I wonder how far this being offended if an exact doppelgänger isn’t playing a role is going to spread. Is it too late to unplug the internet?
Does this mean that The Rock shouldn’t have played an amputee in Skyscraper?
And that disagreement is based on ignorance. The idea that you can be colorblind and remove your cultural influences has been shown to be false, and hasn’t been seriously considered valid since the 1990s. Your opinion is one that is largely only held in 2018 by white people who have not experienced discrimination and stay in a bubble with others of the same kind. To claim that your privilege cannot affect you when you are speaking on a message board is profoundly ignorant, since privilege primarily manifests in your words and actions.
You have in fact been outdated at best with all of your arguments in this thread. You can even look at the OP to find that trans people do not accept that there are no “trans roles.” That they do not accept cisgender women playing trans men. If a character is trans, they want them played by a trans person.
And, for goodness sake, you called monstro–an actual black woman–racist for trying to explain things. You’re choosing to use the alt-right tactic of calling the person a racist because they are trying to educate you on racial issues. If a black person tells you about racism against black people, they tend to know what they are talking about.
So, when you claim you are describing the world as it is, why should anyone think that is the case? Why shouldn’t we believe that it’s just the world as viewed through your bubble, the bubble where you actively dismiss people with actual experience as racists?
I don’t buy your unsubstantiated claims and in the unlikely event that anyone wonders what I think on those points they can look back through the thread.
I said I wasn’t going to hijack any further and i won’t but nor will I let wilful misrepresentations be left unchallenged.
I did not call monstro a “racist” for trying to explain things.
This is what I very clearly did say to them
And I ended my response thus…
Happy to put the record straight.
A ‘genuine and benign non-reaction and non-interest to skin shades and ethnicity’ would be all very well in a world where no-one was being treated differently due to skin shade or ethnicity. Unfortunately, that is not this world. In this world, people are regularly treated differently because of skin colour and ethnic origin, sometimes considerably so. Stating that you have no reaction and no interest doesn’t mean that you’re not causing the problem so it’s all OK, it means you’re not seeing that there is a problem.
This situation is now a perfect example on why perfect is the enemy of good.
I dunno, considering I’ve seen trans people argue that the original casting would’ve promoted the idea that trans men are just women playing dress up, I’m not so sure they mind. (IE I’m not so sure they saw the movie as necessarily a “good” to begin with.)
Seeing as how the main character is a criminal who made a living off exploiting women, it was never going to be the most empowering trans centered movie regardless.
In the end the movie will be shaped into Tub and Rug, the story of the founder of a wholesale home furnishings empire.
That sort of assumes that the movie, as envisioned by Johansson, could legitimately be considered “good.” My trans friends who had been following the story were apprehensive beyond just Johansson’s casting (apparently, an earlier version of the script explicitly identified Dante as a lesbian, for one example) and Johansson’s tone-deaf responses to the controversy didn’t help.
Just reporting from the small corner of the trans community with which I’m personally familiar, the feeling seems more “bullet dodged” than “opportunity missed.” A high-profile, pro-trans mainstream film would be great. A high-profile, mainstream film that perpetuates stereotypes and presents caricatured takes on trans lives would be worse than no film at all.
That sort of assumes that the movie, as envisioned by Johansson, could legitimately be considered “good.” My trans friends who had been following the story were apprehensive beyond just Johansson’s casting (apparently, an earlier version of the script explicitly identified Dante as a lesbian, for one example) and Johansson’s tone-deaf responses to the controversy didn’t help.
Just reporting from the small corner of the trans community with which I’m personally familiar, the feeling seems more “bullet dodged” than “opportunity missed.” A high-profile, pro-trans mainstream film would be great. A high-profile, mainstream film that perpetuates stereotypes and presents caricatured takes on trans lives would be worse than no film at all.
A relevant 2017 article from the LA Times about authenticity in casting, mentioning Johannson’s Ghost in the Shell controversy, among others. It focuses a little more on theatre than film, but it’s a good overview of the issue.
What? There was an assumed perpetuating of stereotypes and presentation of caricatures? I’d be curious to know how your trans community corner thought those were gonna be in the movie so early in development. Like I said above, despite the apparent colorfulness of the main character, this person was a f-to-m trans who ran a sex business. What stereotype is that perpetuating?
I’d say there was more of a “concern” than an “assumption.” There were some red flags raised for friends of mine, including but not limited to Johansson being in the lead role. The concern was that these flags indicated an overall failure on the part of the production company to understand the issues they were trying to turn into a movie. So far as I’m aware, there was no specific objection to making a movie about this particular individual, unsavory aspects and all - the concern about stereotypes was less about the particulars of Dante Gill’s life, and more about the way they would present Gill’s gender identity and expression. A common concern I’ve heard, for example, was that Johansson would be playing Dante as a butch (and soft butch at that, given the actor involved) lesbian, with an eye towards serving up some girl-girl action for straight, cis audiences. These concerns may have been unfounded, but Johansson did very little to reassure the community that she actually cared about anyone in it ([see her dismissive tweet immediately after the controversy broke](” https://twitter.com/ReignOfApril/status/1014281683632353280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1014281683632353280&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeadline.com%2F2018%2F07%2Fscarlett-johansson-response-backlash-rub-and-tug-dante-tex-gill-trans-lgbtq-1202421430%2F”)) and Hollywood’s done a generally shitty job (with some exceptions) at portraying trans people in a respectful, non-exploitative manner. So, there wasn’t a lot of high hopes in my social circle for this going in, and I don’t imagine a lot of concern that the project has crashed and burned now. As regards Canuck’s “perfect being the enemy of the good,” post, there was very little expectation that this would rise to the level of “good” in the first place.
Well, I don’t know how happy your friends will be about it, but I bet we won’t see anyone attempt another trans centered movie for a long time now.
How much?
20 internet dollars.
I mean if you include all indy shit, sure something will be made. But it’s pretty obvious to me that no big picture is going to be made. There’s no real trans star on the horizon to pull this into mainstream.
That sounds circular, to me. You can’t have a trans movie without a trans star, and you can’t have a trans star without a trans movie, therefore neither will ever exist.