in what we used to take for granted. Bond is sedimentary politics of gradual change. Today's films are the politics of catastrophic (or sudden) change. That's why Bond doesn't feel right. They are trying to adjust a decades old franchise to new times and the carpet no longer fits the room for everyone.