Jump to content

AndyK

Rub & Tug | Now a TV Series. ScarJo found dead in a ditch! | Trans Rights are Human Rights

By AndyK, in Streaming, TV Series, & VOD Movies

Recommended Posts



StevenG Box Office Gold

StevenG

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, The Futurist said:

It s just so beautiful watching progress progressing just in front of your eyes.

What a time to be alive.

We are progressing.

We finally reached a point at which Jennifer Lawrence is irrelevant and an MCU film is flopping with audiences.

If that is not progress, I don't know what is.

:hahaha:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites










Barnack Global Phenomenon

Barnack

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

Yes, this is our fault. You got us!

 

Joking aside, there is a bit of a "danger" of the online outrage (except if it is true that no representation is better than bad one, that could be the case).

 

https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/overview

  • GLAAD tallied 28 total LGBTQ characters among all mainstream releases in 2017, down from 70 in 2016 and 47 in 2015. It is important to note that 14 of the characters counted in 2016 were part of a single musical number in Universal Pictures’ PopStar: Never Stop Never Stopping, which misleadingly inflated the numbers that year. Men again outnumber women characters by more than two to one, there were 20 men and eight women, compared to 47 men and 22 women in 2016’s major studio releases. There were no transgender or non-binary characters counted in mainstream releases this year.

If we remove pop-star single musical number data skewing

 

LGBTQ characthers in mainstream releases

2013: 25

2014: 28

2015: 47

2016: 56

2017: 28

 

The number was growing up year after year when in the mainstream people applauded studio for just having LGBTQ characters in the movies.

 

In 2017 it went down and back to 0 transgender in mainstream movies, just a blip on the radar maybe, or do exec fear Internet backslash over a title if they do not do it correctly and prefer just to take no chance and get a more general hit of lack of representativity with a diffused blame at the end of the year. 

 

It is obviously unfair to ask people to just chear any form of representativity, regardless of how bad it is and it is obviously all good to point out how it could be better.

 

But an argument can be made that "Internet" should be in constructive-criticism mode, solution seeking and not in attack mode that make people just walk away of those projects all together like it could happen here.

 

Or if they do, that Internet in attack mode crowd should at least turn around and actually make the movie they say they want to see happen themselve, it is not the 50s now you do not need a studio to make a movie, it is a public record story of a death person that cannot sue for defamation (and apparently you do not need a star for the role, perfect to not have to wait for anyone permission)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jake Gittes Global Phenomenon

Jake Gittes

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MOVIEGUY said:

This whole thing is blown way out of proportion to me. Like should Michael K. Williams not have played Omar on the Wire because he's not gay? It's called acting, you don't actually have to be the person you're portraying.

Portraying a sexuality other than your own isn't the same as portraying a different gender.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites








Barnack Global Phenomenon

Barnack

Posted
Posted
Just now, MOVIEGUY said:

So it's okay to play a different sexual orientation but not a different gender? Why?

Not sure Gittes is saying that is necessarily okay to play a different sexual orientation or not ok to play a different gender.

 

It could depend of the director / project, Adam Sandler playing is twin sister himself or a Madea movie can be a very different artistic endeavor.

 

Some hard yes/no rules in art always sound like a terrible idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jake Gittes Global Phenomenon

Jake Gittes

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, MOVIEGUY said:

So it's okay to play a different sexual orientation but not a different gender? Why?

Whether it's "okay" is probably not for me to have the final word on, nor is it whether it's categorically wrong to play a different gender. It just doesn't strike me as the same. (1), because it's just easier, less distracting and acting exercise-y: in my experience, you don't watch a good straight actor's performance of a gay character and get constantly reminded that they're in fact straight, whereas you watch e.g. Jared Leto in DBC and all you can think of is that it's Jared Leto in drag. You don't need to transform your (often recognizable) appearance to convincingly act an attraction to someone of your own gender. (2), which ties in with (1): sexuality doesn't define people, or at least their appearance, to the same extent that gender does. Even in movies that commit to being love stories, gay characters aren't being outwardly gay every second they're on screen. Sometimes we're talking about a few minutes in a leading role's worth of screentime, like say Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde. On the other hand, gender - like skin color - is something that other people are just gonna *see* every moment they spend with you. (In the middle of typing this I realized that there can be exceptions to this in gay characters who act in a way that has calcified into stereotype; from what I've seen, they're rare, but I guess they throw a wrench into this). (3) Plenty of gay and lesbian actors have portrayed straight characters (maybe even more than the other way around, considering how many did it while still in the closet), whereas trans actors barely get a chance to play even trans characters, much less cisgender ones. (4) Gender can be fluid but sexuality seems to be more so, and if the character is, say, bisexual (like both lead characters are in Call Me by Your Name, to cite a recent high-profile example), it makes sense to just open it up for all candidates rather than limit your options to bisexual actors; furthermore, (5) if you wanted the latter system to work, all actors would need to disclose their sexuality practically as soon as they start working, and the world is not anywhere near that stage yet, and besides life and sexuality are messier than that anyway. 

 

If any of the gay folks on the forum feel like I'm talking out of my ass re: any of this, please feel free to say so. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites


MOVIEGUY Box Office Gold

MOVIEGUY

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Not sure Gittes is saying that is necessarily okay to play a different sexual orientation or not ok to play a different gender.

 

It could depend of the director / project, Adam Sandler playing is twin sister himself or a Madea movie can be a very different artistic endeavor.

 

Some hard yes/no rules in art always sound like a terrible idea.

That makes sense and I'd agree with that, but that's not what I've been seeing here. Because to me, and maybe this is me projecting, it feels like a lot of the outrage over her casting is a hard NO thing, that it is unacceptable for her as a cis-blabbity-blah-blah to play a transgender person. Which is a different argument then just wanting representation, and that I totally get, and I get why a transgender person would be upset over the casting, but not "SHE CAN'T PLAY THAT PERSON BECAUSE SHE'S NOT TRANSGENDER."

 

Personally I think they should just cast the right actors for the right parts, and if you can actually pass off as whoever you're playing then go ahead. Someone mentioned on the previous page something like "Well cast ScarJo as Abe Lincoln then if she can play anyone!" and if you're making a weird, irreverent film that'd be fine, but if you're making Spielberg's Lincoln... well that'd be ridiculous because there's no world where she could convincingly pass of as Abe Lincoln. I just think the whole thing's blown out of proportion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Mulder Global Phenomenon

Mulder

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MOVIEGUY said:

That makes sense and I'd agree with that, but that's not what I've been seeing here. Because to me, and maybe this is me projecting, it feels like a lot of the outrage over her casting is a hard NO thing, that it is unacceptable for her as a cis-blabbity-blah-blah to play a transgender person. Which is a different argument then just wanting representation, and that I totally get, and I get why a transgender person would be upset over the casting, but not "SHE CAN'T PLAY THAT PERSON BECAUSE SHE'S NOT TRANSGENDER."

 

Personally I think they should just cast the right actors for the right parts, and if you can actually pass off as whoever you're playing then go ahead. Someone mentioned on the previous page something like "Well cast ScarJo as Abe Lincoln then if she can play anyone!" and if you're making a weird, irreverent film that'd be fine, but if you're making Spielberg's Lincoln... well that'd be ridiculous because there's no world where she could convincingly pass of as Abe Lincoln. I just think the whole thing's blown out of proportion.

So it's fine for her to play someone she's not for Dante Gill but not for Abraham Lincoln? 🤔

 

Keep in mind she also looks nothing like the real Dante Gill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept