The logical inconsistency inherent in the Scarlett Johansson outrage

[PeteEU]

But, Johansson wasn't hired to play an Asian in Ghost in the Shell. The movie version was a white woman. There is no real correlation as I see it. It would be like making the movie Rub and Tug and simply changing the character to be genetically female so you can cast Johansson.. which I think is fundamentally a different argument, and one that the LGBT community could actually fight logically.



But it isn't a white wash. They didn't change the character in Run and Tug to match the sex of the actor. She was playing a part.



LOL. I think your list of issues is a good example of how this type of minutia ends up destroying what it wants to be a part of. Also, I have an issue with the assertions like yours and Wonka's that presume physical limitations in playing roles as if actors don't regularly change their body type drastically to meet the demands of a role.



But in your drive to remove discrimination I think you are actually suggesting greater discrimination.

The character in Ghost in the Shell was originally Asian... she was hired to play that character. Does not matter that they "rewrote" the role... it is bs. The main character is Asian... period.

And never said it was easy to get rid of a century worth of discrimination. Hollywood has to size up box office vs doing the right thing and usually money wins. In the case of Ghost in the Shell the possibility of a known box office earner doing the main role won out over using the ethically correct unknown actress.

Long gone are the days that studios go with the unknown to headline a major movie... and if they do try like in Star Wars, there will be a box office regular to pull in the numbers.

Take the Han Solo movie... disregard if it was good or not. The main guy a relative unknown but Woody and the Mother of Dragons, clearly designed to add a known star power.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

 

[jmotivator]

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Lets say I'm starving and there's an apple tree, with the ones at the top the largest and juiciest and the ones at the bottom are smaller. I could try to climb alll the way to the top and grab the big ones, or reach up and get the small ones on the low branches. If I'm truly starving, I should try to get BOTH and have all of them so I could eat well for longer. However, I would be foolish to disregard the lower one entirely and go for the higher one simply because it's bigger. And in reality, because I'm starving and malnourished, it would likely be smarter and safer for me to reach up and get the small ones that are easily reachable. Then, once I've eaten them and gotten my strength, it would make sense for me to climb up and get the bigger ones because I'd actually have the strength and energy to do it safely.

I think they are actually mutually exclusive. If you fight to maintain the differentiation for purposes of social justice all you do is force the persistence and justification for the differentiation.

In the cas eof trans, the ultimate goal is to eliminate the differentiation, but in this case they enforce it.

 

[VanceMack]

Remember when actors and actresses were selected for their talent and star power? ScarJo was a big name. She brought star potential to a project people otherwise are probably not very interested in seeing. Now...they are going to have to find a person no one knows about to play a role no one cares about. Well played!

Its funny how this stuff all plays out. We just spent a week watching 7 plays...four Shakespeare and three modern. The Shakespeare plays had a pretty fair amount of gender bending, with women playing lead roles in the Merchant of Venice, Merry Wives, and Henry the 6th. It was done deliberately as a part of an 'equality' push. The politics detracted from the actual play but it wasnt intolerable. Sorry...but when you dress up a bunch of women and have them act like men, very few manage to carry it off NOT looking as if they were men without sounding like Monty Python extras in the stoning scene from Life of Brian (and for the record...a few did...the actress playing Shylock was great...so was the actress playing one of the generals in Henry the 6th...of course...it was the same actress). Point is...

If we followed the poutrage here involving having a 'real' trans person playing the role and a 'real' handicapped person playing the role the the Rock is being criticized for, doesnt that also mean we should end this trend of allowing women to play mens roles in plays in the name of 'equality'?

 

[jmotivator]

The character in Ghost in the Shell was originally Asian... she was hired to play that character. Does not matter that they "rewrote" the role... it is bs. The main character is Asian... period.

Well, again, that is a different argument. The character in the movie was not Asian, you just wanted her to be. Do you have a problem with productions of The Wiz because Dorothy is supposed to be white? Or a remake of Ghost Busters with an all woman cast? (I mean other than the fact that it was awful :2razz

And never said it was easy to get rid of a century worth of discrimination. Hollywood has to size up box office vs doing the right thing and usually money wins. In the case of Ghost in the Shell the possibility of a known box office earner doing the main role won out over using the ethically correct unknown actress.

But Hollywood is supposed to be fighting the culture war. In makes movies like Boys Don't Cry and others to fight that war... but what the outrage we see with Johansson does is enforce the argument that trans are different than cis which is not the whole point of the trans movement.

Long gone are the days that studios go with the unknown to headline a major movie... and if they do try like in Star Wars, there will be a box office regular to pull in the numbers.

The number of problems I have with Hollywood are legion. I hated Hollywood before hating Hollywood was cool.

My point here is just to make the argument that the response to Hollywood in this case seems counterproductive to the movement in question.

Take the Han Solo movie... disregard if it was good or not. The main guy a relative unknown but Woody and the Mother of Dragons, clearly designed to add a known star power.

Haven't seen the Solo movie. At this point the only studio I feel I can really trust anymore is Pixar and Marvel.

I go to see movies to be entertained, not lectured at.

But then, honestly, in my book the best movie I have seen in the last 20 years is Ex Machina because 1) it was an amazing discussion on the philosophical debate on what it is to be human and 2) it didn't assume the audience was stupid.

That movie was made with a bunch of no-name actors.

But I am derailing my own thread!

 

[veritas1]

This whole thing is rather comical. Actors are hired to portray people they are not. Using the logic put forth, we could only have real gangsters in gangster movies.

 

[jmotivator]

Well, some people are really fired up over accuracy in movies. I'm sure more than a few people were ticked off that Hollywood felt unable to find a single Native American to play Tonto in the latest Lone Ranger movie.

I'm sure they were pissed until they saw it and then they thanked the studio for not tying a Native American to that stinker.

 

[Gaius46]

This is preposterously stupid. We see black men and white men as equals, but we still would not advocate for a white man in blackface to play Malcolm X in a movie. That doesn't mean they are not equal under the law, and it doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other, it simply means that there are better fits for the role. Given how insanely difficult it is for a trans-woman to obtain any other female role in Hollywood it is incredibly stupid to give one of the few roles in Hollywood specifically designed for a trans-woman to a non-transwoman.

These are two completely separate ideas. A trans-woman deserves all the rights of a biological woman, and should not be treated as lessor in societies eyes, but that doesn't prevent us from acknowledging that there is a difference, simply that the differences don't make one better or worse. This is entirely different than casting a role in a film. For decades we've seen white actors play other ethnicities on screen and it's stupid when you could easily get someone of that actual ethnicity to play the role.

The idea that no black actors are good enough to play the role of a black person in a movie or play and that it would be better off to let a white actor in black makeup take the role is insanely insulting. The same is true here. The question isn't whether or not Johansson could do an okay job in the role the question is why cast her when there are almost certainly other actors who would be more natural fits for the role.

Except that the movie will probably make a boat load more money with Scarlett Johannson in it.

I had this discussion with my wife, who is half Spanish, the other day. She was annoyed that Al Pacino played the lead role in Scarface, which is about a Cuban mobster. I pointed out that while Pacino is Italian he can certainly, with makeup, be convincingly passed off as looking Cuban. And Pacino in your movie means it's going to make money.

The same can be said for Scarlett Johanson playing a trans-woman.

 

[veritas1]

False choice. You can do both of those things, but you can't force or even realistically criticize a movie producer for casting a genetic female in a role playing a genetic female. You can cheer them casting a trans-woman in a role for a genetic female, but you can't criticize them if they don't.

However, given how incredibly difficult it already is for a trans-woman to obtain a role as a genetic female, it is insanely insulting and insensitive to not at least cast the role of a trans-woman with a trans-woman.

First off, how many accomplished trans-women actresses are there? That Johannsen would do a very good job is clear. She's an accomplished A list actress. One could argue that the movie would get more attention with her in it then with an unknown and possibly less than skilled substitute.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm sure they were pissed until they saw it and then they thanked the studio for not tying a Native American to that stinker.

I thought the movie was fun. But I did walk into it with really low expectations, so there's that.

 

[ludin]

But you are making my argument. If you believe that a trans woman CAN play a female role then the argument should not be to deny female actors trans roles, but fight for trans representation in female roles. My whole point is that the angle of approach in the Johansson argument is establishing the exact opposite of the position you are making and suggesting that Wonka is making.

If you think that the real problem is the lack of access of trans to cis roles then make that the argument, not denying cis access to trans roles. All you do in the latter is argue against your ultimate goal of removing the differentiation.

There is more to this issue as well.

Sure you could cast a trans in a female role the problem would then be finding a male actor to go along with it.
Depending on the part. I am sure there are some but i am sure a few of them would pass the part up.

They would them be demonized and probably run out of hollywood.

The next issue comes from a money stand point. The Movie company is there to make money.
Johanson has a huge following and is a widely popular actress. She generates a ton of revenue on her films.

That is what the studio was betting on. NOw that she is gone i figure the film will lose it's funding for the project.
if they manage to find someone to play the role the movie will not do as well.

 

[jmotivator]

So, basically...you just had no actual desire to debate this honestly and were just looking to ridicule, mock, and make no effort to understand anyone's arguments? Good to know.

I am actually discussing points, and if I get your point wrong you should clarify. If you get my point wrong I will clarify. I'm not sure we should continue our back and forth until I know you are willing to accept that we won't always understand each other's arguments and that that is OK.

 

[jmotivator]

I thought the movie was fun. But I did walk into it with really low expectations, so there's that.

I used to walk in to movies with low expectations and walk out pleasantly surprised, but that was when the matinee was $1.50.

 

[MrWonka]

First off, how many accomplished trans-women actresses are there?

Irrelevant question given that there are approximately zero roles available to them. Even the most amazing actress in history would struggle to get a role playing a genetic female on camera if she was a trans-woman. That's why it's so important to make sure that the 1 or 2 roles that do in fact exist for trans-women do in fact to go them.

 

[MrWonka]

Except that the movie will probably make a boatload more money with Scarlett Johannson in it.

You are not going to get a bunch of dip**** Trump supporters to go to a movie in which the title character is a trans-woman no matter how hot or how talented that actress is. This is a movie that is made almost entirely with the transgender community in mind as it's target audience. At the very least you shouldn't count on many non-liberals going to see this movie and I can assure you having Johannson in it would be bad for that box office.

 

[Gaius46]

You are not going to get a bunch of dip**** Trump supporters to go to a movie in which the title character is a trans-woman no matter how hot or how talented that actress is. This is a movie that is made almost entirely with the transgender community in mind as it's target audience. At the very least you shouldn't count on many non-liberals going to see this movie and I can assure you having Johannson in it would be bad for that box office.

Who said anything about Trump supporters? How about people the huge potential audience who don't care one way or the other about trans issues but who might have seen it simply because there's a very popular A-list actress in it? They shot themselves in the foot.

 

[PeteEU]

Well, again, that is a different argument. The character in the movie was not Asian, you just wanted her to be. Do you have a problem with productions of The Wiz because Dorothy is supposed to be white? Or a remake of Ghost Busters with an all woman cast? (I mean other than the fact that it was awful :2razz

Have you ever seen the original aka what the movie is based on?

But Hollywood is supposed to be fighting the culture war. In makes movies like Boys Don't Cry and others to fight that war... but what the outrage we see with Johansson does is enforce the argument that trans are different than cis which is not the whole point of the trans movement.

My point is that this "outrage" is because it was Johansson that got the role.... she is famous, box office big time plus had been involved in a similar controversy before.

Haven't seen the Solo movie. At this point the only studio I feel I can really trust anymore is Pixar and Marvel.

I go to see movies to be entertained, not lectured at.

What movies "lecture" anything these days?

But then, honestly, in my book the best movie I have seen in the last 20 years is Ex Machina because 1) it was an amazing discussion on the philosophical debate on what it is to be human and 2) it didn't assume the audience was stupid.

That movie was made with a bunch of no-name actors.

Also not exactly a hollywood blockbuster movie.

 

[jmotivator]

Have you ever seen the original aka what the movie is based on?

Of course I have, several times.

My point is that this "outrage" is because it was Johansson that got the role.... she is famous, box office big time plus had been involved in a similar controversy before.

I don't think this outrage had anything to do with Ghost in the Shell.

What movies "lecture" anything these days?

Movies like Concussion, for example. But I have a hard time believing that you don't know what I am talking.

Also not exactly a hollywood blockbuster movie.

Since when are we limiting to blockbuster movies? I mean, the movie that is the subject of this thread isn't a blockbuster either.

Ex Machnina had a 250% ROI, I'm guessing Rub and Tug wouldn't hit that mark no matter who is in the trans role. Well, I guess it definitely won't since apparently it has been canceled.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm really not sure where to put this story, because the topic could go pretty much anywhere, and my point is not necessarily connected to the topic of the particular story, but here goes...

The Scarlett Johansson outrage: This story has completed it's arc, so I wanted to comment on what I see as a rather glaring logical inconsistency in the position of the LGBT movement. Maybe someone can explain it, but none of the talking heads seem willing to address it. My point is simple:

Are we to treat transgenders as fully their gender of choice, or are they supposed to be treated differently? It would appear to me that the movement shot themselves in the foot over Scarlett Johansson.

For those who haven't heard, Scarlett Johansson was hired to play the part of a transgender woman in the upcoming movie "Rub and Tug", but was forced to withdraw from the movie when a group of people demanded that a transgender woman play that role, not a biological female.

At that point I think they broke their argument, or at least those who joined in the demand for Johansson to step down did. By their demand they have established that even THEY don't see transgender women and biological woman as equals... they are separate in their own mind. If they believed they were truly women then they'd see the role as a woman's role, not a transgender role.

Moreover, I think they went even further off the path by arguing that not only should biological women play transgender women, but heterosexuals should not play gay people. At that point -- carried to it's logical conclusion -- gay people also shouldn't play straight people -- they would essentially marginalize transgenders AND gays in Hollywood, relegating them to the limited number of roles available for gays and transgenders. Not to mention it would lead to that awkward moment when the Academy would have to withdraw Oscars awarded to "cisgender" actors playing transgender roles, or roles were they played the opposite sex. Movies like "Boys Don't Cry", meant to expose the hardships of life for Transgenders, would become emblematic of bigotry because the actor who got the Oscar wasn't actually transgender.

I'd like to hear the counter argument to this, if someone has one.

Never heard about this outrage till you posted
This is not part of the "LGBT" movement and more than claims about racism are part of the rights movement or communism part of the lefts movment
also looking into it after your post it seems she CHOOSE to remove herself she wasnt forced

"thier argument" "they" etc is made up by you, you are basing your whole post on it, its an argument YOU are making up so theres no counter arguments to a made up argument.

some individuals didnt want scarlet to play the role they wanted the opportunity to be given to a transgender actor :shrug: thats on them. it has nothign to do with anything else that i see evidence of

just like through out history people have not liked one race of actor playing another or gender etc etc. hell i have heard people say cops, veterans, school teachers etc etc should get roles if those people are now actors

so youll have to sort out your own made up argument/dilemma because it doesnt really have to do with "them" or the LGBT moment :shrug:

 

[jmotivator]

Never heard about this outrage till you posted
This is not part of the "LGBT" movement and more than claims about racism are part of the rights movement or communism part of the lefts movment
also looking into it after your post it seems she CHOOSE to remove herself she wasnt forced

"thier argument" "they" etc is made up by you, you are basing your whole post on it, its an argument YOU are making up so theres no counter arguments to a made up argument.

some individuals didnt want scarlet to play the role they wanted the opportunity to be given to a transgender actor :shrug: thats on them. it has nothign to do with anything else that i see evidence of

just like through out history people have not liked one race of actor playing another or gender etc etc. hell i have heard people say cops, veterans, school teachers etc etc should get roles if those people are now actors

so youll have to sort out your own made up argument/dilemma because it doesnt really have to do with "them" or the LGBT moment :shrug:

Your argument boils down to your choice to ignore what happened but lecture me on it anyway.

 

[AGENT J]

Your argument boils down to your choice to ignore what happened but lecture me on it anyway.

I presented no argument, I simply pointed out the fact your generalizations and basis were are factually wrong, .so once again you just made up another factually wrong assumption and they are both your issue to sort out LMAO

 

[Nickyjo]

Fulfillment of quotas is also a desired goal of socialists.

Oh, get real. That argument belongs in the 1960s: if I have to hire a black person means I have to fire a white one — actually said by one prominent employer with a huge work force — when civil rights legislation was passed. The only thing resembling a quota might be settlements of suits involving a long history of discrimination

 

[cabse5]

Oh, get real. That argument belongs in the 1960s: if I have to hire a black person means I have to fire a white one — actually said by one prominent employer with a huge work force — when civil rights legislation was passed. The only thing resembling a quota might be settlements of suits involving a long history of discrimination

Fulfillment of quotas isn't a goal of capitalism where the thing or person that creates the most positive interest is used. Therefore, socialism. How to right a social injustice. SJW are responding to this issue about this movie.

 

[Nickyjo]

[/I]20]Fulfillment of quotas isn't a goal of capitalism where the thing or person that creates the most positive interest is used. Therefore, socialism. How to right a social injustice. SJW are responding to this issue about this movie.

And of course, they are being absurd in this case. But as an old SJW myself, why do conservatives demean those who try to improve society? Jesus, MLK, Cesar Chavez, suffragettes, Mother Teresa, etc were all SJW’s. As was I, proudly helping people get justice under the law.

 

[Mach]

It's a form of protest to raise awareness for trans representation in Hollywood.
Protests do not get dictated by the opposition, or framed by them. They are framed by those who choose to protest.
Seeing a cute white girl take a trans role, offends some people. So they protest it. In this case, they were successful.

So you can see, when framed from a non-stupid position, it's not just logical, but successful...apparently.