Peony
Rookie
- Mar 10, 2016
- 31
- 41
- 3
In 1962, the first James Bond movie, Dr. No, appeared in theaters. Based on Ian Fleming’s novels about British secret agent 007, James Bond movies has delighted audiences for some six decades.
James Bond is a macho man with an impossible job. He saves the world from assorted crazy genius bad guys. While in the course of his dangerous secret agent duties, he flirts with women. He is a masculine, confident, rogue. The women he encounters are beautiful and competent. Most of the time, he can’t get the assignment done without the help of some gorgeous gal.
That man/woman dynamic is part of the fun of Bond stories. Bond Girls are as important to the entertainment as gadgets, like cars that fire rockets and Champagne bottles that blow up.
Sean Connery played the role of James Bond in several movies. Five other actors followed in the role. In the two dozen 007 movies made, all the actors playing the role of James Bond were male. This makes sense. The character is male.
Now there is talk about making a James Bond movie featuring a female actor in the role of James Bond.
Why change the gender of an iconic character? If someone genuinely wishes to tell a story about a female secret agent, why not just create a new character? Why appropriate a beloved icon?
What’s going on here? Did something happen to thwart creativity? Are there no writers with enough imagination to come up with something unique of their own, that they must rework someone else’s work?
Or is something else going on? Maybe this, let’s make James Bond a female is all about making a statement. Look! A lady can do secret agent stuff too! Sure she can, but she cannot be James Bond. James Bond is a man.
Leave James Bond alone. There is no reason to change evergreen heroes. James Bond is a man. Let him always be a man. Likewise, let the Lone Ranger and Tonto remain men. Let Modesty Blaise remain a woman. Not everybody and everything has to be recycled, revamped and redone to update the message.
You don’t like a suave manly secret agent? Watch a different movie.
James Bond Might Soon Be Played by an Actress Like Gillian Anderson
James Bond is a macho man with an impossible job. He saves the world from assorted crazy genius bad guys. While in the course of his dangerous secret agent duties, he flirts with women. He is a masculine, confident, rogue. The women he encounters are beautiful and competent. Most of the time, he can’t get the assignment done without the help of some gorgeous gal.
That man/woman dynamic is part of the fun of Bond stories. Bond Girls are as important to the entertainment as gadgets, like cars that fire rockets and Champagne bottles that blow up.
Sean Connery played the role of James Bond in several movies. Five other actors followed in the role. In the two dozen 007 movies made, all the actors playing the role of James Bond were male. This makes sense. The character is male.
Now there is talk about making a James Bond movie featuring a female actor in the role of James Bond.
Why change the gender of an iconic character? If someone genuinely wishes to tell a story about a female secret agent, why not just create a new character? Why appropriate a beloved icon?
What’s going on here? Did something happen to thwart creativity? Are there no writers with enough imagination to come up with something unique of their own, that they must rework someone else’s work?
Or is something else going on? Maybe this, let’s make James Bond a female is all about making a statement. Look! A lady can do secret agent stuff too! Sure she can, but she cannot be James Bond. James Bond is a man.
Leave James Bond alone. There is no reason to change evergreen heroes. James Bond is a man. Let him always be a man. Likewise, let the Lone Ranger and Tonto remain men. Let Modesty Blaise remain a woman. Not everybody and everything has to be recycled, revamped and redone to update the message.
You don’t like a suave manly secret agent? Watch a different movie.
James Bond Might Soon Be Played by an Actress Like Gillian Anderson
