Rub & Tug

No,you're " right "

The reason is solely cause this thread is not about what diversity means to me and I do not owe an answer to the question.
 
The reason is solely cause this thread is not about what diversity means to me and I do not owe an answer to the question.
This thread has very much turned to the discussion of diversity and the meaning of it. It started on the first page. I am curious why you bring up it having many definitions to many people, but you seem to not want to share yours.

For me, in say Hollywood, diversity it is about a variety of different voices providing content. And when you say have more diversity behind the camera, chances are more diversity in front of the camera.
 
Does make you look like a drive-by troller in context though, Brutikus.

There's a pretty simple answer to it, too: diversity's great, there should be more of it, but a-woman-who-likes-to-wear-ladies'-clothes-playing-a-woman-who-wore-men's-clothes shouldn't be an issue any more than a straight actor playing a gay one or vice versa.
 
You're entitled to your curiousity of course.

I do not recall saying about more diversity behind the camera.


edit - I misread your comment there. Apologies.

Does make you look like a drive-by troller in context though, Brutikus.

Well looking like a thing and being it are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Does make you look like a drive-by troller in context though, Brutikus.

There's a pretty simple answer to it, too: diversity's great, there should be more of it, but a-woman-who-likes-to-wear-ladies'-clothes-playing-a-woman-who-wore-men's-clothes shouldn't be an issue any more than a straight actor playing a gay one or vice versa.
Wow, that wasn't an insult to the trans community at all.
 
I was talking about crossdressers, which the movie seems to be about. If you can point to something where the real woman identified as a man in her personal life outside of the massage parlour, it'd be news to me.

Trans, crossdresser, it's not the same thing. LGBTQILOLBBQ, etc.
 
I was talking about crossdressers, which the movie seems to be about. If you can point to something where the real woman identified as a man in her personal life outside of the massage parlour, it'd be news to me.

Trans, crossdresser, it's not the same thing. LGBTQILOLBBQ, etc.
Dante "Tex" Gill was transgender.

https://www.thewrap.com/scarlett-johansson-dante-tex-gill-cousin-barry-paris-rub-tug/

Dante “Tex” Gill, a transgender massage parlor owner whose portrayal by Scarlett Johansson in the upcoming film “Rub & Tug” has prompted a strong backlash, “would be laughing his ass off” at the debate, says Gill’s cousin, Barry Paris.

“That wouldn’t be as important as how he wanted the world to see him,” Paris, a longtime film critic for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, told TheWrap on Thursday.

Paris said he didn’t know for certain how Gill, who died in 2003 at the age of 72, would have reacted to Johansson or any actress playing him on film.

“I’d say it’s a toss-up, but I think it’s slightly more likely he would have liked to be played by a man because he identified as a man,” Paris told TheWrap. “I’m sure he would have liked to have been played by a transgender man, but in his day that was very rare.”
...

Paris has a charming way with words. A 2003 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obituary quoted him describing Gill as “personally gentle and non-violent” while adding that Gill “made a nice corrupt life for herself in a nice corrupt American society.”

Paris’ only regret about that assessment is the use of the female pronoun. Most people were less enlightened about pronouns — and LGBTQ issues in general — 15 years ago, he explained.

Now, Paris said, there is no question Gill should be referred to as “he.”

“The pronoun needs to be ‘he’ and ‘him’ rather than ‘she’ and ‘her,’ even though the newspapers refused to do it when he was alive,” Paris said. “He totally identified as a man from the time my cousins and I first knew him. He was always overtly masculine. … He hated to be called ‘she,’ and that’s what the police always did, and the papers. It annoyed and upset him.”
 
Interesting, okay. Conceded, first I'd seen on that. The movie articles were all referring to "her" and the bio online seemed to be on the fence of whether she considered herself guy or girl.
 
So what are the odds that this project quietly dissolves now that she's not attached? There's a reason the project had a big name attached in the first place.
 
I would like if this movie is never made because of Scarlet.J leaving.
 
So what are the odds that this project quietly dissolves now that she's not attached? There's a reason the project had a big name attached in the first place.

One of those reasons being a lack of commercial profit viability maybe?

I've not seen the studio announce they wanted ScarJo to leave so now the studio's financiers have to weigh these factors as to if it will proceed as they are the ones who require any investment to be profitable.
 
Last edited:
So which is it jmc, is this a business or is this a charity?

It's a business of course. Look, everyone has the opportunity to create something for themselves and develop an audience today. There's nothing stopping anyone anymore from doing this because the tools are so readily available these days to create your own work and there's a global audience online to sell to. It just takes time, money and the drive to do it. The problem is relying on a system that's built to minimise risk and to maximise profits in order to make the changes you and others want. I'm currently working for a small creative company that is investing their own time and money into creating a comic book universe that is more reflective of what western society looks like these days. They've got some pretty lofty goals and hundreds of characters developed. Will it work? I don't know, but at least they are trying to do something about it. You can't always rely on others to give you what you desire, so sometimes you have create your own chances. Some of the biggest companies in the world got to where they are because they took a chance doing something differently than everyone else. No, it doesn't always work, the thing is though if you get it right you then become a game changer.
 
SbJUmwa.png
 
I'm indifferent to this Scarjo thing.

How soon before every ''gay'' character must be played by a gay actor/actress tho? No more films like Moonlight or Brokeback Mountain, Blue is The Warmest Color etc. Bigger names get these stories told, but at the same time many marginalized actors don't even get the opportunity to even be in the same room to get a shot. It comes down to folks willing to put that first over money, which is kinda rare or folks like Megan Ellison takes a risk, which she has been doing less and less recently.
 
I sigh into a distance in time when Scarjo was that hot chick from Lost in Translation or at the very least, before she had that lame short hair cut.
 
I'm indifferent to this Scarjo thing.

How soon before every ''gay'' character must be played by a gay actor/actress tho? No more films like Moonlight or Brokeback Mountain, Blue is The Warmest Color etc. Bigger names get these stories told, but at the same time many marginalized actors don't even get the opportunity to even be in the same room to get a shot.
Its different for one fundamental reason. Gay actors do get cast as straight characters, and vice versa. Rooney Mara is in Carol, Zachary Quinto is Spock, Neil Patrick Harris was the ultimate ladies man on television for years, etc. Its not the best for gay actors, but there is clearly a path. Trans actors do not get many, if any opportunities to play non-trans characters. If Hollywood start casting trans actors in non-trans roles, then it would be the same situation, and I don't think this argument happens. But as long as the only roles available to trans actors are playing trans characters, this will always be an issue. Especially with such few roles.
 
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.
Well the film industry just reflected society when Hollywood got going and it went along that way for decades before any remote changes were made.

Steven Spielberg has had so much pull for decades now. How many female lead films has he made?
I don't think he ever has, off the top of my head I can't think of one, the Colour Purple?

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.
Arnie and Linda are returning for one last go around as well, I am mildly intrigued to see how it pans out. :D

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.
Fair enough, to me when you deliberately shut out an entire section of people due to their gender though it's not so much course correction as repeating the actions that you were initially complaning about.


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.
Wonder Woman was so organic to me, it wasn't a case of just selecting Patty because she was a woman, she clearly had a take that brought her to the table, and I don't see Star Wars as having a lead as such, it's an ensemble overall, like Lord of the Rings.


I think it is more like, "the prequels aren't the most hated thing of all time anymore". :hehe:
:funny: Whatever the case may be I am just glad George is getting the last laugh!


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.
I doubt they were but she should have something in place where she has to sign off on statments that are made on her behalf, it was a huge misstep.



The Oscars are a rabbit hole of issues, from the snobbery, to the way some actresses have to basically take on uglification roles to get respect for their work, to the condescending token bones thrown like a LOTR win and noms for TDK and Fury Road, and that's not to say there haven't been some very good Oscar nominated movies, but the whole process is flawed and the set up is outdated and out of touch.
 
Steven Spielberg female leads:

The Color Purple
The BFG
The Sugar Land Express

The BFG came out in 2016, so it's not like he hasn't made the effort recently And The BFG bombed and got bad reviews. And it was written by a woman, the late Melissa Matheson.

Trying to attack a liberal and likely feminist filmmaker like Spielberg on this issue is sort of stupid.
 
I don’t know why people continue to bring up the Spielberg thing about female leads. He’s under no obligation to make the type of movie you want him to do.
 
The Post doesn't count? Streep is 1st billed and her being a smart and talented woman in a world dominated by dudes is a huge part of that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,268
Messages
22,077,397
Members
45,876
Latest member
Crazygamer3011
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"