zerragonoss said:
Obviously the best message would have new characters that become this kind of icon, but trying to make an icon is not really something you can depend on.
And that's what's
MASSIVELY wrong with the movie industry these days. "Dependability." Back in the 1960's Hollywood was willing to give the James Bond character a chance, and he became a film icon. These days no one is willing to give any new character a chance, preferring to fall back on re-purposed icons from days past. As movie budgets inflate higher and higher, creativity rapidly dies in favor of marketability and "dependable" franchises. Fuck that.
What re-purposing James Bond into "Jane" Bond says to me is the filmmakers trying to express "sorry ladies, no one here in Hollywood gives a shit about your gender unless you mooch off the name of an established male, and we're only doing it as an appeasement novelty."
Icons only exist because at some point in time, someone took a chance. If you want a female icon, you need to start with a female character. Taking a male character and gender-swapping them doesn't make a female icon, it just makes a blatantly pandering weird spot on the character's wiki biography.
Women deserve their own icon characters, not lazy half-hearted reboot crap.
EDIT:
This post on Page 1 is what I'm talking about. I've got nothing to add, kitsunefather's put it perfectly.
kitsunefather said:
Look at Furiosa. People are clamoring for a standalone movie for her. They didn't have to make it Mad Maxine, they just introduced a compelling character that resonated with enough of the audience to cause a stir.
/highfive