Are these female lead remakes are getting out of hand now?

UGH, people keep talking about movies getting too political, just for casting a woman or a black person in it, which is silly. it'd be political if the whole time, they kept making a big deal of how she's a woman/person of color/whatev, comparing it to a man or something like that. the choice to cast it that way in the first place is political i guess, but i don't see how it affects the movie, or somehow magically makes the movie itself political, as it is possible to make remakes slightly different, or even quite different, from a different perspective, and they can still be good.

Speaking of time, there's another angle. The Bond films are a nearly 60-year-old franchise. It could be argued that every other possible avenue has been explored with regard to the main character. This is also the situation that Doctor Who is in, though a more extreme example given that 13 actors have played the role compared to Bond's 6.

Any discussion on politics or racism or any of the topics like this, there is never a healthy discussion...Never!

I'll give you an example of where politics, especially the current political climate in the UK, has entered into things.

Steven Moffat, the outgoing showrunner of Doctor Who, spoke at the end of his tenure about not casting a female Doctor. He said it hadn't been the right time and that "[Doctor Who] is also for people who voted Brexit. That's not me politically at all – but we have to keep everyone on board".

This was demonizing viewers who had voted the opposite way to him, and insinuating any number of other 'character flaws' that would make these viewers stop watching because of a female Doctor.

Well I think if they are going to have a female James Bond, they should have her be a "manizer", as I feel that is true to the character, and I would be much less interested in a female James Bond, if they were to take that away. I would feel what's the point of doing a female James Bond, if the character is going to lose his/her traits in the process.

Bond is a homme fatale womanizer, so it would make sense to make a female Bond a femme fatale manizer.

Audiences have accepted femme fatales manizers before, it's just usually they are villains in movies, where as they would just have to make it the heroine instead. Is that do-able with audiences?

Basically a lot of fans like me, like the traditional Bond formula. So if they were to do it with a female Bond, they should have her start out in bed with a man, during the first act, before the new plot opens up more and gets more heavy.

Then along the way she hooks up with another man on the mission, who either turns out to be bad, or ends up getting killed, then along the way, she hooks up with the last guy she ends the story with, in defeating the villain with.

Could they do that for a female James Bond?

Guess you’ve never seen Fatal Attraction, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity, Bonnie & Clyde, Black Widow, etc., etc.

Because a movie features a male villain doesn’t make it so that it’s message is that all men are evil. Did you really come out of Black Panther, one the examples you gave, thinking that was the point the film was trying to get across? What do all other male characters who aren’t evil signify then?

Because a movie features a male villain doesn’t make it so that it’s message is that all men are evil. Did you really come out of Black Panther, one the examples you gave, thinking that was the point the film was trying to get across? What do all other male characters who aren’t evil signify then?

Regarding the heavily blockbuster-reliant state of Hollywood, a big reason or, really, the reason, for having more female characters play positive and integral roles is a response to them having previously been portrayed as exceedingly expendable (not to mention the extensive history of industry harassment.) Hell, look no further than the Bond franchise for an example.

I don’t understand how you attach this malignant conspiracy against men to a rather benign principle of “hey, women are better than just that.”

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that if they did make James Bond a woman, she would be a lesbian - just like they did with Starbuck, so that she could still seduce women.

First of all, there will always be some exceptions to the rule. Secondly, I am talking about recent movies, say this century.

Could you further explain your last paragraph? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say with that sentence. Thanks in advance.

As to your second paragraph, I have no problem with women playing more positive roles; I have a problem with them taking characters that have always been men and making them women. There is an infinite number of characters which can be made; just make more female characters which are good. Taking male characters and re-tooling them as female is lazy, cheap, insulting and patronizing.

Oof, this is a “major breakthrough”? Someone gets a hand or blow job without being kissed first? Thrilling.

I highly doubt that the first female James Bond will be lesbian. Tiny steps, please.

You’re the one who makes categorical statements, not me. You didn’t say anything about recent movies. You always say Hollywood does this, Hollywood does that.

But then you get stuff like this:





and this:





In which the stars of the movie are very blatantly making it about the gender of the lead actresses.

Guys, it’s just a slogan on a t-shirt.

start trying to make good movies.