blogs_blog_292

Gotta agree with you here. It'd be passable if Bond's sexuality wasn't a huge part of his character, but it is and it's been established. Same reason I fully agree with you on the female Watson, too. That relationship is established and is quite unique, and changing it kinda ruins it.

 

If it was a complete reboot then it'd be alright, but I'd have to ask WHY they were doing it. If they were going to have that in the film, there'd have to be a very good reason for it, else it'll feel shoe-horned in just for the sake of change. A James Bond-esque character who was gay would be good - a character similar to Bond, clever, quick-witted etc who just happens to be gay would be good. Just don't make it the central trait of the character. The scenes in Skyfall which had a gay edge were alright because there hasn't been a Bond villain who has used that sort of....intimidation, I suppose, and Bond stayed true to his character with his quick-witted responses.

 

- Tilius

Yes, half of what is so often annoying about that sort of thing is that it always seems to be just for the sake of saying OH LOOK, WE HAVE A {enter minority here} CHARACTER.

 

Take, for instance, the Green Lanterns. The Earth 2 Green Lantern, Alan Scott, was changed into the reboot to a gay fella.

 

 

And that's about all there is to it. They advertised it, milked the publicity, and now, the only thing that defines him is that he's the token gay guy.

 

The new Earth 0 Green Lantern (Simon Baz) also is publicized as a guy who is part of a minority. He's a muslim. But though that's a big part of his character, he's not a shining example, like so many others are. He's a car thief and he's not devout. His religion is not what makes the character. Sort of like Captain America. He's a very clear Christian, (particularly shown in the Avengers) but there's way more to Cap than just that. Do I necessarily agree with the political correctness? No, but I much prefer the Simon Baz style than the Dr. Watson or Alan Scott style.

name='Wikipedia article on Dr. Watson']When John Watson first returns from Afghanistan, he is described "as thin as a lath and as brown as a nut." He is usually described as strongly built, of a stature either average or slightly above average, with a thick, strong neck and a small moustache. Watson used to be an athlete, as it is mentioned in "The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire" that he once played rugby for Blackheath, but he fears his physical condition has declined since that point.[/b]

So, no, Watson's not "rotund," although that's a minor nitpick.

 

As for the idea of a Bond who isn't the current bond in race/gender/sex/orientation, the entire idea of "James Bond" as a legacy name, as opposed to one individual man comes directly to mind.

 

Now, I personally see no problem with a character being reinterpreted as a separate anything from what they've been displayed as in canon, so long as it's made perfectly clear this is a different version of them. Taking someone who is a blatant insectophobe and suddenly making them love all bugs is a huge no-no. Reinterpreting them as such in a parallel story is fine.

Wikipedia article on Dr. Watson said:

 

When John Watson first returns from Afghanistan, he is described "as thin as a lath and as brown as a nut." He is usually described as strongly built, of a stature either average or slightly above average, with a thick, strong neck and a small moustache. Watson used to be an athlete, as it is mentioned in "The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire" that he once played rugby for Blackheath, but he fears his physical condition has declined since that point.

 

So, no, Watson's not "rotund," although that's a minor nitpick.

 

As for the idea of a Bond who isn't the current bond in race/gender/sex/orientation, the entire idea of "James Bond" as a legacy name, as opposed to one individual man comes directly to mind.

 

Now, I personally see no problem with a character being reinterpreted as a separate anything from what they've been displayed as in canon, so long as it's made perfectly clear this is a different version of them. Taking someone who is a blatant insectophobe and suddenly making them love all bugs is a huge no-no. Reinterpreting them as such in a parallel story is fine.

 

 

Well, so I was wrong in that respect. Unfortunately, I haven't read as many Sherlock stories as I'd like, but yeah, you understand my point. I might have been thinking of the Watson equivalent in that Disney movie with the detective mouse.

 

Not being familiar with the storyline, I probably am not the most knowlegable person when it comes to James Bond, but I believe 007 is the name that passes on--not 'James Bond'. Besides, I don't really mind different actors portraying the same character when the old actor becomes unable or unsuited to the role. But major differences between those actors should be avoided, so the character still feels the same.

I agree that the character attributes to James Bond do make it so that he can't really be gay or female. Those are essential parts of his character. I could get by seeing a different skin color for him, because being white isn't what defines him. Being the ultra spy who has a new girlfriend every film.

 

BUT that's not to say that changes can't be made to some characters. M used to be a male, now it's played by a female actress. Nothing wrong there. And just because James Bond isn't female doesn't mean the Bond girl can't be just as awesome a spy as he is (like Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies, who is probably my favorite Bond girl.)

 

Now I do disagree with your diagnosis for Watson. The character isn't defined by his manliness; rather he / she is there to be a common-person resource for Sherlock. In theory, I could see a female Watson being pulled off very well. But in regards to the show Elementary, she's not pulling off the character based off the few episodes I've seen. But I don't hold that against her; the Sherlock character in that show isn't much better.

 

I agree with you on this point, and I've used this as an example (not the gay part, but how Bond is overall very consistent) in some of my rants concerning the upcoming Superman film, in which I think that, like Star Wars, it really has to invent its own feel and stick with it. Another example that falls into this category is Indiana Jones. I appreciate that the character remains consistent, as well as the directing style and music, throughout all installments to the franchise.

 

So overall, I think that there are many legacy franchises that need this sort of consistency, especially once they gain a special place in popular culture. Put me on a stake, but few characters can pull this off, not even the currently well-worshiped Batman franchise, and once you have it, by all means work it. I also happen to think that Superman is one of those characters, and I hope that many of his old tropes are still used after Nolan gets his nose out of what shouldn't have any connection to him.

 

So yeah, I dislike Nolan and Snyder's philosophy in how they're approaching the new Superman film, and I'm disillusioned with Nolan all of a sudden, which I know is a very unpopular thing to say.

 

24601