FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
21-07-2018, 07:14 PM | #26 | |||
|
||||
baddie
|
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
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:33 PM | #27 | |||
|
||||
Triumph of the Weird
|
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.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:36 PM | #28 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
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. |
||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:39 PM | #29 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:48 PM | #30 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
Quote:
Last edited by Ammi; 21-07-2018 at 08:08 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:49 PM | #31 | |||
|
||||
Triumph of the Weird
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
21-07-2018, 07:50 PM | #32 | |||
|
||||
Sod orf
|
Nobody could have played Christy Brown as good as Daniel Day Lewis. Same goes with Billy Bob Thornton playing Sling blade.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 08:04 AM | #33 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this. Terry Pratchett “I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.” ― Richard Dawkins Last edited by jaxie; 22-07-2018 at 08:17 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 09:17 AM | #34 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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.
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) .................................................. .. Press The Spoiler Button to See All My Songs Spoiler: |
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 11:24 AM | #35 | |||
|
||||
baddie
|
Quote:
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 11:36 AM | #36 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
Quote:
..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..... |
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 02:39 PM | #37 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this. Terry Pratchett “I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.” ― Richard Dawkins Last edited by jaxie; 22-07-2018 at 02:44 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 02:42 PM | #38 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this. Terry Pratchett “I am thrilled to be alive at time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.” ― Richard Dawkins |
|||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 02:58 PM | #39 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Toy Soldier; 22-07-2018 at 03:00 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
22-07-2018, 04:17 PM | #40 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
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. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-07-2018, 10:31 AM | #41 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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 |
|||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|