I think with scarlet as well this backlash was also to do with the fact that she has a history of taking roles that were meant to minorities

Another thought to add on top of others here: .. Hollywood is garbage, so I don't really look to them to "set the standard" for the rest of society.... it's my strong opinion, it's on us little folk to reset society and to set the core standard. We've become too "reliant" on other "authorities" to perpetuate that for us... in truth it's society itself that sets the golden standard, and then Hollywood and their lazy butts follow suit when they see dollar signs coming from it. Truthfully, their calls to pick up the little man and pull him up is a bit disingenuous... there's a lot of things about Hollywood culture that can be pointed to that reinforces the "ails" in American society, for example, their obsession with violence, especially gun violence.

True but then, most actors don't experience a "meteoric rise" and would have a gradually increasing profile in supporting roles (often TV roles these days, as TV series' are more respected as "real acting" than they used to be) before being cast as a "centrepiece" role.

But yes this would probably be one of the rare opportunities to make it a real statement. However they couldn't "token cast" someone, so you have the challenge of finding someone who aesthetically fits the role AND is a great natural actor who can manage to not seem amateurish despite not having had much experience. There's no point casting an "authentic" new face if their performance isn't going to shine.

Yes I agree that the motivation is profit over "social justice" here. Much in the same way that Disney / Marvel are going to be ALL OVER the Black Panther franchise now that they've realised that there's an absolutely massive and largely untapped mainstream market there.

..yeah many actors do tread the boards before that big break comes along, I know, TS...but there are also for instance, child roles where that ONE roll is offered to an unknown and that then sets them onto stardom and other child rolls, you know...there may be scripts for trans actors just laying there and not yet considered ...stories specifically about trans characters...?...and how would the Hollywood world ever know that’s something that movie lovers would want to see more of if those scripts just lay there...so this movie with a trans actor playing the roll, would be the perfect thing to gage that interest..?...if you don’t try it, they can’t buy it, those movie goers...the only way to see more successful trans actors would be to cast those unknowns with less experience ...as in child actors...

Even if the motivation were positive, it's still not a good thing to rest all our hopes on any establishment. Surely that'll be corrupted eventually with time. Kind of like how I'm being paid to basically watch YT essentially on my TV (I only have local + HBO)... These organizations fork over tons of money to these companies to know exactly who is watching what, when, and what advertises they are more likely to turn the channel on. The desperation to capture a ready audience is quite strong, or else why spend that much money paying one organization to pay people to "log" what they watch. They have to justify those costs somehow, so I can't really blame them for being picky in what productions they invest in...

Anyway, I don't fault Hollywood being the way it is, if that is what people are willing to watch... but if people are watching hoping it will facilitate their ideologies, they will be sorely disappointed. That is actually one of the core arguments for smaller govt, is with the govt having less power, there's less "tendency" to corrupt as the interests won't really be there. We keep voting for the two broke parties, and nothing changes, the govt gets larger... Hollywood, it's the same thing really, it has such an influence over not only the US, but the rest of the world... really too much relevance is given to that industry imo, and yet we are constantly disappointed.

Nobody could have played Christy Brown as good as Daniel Day Lewis. Same goes with Billy Bob Thornton playing Sling blade.

See I kind of have a problem with "roles that were meant for minorities" I mean if some said Denzel was taking roles that were meant for white men everyone would go crazy over the racism. Saying certain roles are reserved for minorities, ethnicities or other groups sounds just as bad as the opposite. I think that's very wrong specially in regard to acting which is playing a role and pretending to be someone or something you are not.

I do agree with those saying casting is about money. But it is a fact that a star in a movie will draw more interest and revenue and a studio spending cash to make it wants it to be a success. The star is making the movie reach a wider audience. If Scarlet was in the trans movie I might watch it. If some unknown trans person was the star I probably wouldn't be drawn to it. In fact knowing an actor had been bullied into backing out of a role would probably make me avoid the movie on principle.

a) The percentage of 'non-white' to 'white' actors in the USA - or the UK for that matter - has to be smaller.

b) The percentage of roles specifically calling for 'non-white' actors has to smaller.

c) The number of non-white actors drawn from a) above who are 'bankable' ie, calculated by those putting the millions up to create the movie/show as being the most capable of 'putting bums on seats', has to be smaller.

Where a role is non-specific as to colour, gender or creed, then it should only really be a matter of which actor - regardless of colour, gender, or creed - is the most suitable and capable for the role.

We have come a long, long way from the days of white entertainers 'blacking-up' and even the 'token' Black man/Chinese man/Native American Indian roles, but to FORCE a studio or production company to award ANY role to an INFERIOR actor through Political Correctness is B.S.and wrong - in my opinion.

When there are very few roles for minorities available and the fact that hollywood is so inflexible with non white actors playing a white character then there really isn't a problem. I don't have a problem with it at all when it comes to theatre because theatre is a lot more flexible with woken play who. So for example, a black actor can play hamlet and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

..but shouldn’t those roles that are meant for white, never have been meant for white in the first place though, Jaxie...I mean shouldn’t they always have been there for Denzil as well...it’s more that really for those roles that wouldn’t matter what a skin colour was...the are specific roles which could only be cast as black or white or Asian etc...but many roles don’t have those specifics..and I think more diversity is needed there in thought when that casting is done at casting level...

..I understand that celebrity names are a pull as well in movies but I think my thoughts would be with the trans role if played by a trans actor...oh amazing, this is a first, type thing in a big movie, this is a huge progression... so I’ll definately go to see that, here are my dollars..:amazed:...

Well I don't know. One of my favorite movies is the amazing Man on Fire with Denzel. He plays the part beautifully but I don't know if the original guy it's loosely based on was black or white. I don't think that matters, the role is played by a superb actor and it's his best role I think. That's how it should be, it is played by a good actor. I don't care about pigment.

Let's be honest the trans role is played by a trans actor and if they still make the movie will it probably be watched by you and 3 1/2 people. Because the star has been bullied into backing out.

There are few roles for unknowns too. That doesn't make it any less discrimination to demand only an actor who is the same as the character can play the role.

Well yes I agree with the part in bold, although, I don't really think it's necessarily a matter of actual acting talent or being a "better" actor. There are a lot of huge name actors who are great in things, and have HUGE charisma, but aren't particularly great actors as the vast majority of the time they are just themselves. Will Smith is a good example; I generally enjoy him in things and his characters, but they are pretty much always the SAME character, and he's the exact same in interviews. Chris Pratt is another contemporary example. I like him in things but he's just Chris Pratt playing "Chris Pratt IN SPACE" or "Chris Pratt WITH DINOSAURS!" or "Chris Pratt IS A COWBOY NOW"... if you see what I mean. They play the characters they're given well, but that's because the characters are specifically written FOR them to play.

ScarJo TBH pretty much falls into that category... she doesn't have a huge acting range, she's just currently a very bankable "Star", and that's what the studios are hiring in these cases. I think it's much more likely that some genuinely talented actors ARE overlooked in favour of a "Big Name" who won't actually nail the role in quite the same way.

BUT like I said above - it's a difficult thing to work around, really. Movie studios aren't charities, at the end of the day they're looking to make a profit. A big name makes bigger profits... so a bigger budget film needs those names. The other option is to make a smaller scale film with lesser known stars - and some of these films can be amazing - but they rarely get the same sort of exposure. So if you have a message that you want to spread... do you go big name / big budget and spread that message as far and wide as possible, OR do you go with a smaller independent production which will be more "authentic" but will most likely have a much smaller audience. It's a tough call but it has to be one or the other... if you say to big budget studio "you MUST use new authentic minority stars for these movies"... the simple outcome is that they just won't risk their money on the movie at all, and it won't get made.

For my own two cents - not to speak for the trans community - but I would personally say, if having an established Hollywood name in a film about being trans furthers the acceptance and understanding of transgenderism to a mainstream audience, then it's probably worth allowing it to happen, as a stepping stone to more real diversity. It comes back to the usual issue of people wanting to force rapid FALSE change, at the expense of gradual REAL change.

In issues of sexuality, it's dumb. As a bisexual person, I wouldn't expect only bisexual characters to play bi roles.

In terms of transgender characters, things are a bit more murky. I think if it's a film like The Danish Girl for example, I could understand why they cast a man in the role instead of a transgender woman because that film is about transitioning and I think it's likely easier to make a man look like a transitioned woman than it is to make a transitioned woman look like a man again, plus a trans actress may not be comfortable with doing so. I think roles involving trans characters that are transitioned should always go to trans actors.

Characters should always be played by their appropriate race. There's not enough roles in Hollywood for non-white actors and there's no reason for whitewashing established characters so a white person can play them.

If you look at a list of the Best Actor Oscar winners I reckon 15 or 16 of the last 31 winners, going back to Rain Man, are able-bodies actors playing a character with a disability, or a non LGBT+ actor playing a LGBT+ character, or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academ...for_Best_Actor