Rub & Tug

[Lencho01]

She's actually holding out to get a phone call for the Rachel Dolezal biopic.

 

[Drizzle]

Soon we'll hear the movie won't be made at all.

Either they'll A.) recast with an actress who won't give a **** about the controversy and keep it mainstream, B.) they make it an indie film with an actual transgender actor, or C.) as you said, they scrap the whole thing, which is the likeliest option.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I usually think in these situations, they'd just scrap it. But now, that might be a bit of bad PR after what has happened. So they might just lower the budget and get it done.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I didn't realize Scarlett was going to be playing a woman who transitioned into a man, I only saw a brief blurb and I thought it was a con thing where the woman was pulling all the strings and had some male front as back in the day a woman gangster was rare. Was the real person very manly? as making Scarlett a passable man would take a LOT of work.

I didn't see the statement but I think overall she is best off out of this, I mean are there any actual trans actors of note? From a studio perspective casting a complete unknown with this subject matter would be a risk and probably require a much reduced budget to be financially viable, I guess the people that were against her taking the role are more interested in themselves than the story of an historical trans person actually getting told, something that might have aided understanding, who knows.

 

[Hypestyle]

curious. Oh well. More time for Black Widow!

 

[zephyrinthesky]

Was the real person very manly? as making Scarlett a passable man would take a LOT of work.

This is the person she was supposed to depict: https://goo.gl/images/ePTD8P

Call me crazy, but with a few prosthetics and a fat suit, it's not any crazier than casting Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. I can conceivably see Scarlett as Gill, visually.


I saw this brought up in another thread, but for those against Scarlett's casting, why is this such an issue whereas The Rock playing a disabled person in Skyscraper is ignored?

 

[Kuwolski]

I'd love it if this were scrapped now.

 

[Da-Scribe]

This is the person she was supposed to depict: https://goo.gl/images/ePTD8P

Call me crazy, but with a few prosthetics and a fat suit, it's not any crazier than casting Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. I can conceivably see Scarlett as Gill, visually.


I saw this brought up in another thread, but for those against Scarlett's casting, why is this such an issue whereas The Rock playing a disabled person in Skyscraper is ignored?

I won't try to speak to the sociological issues that may or may not exist here, but I'm not sure a person living with that sort of disability could reasonably pull of those ridiculous stunts. I could be wrong on that though.

 

[Schlosser85]

This is the person she was supposed to depict: https://goo.gl/images/ePTD8P

Call me crazy, but with a few prosthetics and a fat suit, it's not any crazier than casting Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. I can conceivably see Scarlett as Gill, visually.


I saw this brought up in another thread, but for those against Scarlett's casting, why is this such an issue whereas The Rock playing a disabled person in Skyscraper is ignored?

ScarJo isn't Gary Oldman.

 

[LoganGambit87]

i dont remember eddie redmayne or jared leto getting even half the backlash scarlett got

 

[jmc]

So, twitter crazies again have got their wish. A small minority of people have more or less ruined a film production which, let’s be honest, is probably now in doubt. At best this becomes a low budget indie film that no-one sees starring a transgender person no-one has heard, at worst an entire crew of people have just lost thier jobs. So congratulations twitter, not only are you probably not going to get an LGBT film starring a high profiled person, you’ve probably cost a bunch of people work.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, I know guys playing trans characters has never been an issue even if they weren't gay or whatever. But with ScarJo apparently the whole GITS thing has people in a tizzy about her misappropriating.

 

[Brutikus]

Just read about this on the net via a news site and this tweet is about where I am at with the whole thing.

 

[jmc]

Just read about this on the net via a news site and this tweet is about where I am at with the whole thing.

This is the dumb thing, all of these twitter folk are screaming for representation, but only if the representation is exactly right. They essentially want actors to stay in their own lanes, which is absurd because acting is about not being yourself. These people are as bad as toxic Star Wars fans.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is the dumb thing, all of these twitter folk are screaming for representation, but only if the representation is exactly right. They essentially want actors to stay in their own lanes, which is absurd because acting is about not being yourself. These people are as bad as toxic Star Wars fans.

What would happen if Scarlett decided to play Tina Turner in a biopic? If people complained, would that be outrage? This is genuine question. Where is the line drawn and why?

 

[jmc]

What would happen if Scarlett decided to play Tina Turner in a biopic? If people complained, would that be outrage? This is genuine question. Where is the line drawn and why?

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.

 

[Hunter Rider]

This is the person she was supposed to depict: https://goo.gl/images/ePTD8P

Call me crazy, but with a few prosthetics and a fat suit, it's not any crazier than casting Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. I can conceivably see Scarlett as Gill, visually.


I saw this brought up in another thread, but for those against Scarlett's casting, why is this such an issue whereas The Rock playing a disabled person in Skyscraper is ignored?

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.

What would happen if Scarlett decided to play Tina Turner in a biopic? If people complained, would that be outrage? This is genuine question. Where is the line drawn and why?

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.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

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?

 

[Aximili86]

So she dropped out?

Don't blame her, not worth the vicious millennials coming at you like a spidermonkey, but still. Lame, someone's gotta blunt this manufactured whining at a certain point.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I had no interest in this, regardless who was playing the lead, but if the production dies and people lose work then that's a bit of a ****ing **** show.

 

[Brutikus]

So she dropped out?

Don't blame her, not worth the vicious millennials coming at you like a spidermonkey, but still. Lame, someone's gotta blunt this manufactured whining at a certain point.

Shame she felt the need to do so.

"Diversity" is for a select few to decide who is diverse it seems.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Shame she felt the need to do so.

"Diversity" is for a select few to decide who is diverse it seems.

What does this mean?

 

[Aximili86]

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*

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

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.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Reactions like this gave us Black Panther and Wonder Woman.

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.