Rub & Tug

[MadVillainy]

The financing thing/argument/excuse is so stupid. Go somewhere with that.
Ghost in the Shell bombed with Scar Jo
Aloha bombed with Emma Stone
and there's many more instances of "white washing" or something similar to what they're doing here where the excuse was about financing and the final movie didn't even make money. Getting financing doesn't matter when you don't get a return on your investment

And this doesn't sound like it's a blockbuster or even a very expensive biopic like Wolf of Wall Street. They can make this for "cheap" with an actual trans actor in the role.

So many movies bomb with "stars" and there are plenty of movies, especially dramas like this sounds like, with lesser known actors that are successes. Moonlight had no big name stars to draw in a considerable crowd. Get Out, Call Me By Your Name, Lady Bird, Room, Life of Pi all were dramas that made good money either a) relative to their budget or b) a ton of money period

And as I said, I dont' really see the problem with not casting a trans actor. I guess for trans actors it's hard for them to get work and when there's a role almost tailor made for them and they miss out on the opportunity for a not trans performer. At least with gay actors there are a little more opportunities and they can still get cast as straight characters (like Luke Evans and Matt Bomer). And I get that that's frustrating for trans performers. But from my stand point I don't see it as that bad, but that could be because I'm not trans

But in any event the "they need to finance to movie" excuse is just stupid. EDIT: It's been the excuse used for years of why we don't see more women, racial minority, etc. projects. It's been proven wrong and it's just outdated

 

[jmc]

Not if you’re trying to sell the damn thing to the public. Not to put too fine a point on it but the people complaining about this are idiots. Companies aren’t in this business for good will. You want your own movie with real life trans actors? Do the hard work and make it yourself.

 

[MadVillainy]

Not if you’re trying to sell the damn thing to the public. Not to put too fine a point on it but the people complaining about this are idiots. Companies aren’t in this business for good will. You want your own movie with real life trans actors? Do the hard work and make it yourself.

This is interesting coming from someone who whines that Hollywood doesn't make enough original films/IPs.
A very similar thing can be said to that: Hollywood is trying to sell tickets and they aren't in the business of good will and established IPs make more money than the originals. So why make original IPs?

And calling people "stupid" because they're arguing for what they see as a wrong step when it comes to diversity makes it seem:
a) you have a lack of maturity because you have to result to insulting people to get your point across
b) like a rude person who doesn't have empathy for anyone else.

I'm reading right now trans performers and just trans or LGB people complain about this. Go to tell them that them wanting more chances to work in Hollywood.

 

[jmc]

I’m sympathetic to those people but i’m also realistic about how businesses are run, and they’re not a freaking charity. As I said, if you want real change you have to sometimes make it yourself. That means spending your own money and time in order to do it. People need to stop complaining and start doing something more than whining on Twitter.

 

[MadVillainy]

Again why don't you keep that same energy when it comes to complaining about original IPs? Don't complain about it on websites. Don't go to see non original IPs in theaters.

They're allowed to express their points as much as they want. And people have. They didn't like Johannson and how the "whitewashing" in Ghost in the Shell was handled so they didn't show out to see it.

And you just called them "stupid" for arguing for more diversity. I don't think you're really sympathetic at all to them.

EDIT: I'm sorry you called them idiots

 

[Roose Bolton]

So are we going to reach the point where people will scream outrage when straight actors play gay characters?

 

[MadVillainy]

Didn't we already with Call Me By Your Name?

But I think that's different because a gay actor can still be cast as a straight person. It's more difficult, I'm guessing in some cases, to cast a trans person as "cis" or whatever the term is person. Like we've def. seen gay or bi actors play straight roles (Matt Bomer, Luke Evans, Neil Patrick Harris, Jim Parsons, Wentworth Miller, Jane Lynch, Jodie Foster) but have we seen a trans performer play a "cis" role before?

Again that's just a guess. I have no idea

 

[Roose Bolton]

I thought the backlash to Call Me By Your Name was more in regards to the age of the protagonist? I didn't really follow that stuff too closely.

 

[jmc]

Again why don't you keep that same energy when it comes to complaining about original IPs? Don't complain about it on websites. Don't go to see non original IPs in theaters.

They're allowed to express their points as much as they want. And people have. They didn't like Johannson and how the "whitewashing" in Ghost in the Shell was handled so they didn't show out to see it.

And you just called them "stupid" for arguing for more diversity. I don't think you're really sympathetic at all to them.

EDIT: I'm sorry you called them idiots

I’m currently working with a company who is developing an entirely new comic book universe with characters that are far more reflective of how modern society looks. They are doing it from the ground up and have long term ambitious goals for books, animation, tv and movies. They’re not complaining on Twitter to make change, they are trying to make it themselves. Those people Twitter are idiots because they don’t understand the solution to their problem is to actually do it themselves, to put their own time, money and effort in to creating the thing they want, because like it or not the system that’s in place is currently working for companies, and money doesn’t care about people’s feelings.

 

[MadVillainy]

I thought the backlash to Call Me By Your Name was more in regards to the age of the protagonist? I didn't really follow that stuff too closely.

I think I heard about that with CMBYN, but I could be wrong. But I think I edited my point while you posted yours.

I think the difference between gay people playing straight characters or straight people playing gay characters is that is that you know there is some back and forth. There have been openly gay or bi actors playing straight roles (Matt Bomer, Luke Evans, Neil Patrick Harris, Jim Parsons, Wentworth Miller, Jane Lynch, Jodie Foster). So it's no as unbalanced . But we haven't really seen a trans performer play a "cis" role before. Which is why there are more complaints about this.

That's just my guess.

 

[Sawyer]

There's a persisting "Oh, the SJWs are at it again" energy running through these parts when it comes to this kind of stuff and it never fails to annoy me.

There's a legitimate grievance to this and Scarlett's response of "F*** you, I'm gonna get mine" only intensifies it. Not to mention that this is the second time this director/lead actress pairing has tried to pull this ****.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Her response was bad. It avoids the concept of progress, while dismissing trans actors as a whole. I am not even saying she can't play the role. But her response as really awful and shows why people have concern. In fact it shows people are right to have a problem with this.

 

[Snow Queen]

I look forward to Rupert Sanders' next film, starring Scarlett Johansson as Gandhi.

 

[C. Lee]

I know that actors want to stretch their acting chops....but who watches a Scarlett Johansson movie to watch her as an old fat man?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I look forward to Rupert Sanders' next film, starring Scarlett Johansson as Gandhi.

We have their slate for the next decade:

The dual roles of MLK and Malcolm X in the film in, "Civil Rights"
Replacing Mickey Rooney in the remake of, "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
The starting role in the basketball docudrama, "Kareem"

 

[Roose Bolton]

I'm more taken aback by Johansson and Sanders actually having a continuing working relationship. I didn't mind Ghost in the Shell, but it was clearly a critical and financial failure...you'd think Johansson would lick her wounds and just put the whole experience behind her.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Ghost in the Shell bombed because it was a bad film. Not who was cast in the lead.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm more taken aback by Johansson and Sanders actually having a continuing working relationship. I didn't mind Ghost in the Shell, but it was clearly a critical and financial failure...you'd think Johansson would lick her wounds and just put the whole experience behind her.

Well, no one else will cast her in such roles. This lack of common sense is special.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I know that actors want to stretch their acting chops....but who watches a Scarlett Johansson movie to watch her as an old fat man?

This is the greatest post your bald head has ever made! Amen brother.

 

[dark_b]

i dont get her. she wants to be progressive and fight for equality and fair chances. she goes on stages and talks a lot of ...... but then she expects that everyone will be happy for her roles like GitS and this Rub & Tug?



How many years before the public gets it.....they are actors. They will always only fight for themselves. They want to be liked by the public.

 

[dark_b]

Ghost in the Shell bombed because it was a bad film. Not who was cast in the lead.

but they defended her casting that with her it will not bomb even if its bad.

 

[harlequinade]

Johansson ugh. LOL at her response. Looking forward to yet another movie of hers bombing.

 

[Aximili86]

And here...we...go.

 

[Quasimod0]

This is not the same thing as ghost in the shell. The woman in this true story was a lady who tried to look and act more like a man so that she would be respected in the criminal world. I don't see the problem with the role being played by a woman made up to look more manly.

 

[Aximili86]

Bingo.