Geez Louise…
13 Likes
The fucking irony is real.
This thread can’t close soon enough.
13 Likes
Roger that!
8 Likes
I see. Please continue to psychoanalyze me and tell me my intent. It’s fascinating.
13 Likes
Not a defense exactly of ScarJo signing on, just a different perspective to complicate things:
An actress sought a challenging role.
An actress wanted to work with a director again.
A name actress attached to a non-blockbuster can probably generate a larger box office, which is to say more eyeballs to the project. Meanwhile, I don’t know that there are any trans actors who can bring the high profile to the project. Worse: Dunno that this movie is getting done without ScarJo. Sometimes, an attached name is what gets a movie greenlit.
This is merely an argument why ScarJo’s involvement was better than it was bad. Too early in the AM for me to dope out, but I don’t know whether getting attached to it was a good idea as opposed to understandable.
That’s not worse. It’s preferable.
Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin - $13 million budget - $7 million in box office.
A Fantastic Woman starring Daniela Vega had about $4 million in box office on an assumed $100-200k budget. Won a best foreign film Oscar- numerous awards.
A big name doesn’t insure an ROI. It can mean losing your shirt.
9 Likes
You were making a wholly unsupported assertion- just as you did with trans populations- just as you did with Zachary Quinto - just as you did with with gay actors - just as you did with with with there being no competent trans actors.
In every case you argue why underrepresented people can’t be represented and can’t possibly get a position.
So the question isn’t whether you’re a contrarian- because the contrarian position isn’t the one that’s the status quo - it’s the one that challenges it.
11 Likes
So which is it? Did Nightflyer get it right or did they “distort” your argument?
10 Likes
given the content of this thread, along with the fact that at least two participants in it have already gotten timeouts for rejecting the notion you put in quotes so . . . enthusiastically as to be assholes, and others besides have rejected it as well i don’t think you need to worry about that. it could be that on the basis of personal experiences or on the basis of logic and induction that your positions seem flawed to many of us. i think it possible that your “contrarian” instincts are not serving you very well here. however, you have managed to take your positions in such a way as to remain respectful enough of the other participants and trans individuals so as not to get a timeout, so kudos for that.
10 Likes
On this site they don’t serve anyone who also announces himself as a “contrarian”. I just got through debating with an appeaser trying to convince everyone that Putin was harmless who did that, and I recall a flat-Earther here also falling back on the “hey, I’m just a contrarian” excuse.
10 Likes
If you’re taking a position not because you believe the evidence supports it - but because you want the argument - you’re not a contrarian- you’re just arguing in bad faith.
If you do so because you enjoy controversies and don’t really care how the issue effects marginalized people - you’re a dick.
10 Likes
A contrarian who’s arguing in good faith doesn’t have to announce to the world he’s a contrarian. At least on this site, what it indicates is that after a long and losing argument the “contrarian” is feeling beleaguered and looking for a face-saving way out.
[I’ll end this meta discussion here before it goes too off-topic]
11 Likes
Kinda both, saying someone needs experience to play a lead role is not a circular argument because there are plenty of non-lead roles in which to gain the experience.
I’m sure they do, but I regularly see people reflecting back distorted versions of my points which makes me thing they’re having trouble understanding the position. I think there’s a big tendency to filter the argument through an anti-trans lens and that’s what’s leading people astray, that’s why I went on that tangent with the affirmative action study.
I respect that you want to end the discussion but I feel the need to respond. I didn’t saying I had a contrarian instinct because I thought I was losing and trying to back out. I said it because it seemed like people kept making bad assumptions around my arguments so I was trying to give them some insight about what drove my points, so they wouldn’t jump to flawed conclusions.
Announcing you’re a “contrarian” doesn’t magically do any of those things. What it does do, especially in the context of this site, is provide us with what the poker players call a “tell” – one that doesn’t reflect well on you any more than it did on the Putin shill or the flat-Earther.
9 Likes
And I suppose arguing that a cis actor could have played the lead role is another “tell”.
I did a lot more than admit to being “a bit of a contrarian”. I explained in detail exactly what was motivating my position, and the only person who actually engaged with that explanation misread it so badly that I feel like they made themselves into an example of my point.
It would depend how strong or weak the argument is. If it’s weak my conclusion would be something along the lines of this earlier comment.
The latter would obviate the need for the former for someone arguing in good faith instead of trying to “win” at all costs. This is why I consider the former a “tell” (especially when, as seems to happen on BB, it’s suddenly rolled out late in the game).
6 Likes
Her first big screen role was as a trans person in a 1976 (!) Spanish (!!) movie, where the main trans role was played by a cis woman, but since she has played both trans and cis roles in many movies and plays:
5 Likes
Except this was about a meta-motivation because the attempts of having a good faith discussion weren’t working.
That’s good but a Spanish actress who seems to have transitioned to a media personality role isn’t really a viable candidate to play in a Hollywood film (particularly not Johansson’s role).
11 Likes
Robert Downey Jr’s starring role in Tropic Thunder was a direct insult to the many, many skilled actors who should have been given the part. (Note that this was not Peak Stark era Downey, this was DUI Disgrace era Downey)
ScarJo funding an OscarBait vehicle starring herself is a profound act of disrespect to Mr Gill and to trans actors. Biopics should be true to the emotional beats of the story, but from what we’ve heard of the scripts and direction, Rub and Tug was erasing Mr Gill’s identity as a man to instead play him up as a butch lesbian.
The posters here have been nothing but respectful and polite in trying to convey this point to you. I have not nearly their patience. The next time I make a response it will be short and curt.
Representation matters. ScarJo did not intend to represent Mr Gill, nor portray his story with any semblance of fidelity. We live in an era where biopics like Straight Outta Compton and Bohemian Rhapsody attempt to be faithful to their subject’s life story, even if a few details are changed or omitted. None of them tried to erase their subject’s identity. They represented their subjects with aplomb.
If you want representation, it is key to fight for representation that is true to the subject. Not some crap ass-script vehicle written as oscarbait for an actor who isn 't lacking for work. This vanity project is an insult.
Mr Gill deserves better than ScarJo’s erasure of his identity.
8 Likes
