Okay. You decide to level an ad hominem attack instead of argue the point, and you do that because you cannot argue the point.
The point is, there is no difference and you keep moving your goalposts.
James Bond is fictional, so the character can be played by anyone.
Scarlett OHara is fictional, she can be played by anyone.
Then you resort to: your opponents have no brains and think with their glands.
That pretty much wraps up your argument. You must have gone to the Khrushchev School of Shoe banging.
I think he'd make a great Bond personally, and think there's more relevant things to worry about: