Rub & Tug

[DarthSkywalker]

Not sure what he was getting at specifically, but that's a thing in a more broad sense than his example. "Women's March", but women who're pro-life or didn't vote Clinton/Bernie get the **** outta here, type of thing.

Don't know what he was getting at, maybe the idea of a "cis" (ugh) woman playing a (not even confirmed) trans woman with an intended positive/supportive message behind it is still somehow evil, because the "right" people decided it's not okay. *Shrugs*

You really need to let that go. Scarlett confirmed what the role was she was playing, twice.

 

[Brutikus]

What does this mean?

My meaning is that when it comes to this true history person being portrayed,someone who would be defined as "diverse" on their gender identity is for a select few to shout loudest and get a result they want for who will portray that person when those same few pay not a penny for the production to go ahead.

 

[Aximili86]

Pretty sure Coogler even said upon being hired that he didn't think a T'Challa movie necessarily had to/should be directed by a black guy, even as grateful as he was to get the opportunity.

It's good they went that way though, and I think with Wonder Woman it was the right choice too. What's annoying is the lock-step mandated "it has to be" thing, like a white person couldn't possibly related to or admire T'Challa and no dude could have a Wonder Woman narrative in them.

You choose these people, but you choose them because they're good, not because pigmentation/vagina.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I think the reaction to trans characters being played by non-trans actors will change, when trans actors are cast in non-trans roles on the regular. Its easy to say its its crazy to expect trans characters can only be played by someone who is trans, but we are living in a world where trans actors can't even audition for non-trans roles. So thus, the small amount of trans roles going to non-trans actors becomes an issue. Once that isn't an issue, I don't think this will be an issue, or such an issue.

Well that's another situation all together, I don't think they will ever cast a Bond girl who used to be a man for instance, this is like the argument I saw the other day that someone is transphobic if they are straight but wouldn't date a trans woman, the lines are never going to blur to that degree IMO.

 

[Brutikus]

Pretty sure Coogler even said upon being hired that he didn't think a T'Challa movie necessarily had to/should be directed by a black guy, even as grateful as he was to get the opportunity.

It's good they went that way though, and I think with Wonder Woman it was the right choice too. What's annoying is the lock-step mandated "it has to be" thing, like a white person couldn't possibly related to or admire T'Challa and no dude could have a Wonder Woman narrative in them.

You choose these people, but you choose them because they're good, not because pigmentation/vagina.

Agreed 100%

 

[Aximili86]

You really need to let that go. Scarlett confirmed what the role was she was playing, twice.

And we still don't know jack about the context of the woman, whether she lived as male, or the dressing was solely & specifically for the case of her worklife advancement and she didn't do it out of hours. If you can find clarification on it, great, but the bios showing on google seem to conflict on it.

Not all crossdressers are "trans", ya bigot. Get woke!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but it seems like you are saying there could only be a great Black Panther movie if it is directed by a black man, and there can only be a great Wonder Woman movie if it is directed by a woman? I 100% disagree, because in that case there can only be a great James Bond movie if it is directed by a white man and there can only be a great Batman movie if it is directed by a white man, which is totally unture, I am sure Ryan Coogler could make an awesome Batman movie just as I am sure the Russo brothers could make an awesome Black Panther movie and Patty Jenkins could make a great Bond film.

No, what I am saying these movies only even exist because of this kind of "whining", this kind of progress. Its easy to say, "well we would eventually get them". But then we have to consider, how long it took to get them, even in the superhero golden age.

But on that point, that Black Panther was made by someone who is black, or Wonder Woman was made by a woman is also something that comes from this kind of progress. This was all considered whining for years, decades, as well.

Also lets consider Black Panther specifically. Could we get a great Black Panther film from a white director? Sure. Would we have got the same Black Panther film? One so enriched by what it means to be a black person, in so many different ways? I don't think so. So much of what makes Black Panther, Black Panther, is its director and writer's voice. Black Panther is different, because it came from from a different voice. I feel the same about Wonder Woman.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My meaning is that when it comes to this true history person being portrayed,someone who would be defined as "diverse" on their gender identity is for a select few to shout loudest and get a result they want for who will portray that person when those same few pay not a penny for the production to go ahead.

Wait, I am still not understanding this. So you only get a say if you pay for the movie? Only those that pay for the movies get to decided what it means to be diverse? I am confused.

 

[jmc]

Reactions like this gave us Black Panther and Wonder Woman. Also I am unclear how this kills creativity. If they cast a trans actor in the role, creativity is killed? How?

Context matters, and that is what is being ignored. You say it is a dumb question, but it hits at the heart of this. 60 years ago, Micky Rooney could be a racist caricature in an American film. Progress is slow, and never perfect (Ben Affleck played an Latino man 5 years). But in 60 years, what are the chances people look back on us, the same way people look back on black face? Asking why did we think it was okay? Because the same excused being used now, and not different from what we got when they would cast white actors in black, Asian and Latino roles. There aren't enough actors, there aren't enough stars of that race, the movies won't make money or get made, etc.

Also, there is one huge, obvious flaw comparing gay or straight actors playing the opposite. Namely, they will cast a gay actor as a straight character, and vice versa. How often do trans actors get ask to play non-trans roles?

What the **** does Wonder Woman and Black Panther have anything to do with this? Creativity is killed when we start dictating who can play certain roles without taking into account what the situation is for each movie. As I said, context matters, Micky Rooney playing a racist caricature is not the same as Robert Downey Jr playing a method actor who goes to extreme lengths for this acting role. The example of Tina Turner you provided in the context of a biopic being portrayed by Scarlett makes absolutely no sense and you know it, so stop painting this question as valid because you're making yourself look like a fool.

As for trans people, they have my sympathies, they are in this weird place in the world, they are few in number and I don't envy the struggles some of them go through. But at the same time the reason they don't get to play non-trans roles simply comes down to fact they are not biological men or women. I'm not saying it's fair, but not every trans person is genuinely passable as being biologically male or female. Does that mean their roles and opportunities are limited? Yes, but there are a wealth of people with all sorts of differences and disabilities that also don't get the opportunities. Is it fair? No, it's not, but the reality is not everyone gets to be a movie star, or the CEO of a big company, or an Olympic athlete. Some of us are just handed some bad cards in life and have to do the best we can with it. It sucks, but that's just life.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well that's another situation all together, I don't think they will ever cast a Bond girl who used to be a man for instance, this is like the argument I saw the other day that someone is transphobic if they are straight but wouldn't date a trans woman, the lines are never going to blur to that degree IMO.

That's stupid. But I also don't think that is the same thing. Mainly as the argument goes, "well they actors, they can play anything". But then we draw the line at trans actors playing non-trans roles? Why?

Also, I totally expect these lines to disappear in the future. They always do. History tells us this. Just consider the state of being a black American 100 years ago. The progress is astounding.

 

[Brutikus]

Wait, I am still not understanding this. So you only get a say if you pay for the movie? Only those that pay for the movies get to decided what it means to be diverse? I am confused.

Yes,the free enterprise model is that if you're making a movie then whoever is funding it decides what it will be.

I did not say that if such a movie then when released was not portraying a person or idea incorrectly (as judged by those who identify in the subject matter of the film) that that means they are wrong to not like it etc.

Those who make the film can make it however they want (within the law,not within the social court of justice) and then if it's a flop at box office that is their "punishment"

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What the **** does Wonder Woman and Black Panther have anything to do with this? Creativity is killed when we start dictating who can play certain roles without taking into account what the situation is for each movie. As I said, context matters, Micky Rooney playing a racist caricature is not the same as Robert Downey Jr playing a method actor who goes to extreme lengths for this acting role. The example of Tina Turner you provided in the context of a biopic being portrayed by Scarlett makes absolutely no sense and you know it, so stop painting this question as valid because you're making yourself look like a fool.

I explained this in other post.

I am confused with why you bring up RDJ in Tropic Thunder. That role is there to point out the absurdity of it all. The context is that it is absurd. It wasn't 60 years ago. That is the concept of progress. Considering the treatment of trans people in general at the moment, they are on that level of progress in general.

As for trans people, they have my sympathies, they are in this weird place in the world, they are few in number and I don't envy the struggles some of them go through. But at the same time the reason they don't get to play non-trans roles simply comes down to fact they are not biological men or women. I'm not saying it's fair, but not every trans person is genuinely passable as being biologically male or female. Does that mean their roles and opportunities are limited? Yes, but there are a wealth of people with all sorts of differences and disabilities that also don't get the opportunities. Is it fair? No, it's not, but the reality is not everyone gets to be a movie star, or the CEO of a big company, or an Olympic athlete. Some of us are just handed some bad cards in life and have to do the best we can with it. It sucks, but that's just life.

Yeah, I don't think I need to say anything to this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes,the free enterprise model is that if you're making a movie then whoever is funding it decides what it will be.

I did not say that if such a movie then when released was not portraying a person or idea incorrectly (as judged by those who identify in the subject matter of the film) that that means they are wrong to not like it etc.

Those who make the film can make it however they want (within the law,not within the social court of justice) and then if it's a flop at box office that is their "punishment"

But how does that mean they get to define what diversity means? We know what diversity means. They can make whatever they want, of course. But they don't get to define diversity.

Also, isn't this the concept of the free enterprise right here? The people reacted, and it became a problem to make the film with Scarlett. More of a problem then it was worth. How is that not the free enterprise at work?

 

[Hunter Rider]

That's stupid. But I also don't think that is the same thing. Mainly as the argument goes, "well they actors, they can play anything". But then we draw the line at trans actors playing non-trans roles? Why?

Also, I totally expect these lines to disappear in the future. They always do. History tells us this. Just consider the state of being a black American 100 years ago. The progress is astounding.

Well I guess it depends on how you see it, but to me a white man can't play a black man and vice versa, to me I respect the right for a person to feel they are a gender born in the wrong body, and I would address them with the gender they think they are as I am sure most people would, but much like a white man can't pass as black, very few trans people actually pass as the gender they want to be and that would be an issue in this situation, and yes I have seen the stills of convincing transformations, but movement, voices, mannerisms, walk etc....still don't change no matter the medication or surgery so I personally don't see in say 10 years time the summers big action movie casting a Chloe Moretz led action film with a male love interest that used to be a woman, or say a a new Wonder Woman played by an actress that used to be a man, I just don't think things will go that far. I do think we'll see more trans actors playing trans roles though over time.

 

[jmc]

I explained this in other post.

I am confused with why you bring up RDJ in Tropic Thunder. That role is there to point out the absurdity of it all. The context is that it is absurd. It wasn't 60 years ago. That is the concept of progress. Considering the treatment of trans people in general at the moment, they are on that level of progress in general.

What treatment are you speaking of? Have the actors who have portrayed trans characters in recent years been anything but respectable in the ways they have approached their characters? Was Scarlett likely to be doing this role in a way that mocks the community? Because I'm not seeing anything from the likes of Leto or Redmayne that indicate there wasn't anything but genuine desire to do what was right for those characters.

 

[Man in the Suit]

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.

No, reactions like this are possibly stopping another garbage Rupert Sanders movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well I guess it depends on how you see it, but to me a white man can't play a black man and vice versa, to me I respect the right for a person to feel they are a gender born in the wrong body, and I would address them with the gender they think they are as I am sure most people would, but much like a white man can't pass as black, very few trans people actually pass as the gender they want to be and that would be an issue in this situation, and yes I have seen the stills of convincing transformations, but movement, voices, mannerisms, walk etc....still don't change no matter the medication or surgery so I personally don't see in say 10 years time the summers big action movie casting a Chloe Moretz led action film with a male love interest that used to be a woman, or say a a new Wonder Woman played by an actress that used to be a man, I just don't think things will go that far. I do think we'll see more trans actors playing trans roles though over time.

Isn't movement, voices, mannerisms, walk, etc. acting? Also, isn't that a very odd double standard? So someone who isn't trans, can play a convincing trans character in terms of that criteria, but not the other way around? How is that even possible as a concept?

 

[jmc]

No, reactions like this are possibly stopping another garbage Rupert Sanders movie.

Then it's not all bad news then.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What treatment are you speaking of? Have the actors who have portrayed trans characters in recent years been anything but respectable in the ways they have approached their characters? Was Scarlett likely to be doing this role in a way that mocks the community? Because I'm not seeing anything from the likes of Leto or Redmayne that indicate there wasn't anything but genuine desire to do what was right for those characters.

The general treatment of trans people by society. Its horrendous. Michael Rapport's reaction to this is a very good example.

Though what you consider showing respect to the community is interesting here. Would it not be more respectable to actually cast trans actors?

 

[Brutikus]

But how does that mean they get to define what diversity means? We know what diversity means. They can make whatever they want, of course. But they don't get to define diversity.

Also, isn't this the concept of the free enterprise right here? The people reacted, and it became a problem to make the film with Scarlett. More of a problem then it was worth. How is that not the free enterprise at work?

If the "they" you refer to in your 1st sentence is the film studio/producers/financiers of said film they are not attempting to define diversity,their end goal (if they are well meaning and wanting to be authentic to the his/story) is to portray the character in truest light - good or bad or indifferent.

I was not saying they are defining diversity at all.

My comment to that was that the notion of pressuring to the point that ONLY a trans person can portray a trans person on screen is what I take issue with.

That is the "defining of diversity" that I was speaking about.

As for their voices being a part of free enterprise market,that is arguably true sure but given how we live now in a social media world more information is spread about such things and then the notion of a perceived " backlash" is what the studio and ScarJo are reacting to.

Fear of displeasing a section of community and their friends/supporters cause it may have a detrimental outcome to box office is why the Studio would maybe do it.

Fear of a bad career acting choice perhaps is one reason but the same above displeasing mentioned above is why ScarJo cites left the project.

Diversity in acting roles means that anyone can play anyone if they have the skill set and logistical support to do so.

 

[Hunter Rider]

No, what I am saying these movies only even exist because of this kind of "whining", this kind of progress. Its easy to say, "well we would eventually get them". But then we have to consider, how long it took to get them, even in the superhero golden age.

But on that point, that Black Panther was made by someone who is black, or Wonder Woman was made by a woman is also something that comes from this kind of progress. This was all considered whining for years, decades, as well.

Also lets consider Black Panther specifically. Could we get a great Black Panther film from a white director? Sure. Would we have got the same Black Panther film? One so enriched by what it means to be a black person, in so many different ways? I don't think so. So much of what makes Black Panther, Black Panther, is its director and writer's voice. Black Panther is different, because it came from from a different voice. I feel the same about Wonder Woman.

I don't think the movies exist because of any specific movement, the plans for Wonder Woman in particular have been there for ages, but DC can barely manage to get anything off the ground that doesn't include Batman lol.

I'm all for more race and gender diversity in front and behind the camera, I don't sit down to watch something based on the colour of skin or the genitals of the person directing/acting, if the subject interests me or something looks cool, I'm in, but it has taken time for this to become more the majority than minority mindset though, I agree, however I disagree with you on the Wonder Woman and Black Panther point, Ryan Coogler is a young black man from Compton I believe, he knows nothing about life in England in Downton Abbey times or being a white man but I don't see any reason that he couldn't direct that movie just as well as a white Englishman that comes from that world, talent trumps everything, great storytellers transcend the small box that is their own life experience.

Under the circumstances I do believe that a black director and female director needed to make Black Panther and Wonder Woman respectively, they were landmark movies, they were to a degree more than just a movie for what they represented, but for instance I don't agree with Marvel only looking at female directors for Black Widow, I think for instance the John Wick guys would have been perfect for her solo film but they were ruled out because of their genitals. The next big step is a black director making a Superman movie, a female director making a Bond movie, an Asian director making a Star Wars film, a white director making a Black Panther movie (after Cooglers trilogy, I need that first lol) etc....only once ALL of us move out of our boxes will equality and change happen IMO.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If the "they" you refer to in your 1st sentence is the film studio/producers/financiers of said film they are not attempting to define diversity,their end goal (if they are well meaning and wanting to be authentic to the his/story) is to portray the character in truest light - good or bad or indifferent.

I was not saying they are defining diversity at all.

My comment to that was that the notion of pressuring to the point that ONLY a trans person can portray a trans person on screen is what I take issue with.

That is the "defining of diversity" that I was speaking about.

As for their voices being a part of free enterprise market,that is arguably true sure but given how we live now in a social media world more information is spread about such things and then the notion of a perceived " backlash" is what the studio and ScarJo are reacting to.

Fear of displeasing a section of community and their friends/supporters cause it may have a detrimental outcome to box office is why the Studio would maybe do it.

Fear of a bad career acting choice perhaps is one reason but the same above displeasing mentioned above is why ScarJo cites left the project.

Diversity in acting roles means that anyone can play anyone if they have the skill set and logistical support to do so.

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 know what diversity is.

 

[jmc]

The general treatment of trans people by society. Its horrendous. Michael Rapport's reaction to this is a very good example.

Though what you consider showing respect to the community is interesting here. Would it not be more respectable to actually cast trans actors?

If you want to cast them cast then do it, but you can't also expect people to just show up to your film staring a nobody. Like it or not you're dealing with a business and you can't force the market to do what you want. Making creative content is not a ****ing charity, people are trying to make money and to earn a living and the market will dictate the directions you go. The problem with the twitter crowd is they don't understand this.. If you're hiring someone like Scarlett, it's because you think she'll put arses on seats and get you paid.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Isn't movement, voices, mannerisms, walk, etc. acting? Also, isn't that a very odd double standard? So someone who isn't trans, can play a convincing trans character in terms of that criteria, but not the other way around? How is that even possible as a concept?

No, just my opinion but I am yet to see a trans woman that I don't realize used to be a man once they start talking and moreso moving, so technically a biological woman playing a trans woman would likely fail to be accurate, and even worse with a man trying to play a trans woman, like Leto, a lot of people found his acting to be almost a caricature of a trans woman. In the case of this movie my point was is it more important to get a story about a transgender person out there to a wide audience, or to cast an actual trans man? I can see either side of the argument.

 

[Snow Queen]

If you want to cast them cast then do it, but you can't also expect people to just show up to your film staring a nobody. Like it or not you're dealing with a business and you can't force the market to do what you want. Making creative content is not a ****ing charity, people are trying to make money and to earn a living and the market will dictate the directions you go. The problem with the twitter crowd is they don't understand this.. If you're hiring someone like Scarlett, it's because you think she'll put arses on seats and get you paid.

You say the market will dictate the directions you go, is that not what just happened?