So stop watching it. That’s the answer.

The problem with all this “modernisation” (what a euphemism) stuff going on in entertainment is that you’re trying to transform and change existing characters and franchises.

It’s just a money grab to capitalise on existing characters with existing fan bases.

Inevitably it’s ruined. Bond fans aren’t watching Bond movies thinking “this is sexist”. LoTR fans aren’t reading a fantasy series with influences from Christianity and a white guys experience in WWI thinking “we need more representation of people of colour and genders”.

The solution to this is also trivial: Forget all the old stuff. Write new characters and stories. Or build fans for modern works.

We’re already seen this done: Avatar (not the blue alien one), Dragon Prince, Wheel of Time.

Roger Moore is my favorite James Bond. And so is my 15-year-old son's. Yes, his behavior is old school and wouldn't be tolerated in modern times. So what, he doesn't appear in a movie set in modern times.

This "modernization" of characters is failing in most franchises because it alienates the old viewers without doing much for new ones. It creates Frankensteins that please nobody, typical "by committee" designs.

Instead of changing Bond, Amazon should be trying to create a new Bond that will capture the current generation's imagination like the old Bond did decades ago.

Moore was unrealistic but the OP does not imply that we need to keep the style on the level of Roger Moore.

I seem to remember on one of the special features on the DVDs that they needed to change to a lighter more comic style with Moore because of the reaction to the Vietnam War.

OP is saying that the old Bonds (Connery, Lazenby, Moore) were suited to male tastes that haven't changed since, thus the attempt to modernize Bond is misguided at best.

What I'm saying is that my (male) tastes have modernized, that the male tastes that made old Bonds popular are tastes I find gross and unrealistic today, and I don't feel like I'm alone.

I think the specifics are less important than the general tastes in this case, men still want to be highly trusted international "spies" gallivanting across the world fighting evil with women lusting after them every stop of the way, it's just that the details as to what that looks like have changed.

I think the Craig movies are the high point so far of the series for a variety of reasons. They still have the swaggering machismo of Bond, but with more varied and interesting consequences. Bond still gets laid, but it's not treated as a mid-mission diversion (or post-mission reward) to which Bond is entitled. Craig proved there's lots of modernizing that can be done without touching the core conceit of being a 00 agent.

I agree! Whatever else they are from a critique standpoint, I absolutely love how they’ve modernized the Bond-the-slutty-sociopath role into something that’s actually plausibly what I would expect to find in today’s reality. They did beautiful work with that aspect of modernization and the Craig movies are most memorable of all of them to me now (though I will always hold a fondness in my heart for LASER BEAMS IN SPACE).

They did not do so well with modernizing any of Bond’s skin color, gender, or bedroom scene co-stars; nor did they portray him assaulting women for information like he would men.

I guess you're probably not.

Dude hate to hit you up with it but whole Bond is about being unrealistic just like Santa Claus.

Being masculine in unrealistic way is part of the fun. Just the same as cars with machine guns in the hood or wrist watch with laser cutting through things.

It is like nagging that in Star Wars explosions in space have sound and are not like actual explosions that would happen in space…

There's degrees of "unrealistic" though, and it's tied to how relatable the Bond is. The old Bonds were a mixture of action hero spy guy and Playboy-style gentleman. Over time, the Playboy lifestyle has aged poorly and finally been peeled away from Bond.

Now, you can argue that formula for Bond was unique, and what differentiates him from Bourne or Reacher, and worth keeping for that reason. But against that, you have the fact that I and a lot of other viewers find the Playboy lifestyle to be a really silly and distasteful fantasy that seems uniquely laughable now, and far harder to suspend disbelief for than generic action hero stunts.

Being killer machine is not distasteful? Like killing people with a pencil is cool yeah right…

Being able to pick up hot women is totally not cool?

My theory is fantasy about killing people is OK because it doesn’t happen - no one is really facing situations where they would have to be in „for life or death” fight.

Being around opposite sex or having actual sex happens and it is tough on people who feel less attractive or feeling inadequate - and feeling inadequate happens awfully often and people don’t want hot movie star to remind the about their shortcomings.

>Speak for yourself. I find Bond through the Roger Moore era to be gross and masculine in a completely unrealistic way.

Where are you in this collage? <https://imgur.com/0gL4oxd>