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

[expensiveho]

12 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Someone's an SJW for saying "Hey, maybe these underrepresented people who seemingly get blacklisted for being who they are deserve opportunities to perform roles based on one of their own people"?

 

Anyone else find that people that use the phrase "SJW" tend to be morons?

They are if they attack for the sake of attacking and claiming a fake outrage. 

 

None (99%, I know some do) of these people go out to actually support trans actor or trans people in general. 

 

They mostly jump on the hate bandwagon, even if it ends up harming the LGBT community representation. Does anyone really think this is a good thing for trans actor and they'll suddenly start getting roles? And not you know, become a touchy subject and get ignored for another decade.

 

And yes, these kind of people are toxic and one of the reasons why the majority of the population doesn't take these issues seriously.

[AJG]

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

At least I did try to look for one in 2017-2018, a 25-35m production with a unknown actor in the lead and I think I didn't find any.

 

 

12 Years A Slave cost $22M and ain't nobody heard of Chewitel Ejiofor before. It's not an impossible task.

[boomboom234]

16 minutes ago, AJG said:

Also: Why won't this film be made? People know there's other roles in the film, right? 

 

Films get released with unknown actors in the lead with bigger stars playing secondary roles at least once a week. It's not a new thing.

 

 

I saw a comment that said it was "SJW" to have women in Assassins Creed video games.

 

This is how dense these people are.

Because it was her production company pushing for it no one else 

[That One Girl]

Everyone watch A Fantastic Woman, it's good and is about a trans character and is played by a trans actress

[AJG]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

Everyone watch A Fantastic Woman, it's good and is about a trans character and is played by a trans actress

 

Pose on FX has a huge trans cast and it is fantastic. It's not something I'd normally watch but it's still good.

[Jake Gittes]

3 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

12 Years A Slave cost $22M and ain't nobody heard of Chewitel Ejiofor before. It's not an impossible task.

He'd been working to consistent praise for over a decade before that movie. Not a household name but far from an unknown. 

[Jake Gittes]

I keep waiting for both Tangerine actresses to appear in something again. Their "filmography" sections on Wiki on the heels of that movie are depressing. 

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

12 Years A Slave cost $22M and ain't nobody heard of Chewitel Ejiofor before. It's not an impossible task.

That was a somewhat powerful director too and that was 6 year's ago and that needed to share the risk among all those player getting on board over a very long development process:

 

Production companies	Summit Entertainment Regency Enterprises River Road Entertainment Plan B Entertainment New Regency Productions Film4 Productions
Distributed by	Fox Searchlight Pictures (North America) Lionsgate / Summit Entertainment (International)

 

 

to get made. Yes if a Pitt type of producer get on board with a director/subject that give it really good Oscar chance, with a big assembled supporting cast (Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Giamatti, Pitt cameo) it can happen. 

 

But that is far from being common, just as an exercice, look at all the non-genre / sequel / IP movie of 2017 with a 25-35 small budget type, you will see a lot of star powers (irrelevant that if it does really matter to have them or not in actual movie success at the box office, they still seem needed no get project going and financed).

 

Ejiofor while being a unknown to a lot of the public had a good theater career and was an golden globe nominee, Olivier winner, he could still inspire confidence to investor that is performance and the day to day work of the lead of a major production would not be any issue or adding cost.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Barnack

[AJG]

26 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

They are if they attack for the sake of attacking and claiming a fake outrage. 

 

None (99%, I know some do) of these people go out to actually support trans actor or trans people in general. 

 

They mostly jump on the hate bandwagon, even if it ends up harming the LGBT community representation. Does anyone really think this is a good thing for trans actor and they'll suddenly start getting roles? And not you know, become a touchy subject and get ignored for another decade.

 

And yes, these kind of people are toxic and one of the reasons why the majority of the population doesn't take these issues seriously.

 

See, this such backwards thinking.

 

People sit and forget that Hollywood would paint white people brown and yellow before even considering hiring indian, hispanic, and asian actors (look at Aliens for godssake), nowadays such a thing would be unthinkable. Films had to be made that proved these people weren't detrimental to the box office and that minority actors were capable and even now they still get relegated to side roles. Putting trans actors in the front of a movie is not a bad thing, it aint gonna kill nobody, AND could lead to big change.

 

I don't know why this is a bad thing for you. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by AJG

[AJG]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That was a somewhat powerful director too and that was 6 year's ago and that needed to share the risk among all those player getting on board over a very long development process:

 

Production companies	Summit Entertainment Regency Enterprises River Road Entertainment Plan B Entertainment New Regency Productions Film4 Productions
Distributed by	Fox Searchlight Pictures (North America) Lionsgate / Summit Entertainment (International)

 

 

to get made. Yes if a Pitt type of producer get on board with a director/subject that give it really good Oscar chance, with a big assembled supporting cast (Fassbender, Cumberbatch, Giamatti, Pitt cameo) it can happen. 

 

But that is far from being common, just as an exercice, look at all the non-genre / sequel / IP movie of 2017 with a 25-35 small budget type, you will see a lot of star powers (irrelevant that if it does really matter to have them or not in actual movie success at the box office, they still seem needed no get project going and financed)

 

So it could still get made, it just needs the right cast and producers. With all the hoopla surrounding the movie I can see it happening. Do we know if ScarJo is no longer producing?

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

So it could still get made, it just needs the right cast and producers. With all the hoopla surrounding the movie I can see it happening. Do we know if ScarJo is no longer producing?

Could even get crowdfunded, instead of doing it for Super trooper 2 and Veronica Mars, if really people care with the awareness the project has, why not.

 

You just need 100k people caring for only $1000 to get a 100m production movie going.... a 20m one should not be too hard. And if you do not even have 100,000 people that care for just $200, that make it a bit of a up media false controversy.

[Webslinger]

I'll second what @That One Guy

said about A Fantastic Woman.

 

Scarlett Johansson's statement is a start, but it still rubs me the wrong way (no pun intended). Would it have been that hard to advocate for this movie being made with a trans man in the lead role? "Conversations" are starting points, sure, but talking about "starting a conversation" all-too-often feels like a privileged person's way of not accepting fault for their actions and reframing their mistakes in a supposedly helpful context, and Johansson's statement reeks of that feeling. And honestly, it feels like most of that "conversation" centered around the question of whether Scarlett Johansson should play a trans man, not whether the film industry needs to stop dragging its feet with regard to trans representation.

 

The issue of cis performers playing trans roles is a nuanced one, to be sure. There's part of me that wants to get behind seeing well-intentioned cis actors use their privilege to act as allies and bring awareness of the trans community to viewers that might not otherwise give the production a chance. If viewers came out of films like Transamerica, Dallas Buyers Club, or The Danish Girl with a greater sense of empathy toward the trans community, that's great. I'll also accept a case like Transparent, whose casting of a cis actor in a trans role got the show off the ground and then opened the door for a variety of talented trans actors and writers to gain greater visibility (though it came with an extremely unfortunate caveat amid the bombshells dropped about Tambor). But at the end of the day, we need more films with trans performers portraying trans characters. A Fantastic Woman is a great example of such a casting decision paying off beautifully, for Daniela Vega clearly works in so many subtle touches every step of the way to develop a sense of authenticity; she's still playing a character, but the personal knowledge and experience she brings to the role makes her feel real in a way I don't think a cis actor ever could.

[Jake Gittes]

To start with, trans actors playing characters who've already transitioned is an obvious and easy road to go. When you have someone like Lili Elbe who doesn't even begin identifying as a woman until halfway into her movie, it makes sense to me that a cis actor could still be in contention for that kinda role. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Jake Gittes

[Mulder]

The thing is almost the entire trans community would be fine if the cis person playing the role was a cisman playing a transman or a ciswoman playing a transwoman. It's the fact that it's pretty much always the other way around that upsets people. Not to mention ScarJo didn't even look like Dante Gill.

[expensiveho]

4 hours ago, AJG said:

 

See, this such backwards thinking.

 

People sit and forget that Hollywood would paint white people brown and yellow before even considering hiring indian, hispanic, and asian actors (look at Aliens for godssake), nowadays such a thing would be unthinkable. Films had to be made that proved these people weren't detrimental to the box office and that minority actors were capable and even now they still get relegated to side roles. Putting trans actors in the front of a movie is not a bad thing, it aint gonna kill nobody, AND could lead to big change.

 

I don't know why this is a bad thing for you. 

You're misunderstanding the issue here. Shutting down this movie won't make Hollywood suddenly open for trans actors. All this fake outrage won't convince the studios to put trans actors as leads in their movies. 

 

If all these people faking the outrage actually supported trans actresses, Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner wouldn't have bombed with their shows and doors would've actually opened, because CEOs are actually capable of swallowing their bigotry if there's a lot of money involved. 

 

Now we don't have Scarjo or a trans actor playing this role, and there's another missed opportunity for people to see a positive portrayal of a trans person, with studios likely avoiding this topic out of fear of backlash.  That's why this is a bad thing and sets back activism for years. 

[filmlover]

27 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

You're misunderstanding the issue here. Shutting down this movie won't make Hollywood suddenly open for trans actors. All this fake outrage won't convince the studios to put trans actors as leads in their movies. 

 

If all these people faking the outrage actually supported trans actresses, Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner wouldn't have bombed with their shows and doors would've actually opened, because CEOs are actually capable of swallowing their bigotry if there's a lot of money involved. 

 

Now we don't have Scarjo or a trans actor playing this role, and there's another missed opportunity for people to see a positive portrayal of a trans person, with studios likely avoiding this topic out of fear of backlash.  That's why this is a bad thing and sets back activism for years. 

You're aware that Pose (a show with mostly trans actors and actresses) is critically-acclaimed and successful enough that FX has renewed it for a second season, right? If you're looking for a step in the right direction...

[Spidey Freak]

8 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

So does this decisively mean no more trans characters played by cis actors, ever, at least in any remotely high-profile American/English-language film? Wild if so, considering how acceptable it was just a year or two ago. I dunno if I think that a cis actor playing a trans person is inherently wrong under any circumstances, but the need for representation is certainly clear, and it's not like I've seen an actual all-time great such performance anyway. (Off the top of my head Leto and Redmayne's were utterly shallow, Terence Stamp in Adventures of Priscilla was good but not necessarily indispensable. Haven't seen Boys Don't Cry, Transamerica, or Transparent.)

Uh, it definitely is wrong under ACTUAL circumstances where instances of the other way around (trans actors being given opportunities to play cis characters) are near non-existent. And especially non-existent in major awards circuit films or blockbusters.

 

That truth alone makes the whole "If this pattern is forced upon Hollywood then everyone will be forced to play/direct only their own gender/race/sexuality characters blah blah" argument is disingenuous bullshit (not saying you personally hold this belief, Jake), as reality does force marginalized groups to play or direct their own representation, if such projects ever materialize in the first place AND are not taken away from members of privileged groups.

[AndyK]

I understand why she did it, but its a step backwards IMO.

 

Actors should be allowed to act, directors should be allowed to direct.......

[Mulder]

1 hour ago, AndyK said:

I understand why she did it, but its a step backwards IMO.

 

Actors should be allowed to act, directors should be allowed to direct.......

Alright for the George Washington biopic we'll ask her to audition and if that doesn't work out we'll see if Oprah's interested. 

[AndyK]

32 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Alright for the George Washington biopic we'll ask her to audition and if that doesn't work out we'll see if Oprah's interested. 

Bollocks.....and you know it.