Batwoman, a Black Female 007, and Super-Pandering
A dubious news report that a black actress, Lashana Lynch, will play 007 in the next James Bond film got your friendly neighborhood "Low Key" hosts wondering: When do Hollywood's attempts at diversity in casting feel positive, and when do they feel like pandering? And is there such a thing as positive pandering?
This week we're joined by special guest host Sarah Lanton as our discussion of the James Bond franchise leads us into a discussion of the American James Bond, Batman. That in turn leads us into a discussion of the CW's new "Batwoman," played by Ruby Rose, and how much one of your hosts, Keith, does not like the trailer. He explains why.
Here are a few of the other subjects we handle:
1:55: Tim expresses his strong reservations about The Daily Mail newspaper, which reported on Lashana Lynch's casting.
3:22: Could Lashana Lynch's casting just be an attempt to placate audiences, when want we really want is Idris Elba as the first black Bond?
6:20: Who was the best Bond?
7:55: Who is the audience for the new Bond movie? And what Marvel and "Into the Spider-Verse" did right in their reimagining of Spider-Man, and avoided bad pandering.
10:01: Does James Bond have to be a man for his character to make sense? And is misogyny built into the character?
15:24: We talk about characters who don't pander at all, but are still fascinating and fun to watch -- from Patrick Bateman ("American Psycho") to Humbert Humbert ("Lolita") to Hannibal Lecter ("Silence of the Lambs") to Norman Bates ("Psycho") to Anthony Jeselnik's onstage persona.
21:59: Sarah says something shocking
22:22: Aaron and Sarah agree that "Black Lightning" is "super-pandering"... in a good way
23:20: Is the new Batwoman more or less deserving of the "Bat" legacy than Miles Morales is of the "Spider" legacy?
32:30: Is pandering always a bad thing?
39:01: Shoutout to pandas!