Rub & Tug

I agree that there is no right or wrong answer here, I think the cold truth is right now a lot of people would not be enticed to a film with a trans character as the lead, people in large are still very uncomfortable with the transgender discussion, I personally don't really understand it, I honestly doubt anyone who isn't trans can to be honest, but I just respect that this is how some people feel, they were born in the wrong body, who am I to tell them different?


However to get the topic and the discussion to a place where people in general can feel at ease and start to communicate, there needs to be films and TV covering it, as silly as that sounds entertainment is often a gateway to opening up conversations people otherwise might never have, and to get the platform set up it might well take a few big names playing a trans person in order to draw in the wider populace and thus get the conversation started.
One of the great things about art, is it helps with acceptance, as you pointed out. Which is why making that step is so important. And if someone is arguing they are making such a film with sensitives toward a minority group, it would probably be best to consider that fact.

I think if we are all honest, Scarlett probably had one major intent with this role. Trying to get that Oscar nod. She could prove me wrong on that though. If she gets this movie made anyways. She has the pull.
 
This applies to all films. So if someone wanted to make a super racist film, that got shutdown before it was filmed, would it be an issue of people losing their jobs?

Also, why do you assume it won't be made? Also if making the film injures Scarlett's star power, what does that do for the projects it would cost her getting greenlit going forward? Are those not an issue?

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that most studios wouldn't want to make a super racist film, so again, you're making yourself look foolish by bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals in order to paint this situation as similar.

As for the jobs, no I don't know if this film will or won't get made. But the problem is now the people involved are in a position whereby they don't have easy options. Their star is gone, meaning any guaranteed audience she could bring is out the window, and now they can't rely on any other female actress for fear of a similar backlash.
 
Yes Hunter, but why is that? Could it have been an issue with when Hollywood came about, and perhaps how women were treated? That Hollywood was male dominated, in a society where women were treated as lesser, incapable in a physical manner?
I've already said that I aknowledge that white male privledge is real, I'm not blind to it, but the whys aren't the issue, the reality was that businessmen go with what makes money when investing money, so they went with the ratios of hits vs failures for male led action movies, and because there weren't female led action hits they shied away from investing in the projects.


I agree they didn't get the best writers and directors, but the also didn't get people who might be interested in it. Perhaps a woman would be interested in writing a female lead action film, that isn't just there to film a demo request. But they didn't get that chance often.
I don't think it was a case of a John McTiernann or Richard Donner or Steven Spielberg not being interested, it was a case of the studios not wanting to pay top dollar for the best directors to film the female led action scripts that were written by their third tier writers, that was where the initial issue lay IMO, none of the studios properly investing in the established talent of that era to make a female led action movie.


Sarah Connor is the main character of Terminator. Arnie was a big star come the second, but even there, he wasn't the main character. That was John. But the point is, you could make an action movie, with a female lead that kills Arnold, and it somehow did very well.
I believe we have had the main character discussion before on a different movie, we see that concept differently, there's a difference between the main narritive exposition character and the character that draws the money, Laurie Strode was the main character in Halloween but Michael Myers was the draw, same with The Terminator, that's why every piece of advertising you see for those first two movies features Arnie alone, not Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn or Edward Furlong.

I don't think it is an issue considering they only spent time looking for men to direct such movies for like 90 years.
Come on man, that's obtuse, my point is making the same mistakes again from another angle isn't the way to go either.




Yep. I have seen it all man. I am not happy with a lot of stuff in TLJ, but I don't do that kind of stuff. I disagree on George though. He is probably loving this.
I loved TLJ personally, I felt it was the change Star Wars needed, but I suppose a part of George might well be thinking "Told you these mother****ers were impossible to please!" :D
 
I agree that there is no right or wrong answer here, I think the cold truth is right now a lot of people would not be enticed to a film with a trans character as the lead, people in large are still very uncomfortable with the transgender discussion, I personally don't really understand it, I honestly doubt anyone who isn't trans can to be honest, but I just respect that this is how some people feel, they were born in the wrong body, who am I to tell them different?


However to get the topic and the discussion to a place where people in general can feel at ease and start to communicate, there needs to be films and TV covering it, as silly as that sounds entertainment is often a gateway to opening up conversations people otherwise might never have, and to get the platform set up it might well take a few big names playing a trans person in order to draw in the wider populace and thus get the conversation started.

We are in complete agreement with the idea of entertainment as a gateway to conversation. But, like I said, with things the way they are, and media having the possibility of negative effects as well as positive, I think it's important to listen to the concerns of those that stand to be affected. Otherwise, with them statistically likely to be left out of the whole creative side of the process, we're not really seeing stories about what it means to be trans, so much as stories of how people think it is, which has the potential to leave negative effects.
 
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that most studios wouldn't want to make a super racist film, so again, you're making yourself look foolish by bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals in order to paint this situation as similar.
Independent films are a thing. And we have a long history of super racist films being made, and still being made. Hell, Episode I is full of racist stereotypes. One of the most expensive independent films of all time.

By I do like how you want to avoid the point. What matters more, the content or the jobs?

As for the jobs, no I don't know if this film will or won't get made. But the problem is now the people involved are in a position whereby they don't have easy options. Their star is gone, meaning any guaranteed audience she could bring is out the window, and now they can't rely on any other female actress for fear of a similar backlash.
Using this logic, they should have never fired Rosanne for being racist, because of the jobs. Is that right?
 
They should probably just make it at this point, with a trans actor nobody's ever heard of, and then be all "happy now?" when nobody sees the movie and the story/message doesn't get out to anyone.
 
One of the great things about art, is it helps with acceptance, as you pointed out. Which is why making that step is so important. And if someone is arguing they are making such a film with sensitives toward a minority group, it would probably be best to consider that fact.

I think if we are all honest, Scarlett probably had one major intent with this role. Trying to get that Oscar nod. She could prove me wrong on that though. If she gets this movie made anyways. She has the pull.
Yes, I mean look at this thread, I don't think any of us are transgender but I think this last page or so has been a very interesting discussion that has only came about through a movie project, and hopefully in time these type of discussions lead to acceptance, as my view is that you don't always need to understand the perspective as it is important to listen to and respect the perspective.



It's possible that is what she was thinking, which is to a degree a seperate topic regarding the whole awards mindset of those giving them out, especially when it comes to what actresses have to do to get respected for their craft. On the flipside it was a brave choice as well from the point of view that this role could have seen her fall flat on her face in spectacular fashion if she botched it.



We are in complete agreement with the idea of entertainment as a gateway to conversation. But, like I said, with things the way they are, and media having the possibility of negative effects as well as positive, I think it's important to listen to the concerns of those that stand to be affected. Otherwise, with them statistically likely to be left out of the whole creative side of the process, we're not really seeing stories about what it means to be trans, so much as stories of how people think it is, which has the potential to leave negative effects.
It's a delicate balance I agree as the portrayal and representation can also create or reinforce a negative viewpoint as well, like with gay characters there is still a tendency with male gay characters in particular to portray them as seedy or predatory, or as jokes. With a project like this a start would be to ask a trans rights group to be involved on the production at least as advisors to try and do an authentic job with the portrayal.
 
I've already said that I aknowledge that white male privledge is real, I'm not blind to it, but the whys aren't the issue, the reality was that businessmen go with what makes money when investing money, so they went with the ratios of hits vs failures for male led action movies, and because there weren't female led action hits they shied away from investing in the projects.
I think my issue with this, is they were apart of directing people to what to like. Does that make sense? Like they made things popular, a lot of the time by force. And by force I mean, just keep doing it and little to nothing else.

I don't think it was a case of a John McTiernann or Richard Donner or Steven Spielberg not being interested, it was a case of the studios not wanting to pay top dollar for the best directors to film the female led action scripts that were written by their third tier writers, that was where the initial issue lay IMO, none of the studios properly investing in the established talent of that era to make a female led action movie.
Steven Spielberg has had so much pull for decades now. How many female lead films has he made?

I believe we have had the main character discussion before on a different movie, we see that concept differently, there's a difference between the main narritive exposition character and the character that draws the money, Laurie Strode was the main character in Halloween but Michael Myers was the draw, same with The Terminator, that's why every piece of advertising you see for those first two movies features Arnie alone, not Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn or Edward Furlong.
I feel like main character and main star are different. But yeah, not a major issue here. Arnie is definitely the major star of the terminator franchise.

Come on man, that's obtuse, my point is making the same mistakes again from another angle isn't the way to go either.
I am not trying to be obtuse. Sorry man. I believe in affirmative action in such situation. Active course correcting centuries of the things that lead to it being this way in the first place.

Also, I don't think it will be limited for all that long. Right now, this does feel like trying to ride the wave of Wonder Woman. Like they see, "well people seemed to like that, lets do that". Whether they learned the action lessons from Wonder Woman is another question. By yeah, IX is coming out next year, and it is JJ directing it.

fks61xp.gif


I loved TLJ personally, I felt it was the change Star Wars needed, but I suppose a part of George might well be thinking "Told you these mother****ers were impossible to please!" :D
I think it is more like, "the prequels aren't the most hated thing of all time anymore". :hehe:
 
They should probably just make it at this point, with a trans actor nobody's ever heard of, and then be all "happy now?" when nobody sees the movie and the story/message doesn't get out to anyone.
Scarlett Johansson and Rupert Sanders had people lining around the theaters to see Ghost in the Shell. Real draw that team is.
 
So Scarlett could play Malcolm X?

I don't really think it is argument. This decision took a week. They were probably going over the cost/benefit outcome to the decision, and everyone made their decision. How is that not the free enterprise at work?

What you described isn't defining diversity, though if it is, is it not correct? Again, we I know what diversity is.

About who ScarJo could play in any role that example is extreme and not what I said but you're wanting to be " right " so sure go ahead and be " right "

As for the studio and ScarJo's decision,ScarJo has said why she left the role but ths studio did they actually say officially they asked her to leave?





Everyone has their own interpretation as to what diversity is.







Scarlett Johansson and Rupert Sanders had people lining around the theaters to see Ghost in the Shell. Real draw that team is.

Yup,those who decry ScarJo's casting would not have stopped this new film being successful @ the box office.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I mean look at this thread, I don't think any of us are transgender but I think this last page or so has been a very interesting discussion that has only came about through a movie project, and hopefully in time these type of discussions lead to acceptance, as my view is that you don't always need to understand the perspective as it is important to listen to and respect the perspective.



It's possible that is what she was thinking, which is to a degree a seperate topic regarding the whole awards mindset of those giving them out, especially when it comes to what actresses have to do to get respected for their craft. On the flipside it was a brave choice as well from the point of view that this role could have seen her fall flat on her face in spectacular fashion if she botched it.
I am a fan of Scarlett, so this situation really hasn't set well with me. To the point that it kind of makes me rethink GitS. But I think what this says more about is Hollywood and even the idea of awards season. Why things are considered Oscar bait. At least for me.
 
I don't really see it myself, but it certainly would have been an interesting challenge for both Scarlett and the make-up and costuming people to try and pull this off.


Well there are people that have complained about disabled actors not being used in disabled roles, maybe not in a movie like Skyscraper due to the stunt component as someone else mentioned, but for general disabled characters, but you don't hear a lot about it as it's not a focused activist group like with the LGBT community or race and womens groups.



Here's an add on to that, would the people that were angry going to be as angry had they cast an actor to play this part? I mean technically a person transitioning wants to be seen as that gender right? So then a man playing the person in this film would technically be correct from their POV.

I mean it's crazy to demand that any trans character only be played by someone that is trans IMO, it's like saying only straight actors can play straight characters and only gay actors can play gay characters, and I know transgender is about gender identity as opposed to sexuality, but it is also not the same as the race argument IMO, a white person cannot play a black person in a biopic, but the idea of someone transitioning is that they are becoming a man or woman therfore any man or woman should be elligable for that role, not only a man or woman that used to be a woman or man.

Hunter, as I have mentioned in the Arrowverse threads, there are groups that focus on disability reprentation in Hollywood. look up the Me Before You protest. I'm honestly not sure why they are making the character in Skyscraper disabled though. Don't think the Rock was going for an Oscar, or would have made a big a fool of himself as Scarjo did.
 
I am a fan of Scarlett, so this situation really hasn't set well with me. To the point that it kind of makes me rethink GitS. But I think what this says more about is Hollywood and even the idea of awards season. Why things are considered Oscar bait. At least for me.
I really enjoyed Ghost in the Shell and I never had an issue with the casting as the character is an android or robot or whatever the term was they use in that mythos lol, and in this case I don't want to guess her intentions, but I think she needs to take a look at the people repping her as the statement they put out was crass and tone deaf which reflects on her and I am certain she doesn't want that percetion. As for awards season, I personally feel they come off as a circle jerk of people that want to seem smarter than the regular movie goer by constantly rewarding films that the vast majority of people of all races and genders would have no interest in seeing, it's rife with snobbery on multiple levels.
 
I am a fan of Scarlett, so this situation really hasn't set well with me. To the point that it kind of makes me rethink GitS. But I think what this says more about is Hollywood and even the idea of awards season. Why things are considered Oscar bait. At least for me.

Yeah this movie was an Oscar grab. Would it have won an Oscar with a trans actor? don't know. GitS been a big hit with say Olivia Munn and Speilberg? it's an interesting thought.
 
Hunter, as I have mentioned in the Arrowverse threads, there are groups that focus on disability reprentation in Hollywood. look up the Me Before You protest. I'm honestly not sure why they are making the character in Skyscraper disabled though. Don't think the Rock was going for an Oscar, or would have made a big a fool of himself as Scarjo did.
I remember us discussing it in the Supergirl thread when they announced funnily enough that there would be a transgender character in the show next season. I know there are groups that represent disabled actors but what I meant was they never get the paltform or focus that the LGBT, race and womens groups get, so their voice is not getting as much of a chance to be heard. As for why Rock's character as the prosthetic leg in Skyscraper, I think it was just to try and give his character something unique to stand out from the stock action hero character, and they seem to use it in some of the acton scenes as a prop.
 
That is taking what the meaning of my comment was and being literal so as maybe to be obtuse?

As for the studio and ScarJo's decision,ScarJo has said why she left the role but ths studio did they actually say officially they asked her to leave?





Everyone has their own interpretation as to what diversity is.
There is an actual definition for diversity.

It is not being obtuse. It shows how society regards being transgender in a lot of ways. Race is one thing (when it wasn't 60 years ago), but being transgender, which science is telling us is something you are born with like your skin color, is not the same thing. Its outrageous now to consider a white person playing a black person. But it wasn't before. Progress is funny, in that before it happens, a lot of people don't consider what becomes a norm, a norm.
 
I really enjoyed Ghost in the Shell and I never had an issue with the casting as the character is an android or robot or whatever the term was they use in that mythos lol, and in this case I don't want to guess her intentions, but I think she needs to take a look at the people repping her as the statement they put out was crass and tone deaf which reflects on her and I am certain she doesn't want that percetion. As for awards season, I personally feel they come off as a circle jerk of people that want to seem smarter than the regular movie goer by constantly rewarding films that the vast majority of people of all races and genders would have no interest in seeing, it's rife with snobbery on multiple levels.
Yep. I don't care if those were her actual words, no way they should have been sent out by her people.

There is definitely a "circle jerk" nature to Oscar season, though I love and hate a lot of Oscar movies personally. But I do think in situations like this, "Oscar bait" can come off as a not great combination of pandering and self-congratulations, at the potential expense of a minority group.
 
There is an actual definition for diversity.

It is not being obtuse. It shows how society regards being transgender in a lot of ways. Race is one thing (when it wasn't 60 years ago), but being transgender, which science is telling us is something you are born with like your skin color, is not the same thing. Its outrageous now to consider a white person playing a black person. But it wasn't before. Progress is funny, in that before it happens, a lot of people don't consider what becomes a norm, a norm.

Defintions today of a thing are not the same as they were 100 years ago for such a long list of things thus it is an evolving thing (a definition) and not locked in carbonite.

Portraying a real living historic person is often cited as MUCH harder than a fictional one by actrors and actresses so this one would land in that camp.

Ultimately the message or tone of the film will be different (for the better or worse NO ONE can say now).
 
But it's not just about Scarlett, it's about everyone else involved with the film who's jobs are going to be in doubt now. She might not starve, but the lighting person or the prop maker might not be doing so well and needs that job to pay rent. To look at it as simply Scarlett who's affected is forget the hundreds of people that are involved with movies. Stars like Scarlett help get people employed by being popular enough and having enough clout in the industry to get movies green lit.

This is a dumb question and you know it because she wouldn’t be considered in the first place. If you had asked the question what if Scarlett played a part of a person different to her own ethnicity, the question of context about the role comes into play. You only have to look at Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder to see how context matters. The problem is people are trying to put down these hard lines for acting when there’s far more nuance to consider. You can’t just lump everything in the same category and say ‘you can’t do this’, because every project is different and has a different message it wants to send or comment on. Reactions like this kills creativity. The tragedy of this news is that it more than likely kills the very films the Twitter crazies are screaming for. Like it or not trans people’s make up a tiny percentage of the population, so the talent pool is small to begin with, so you have to look outside that group for talent. It’s a business, not a charity.
So which is it jmc, is this a business or is this a charity?
 
Defintions today of a thing are not the same as they were 100 years ago for such a long list of things thus it is an evolving thing (a definition) and not locked in carbonite.

Portraying a real living historic person is often cited as MUCH harder than a fictional one by actrors and actresses so this one would land in that camp.

Ultimately the message or tone of the film will be different (for the better or worse NO ONE can say now).
What is diversity to you Brutikus?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,614
Messages
21,772,393
Members
45,611
Latest member
kimcity
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"