LISTEN, just to be upfront with you, I don’t really care who the next James Bond is. I probably haven’t cared since Roger Moore’s debut Live and Let Die in 1973, back when I was 10.

Oh, I’ve seen a few of the movies since then, including most of the ones with Daniel Craig. Some of them were OK, some of them were pants, quite frankly. (I mean, how dull was Spectre?)

I’m not going to pretend I’m a big fan though. So, you can dismiss what I say next as someone who simply doesn’t understand what I’m talking about and that’s fine. You’re probably right.

But here’s the thing. I don’t really see why there can’t be a female James Bond. I can’t, for that matter, see why there can’t be a black James Bond, or an Asian James Bond or a transgender James Bond if someone can come up with a good enough character idea or story.

Mostly I think this is because James Bond is not a real person. He’s actually a fiction. He’s not even a consistent fiction. As soon as Sean Connery was cast in Dr No the film-makers had begun to depart from Ian Fleming’s original concept of the character (casting a working-class Scot as an Old Etonian/Fettesian posh boy; though, to be fair, the misogyny was carried over).

There have been how many versions of Bond since? Seven? Or 12 if you include TV and radio adaptations. Every one of them a bit different, every one of them a reflection of a moment in time and in the culture.

So why not go a step further and reinvent Bond as a woman? Ongoing franchises constantly need an injection of new ideas to avoid drifting off into irrelevance.

It might not work, of course. The all-women Ghostbusters reboot in 2016 was a bit of a damp squib, but, surprise, surprise it didn’t kill the franchise. There’s another Ghostbusters movie coming this Christmas (this time it’s teenagers).

The point is these franchise creations are malleable. That’s why they survive in the first place. They adapt as required. They reinvent themselves to try to find a new audience.

Change is inbuilt into the DNA. And sometimes that change is more extreme than others. When Marvel recently decided to make a film out of their 1970s comic Master of Kung Fu the result, Shang Chi and The Legend of the Ten Rings, effectively rewrote the character’s origin story. Marvel didn’t try to negotiate a deal to include Shang Chi’s father in the comic books in the new movie. That’s because Shang Chi’s father in the original strips was Sax Rohmer’s frankly racist creation Fu Manchu a character who, to say the least, comes with some issues attached.

Oh, but that was a minor character, not Bond, I hear some of you say. But surely the point is the same. You slough off what’s not needed or dated or frankly offensive and you find the new thing that works. Or doesn’t. Time will tell.

There is a strand of fan who seems to find the idea of any kind of change problematic, of course. When Doctor Who cast Jodie Whittaker as the new Doctor in 2017 there was a ridiculous outcry.

“It should have been a black, transgender, Mexican lesbian from a minority muslim sect ... in a wheelchair,” one below-the-line Herald commentator at the time suggested, I’m presuming sarcastically. Frankly I’m hoping the next Doctor will be at least two of those things myself.

I think a lot of this conservatism towards beloved characters has to do with a desire to hold onto childhood itself . To keep pure the memory of the thing you loved back then. As if you can stop the world changing around you by holding onto this one thing. As if you can stop time itself.

I’m pretty sure that’s not possible. But let me know if you find a way.