Scarlett Johansson versus Trans Activism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5cqhirppHM

There is so much euphemistic reporting about Scarlett Johansson’s decision to drop out of a film in which she would have portrayed a trans man. Ms Johansson ‘quits role’, headlines tell us. She has ‘stepped away’ from ‘trans role’, we are informed.

It all makes it sound like she had a simple change of heart, or maybe found herself drawn to a different movie project. The truth is rather different. The truth is Ms Johansson was hounded out of the trans role by an intolerant online mob hurling invective at her.

She didn’t merely ‘quit role’ — she ‘quit role’ under pressure from an unforgiving gang of identitarians who think they have the right to tell actresses who they may and may not portray on screen. Here’s a more honest headline for this affair: ‘Woman forced to give up her job by online abusers.’


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-real-reason-scarlett-johansson-abandoned-her-trans-role/

The decision may have done something good for Johansson’s left-wing bona fides but it apparently isn’t doing much for the film itself. The Wrap reports there is now some question about whether or not it will get made at all:

According to an individual with knowledge of the project, it is unclear if “Rub & Tug” will actually go into production. The insider indicated it doesn’t look good for the movie, which still has director Rupert Sanders attached.

Johansson’s production company, These Pictures, was a producer on the project, and it’s unclear whether Johansson and These Pictures will stay on to produce. Joel Silver’s Silver Pictures is also listed as a production company on the film, but Silver did not respond to requests for comment.

As I said when I first heard about this story, Hollywood is a progressive town but it’s also a business. Having Johannson in the lead role guaranteed this would attract funding and possibly get released. Taking her out of the equation makes this a much harder sell.

It was one thing for Johansson to pull out of the role. That’s a minor loss. She’ll find another job shortly if she hasn’t already. But asking her to produce a film she’s been kicked off is something else. Does she really want to invest in an offbeat project whose main character is a transgender actor few people have ever heard of? Is losing a job enough to show your down with the struggle or do you have to commit to losing money too? My guess is the mood is now more of the latter. If her company eventually pulls out of this project, she’s going to face another backlash.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/16/film-scarlett-johansson-dropped-many-not-get-made-now/

Didge wrote:She didn’t merely ‘quit role’ — she ‘quit role’ under pressure from an unforgiving gang of identitarians who think they have the right to tell actresses who they may and may not portray on screen.

I would think that one who makes her living on the opinions of others, must be sensitive of the opinions of others. Maybe she just agreed with those putting on the pressure. If not, she was always free to stick with the production.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:She didn’t merely ‘quit role’ — she ‘quit role’ under pressure from an unforgiving gang of identitarians who think they have the right to tell actresses who they may and may not portray on screen.

I would think that one who makes her living on the opinions of others, must be sensitive of the opinions of others.  Maybe she just agreed with those putting on the pressure.  If not, she was always free to stick with the production.

You need to read everything here, because will she stay on in this project? As her production company was using a producer on the film

It seems the film is reliant on that to get off the ground

Nobody should be forced out of an acting role, based on the stupidity of some militant idiots

Those idiots may have very much backfired and could have caused the production of this film to now not even get off the ground.

So, the deal may come undone. It happens all the time. Deals are made and deals are unmade.

She's not being forced out, so much as she's making a calculation as to what is better for her career.

If the project is good enough, maybe someone else will pick it up.

Original Quill wrote:So, the deal may come undone.  It happens all the time.  Deals are made and deals are unmade.

She's not being forced out, so much as she's making a calculation as to what is better for her career.

If the project is good enough, maybe someone else will pick it up.

She clearly is being forced, based as you say on what damage it could do to her career. To then be continually hounded with hate by a militant minority, if she did not back down. In her situation, to stop such hate, she has to back away from a role, she never should have to do.

I hope this backfires in the faces of these militants and the film never gets off the ground. Maybe it might teach them, to stop forcing their beliefs onto people.

Laters

So she backed down and gave in to bullies.

eddie wrote:So she backed down and gave in to bullies.

In a nutshell

Original Quill wrote:So, the deal may come undone.  It happens all the time.  Deals are made and deals are unmade.

She's not being forced out, so much as she's making a calculation as to what is better for her career.

If the project is good enough, maybe someone else will pick it up.

Exactly. It seems her morals are secondary to her ego.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So, the deal may come undone.  It happens all the time.  Deals are made and deals are unmade.

She's not being forced out, so much as she's making a calculation as to what is better for her career.

If the project is good enough, maybe someone else will pick it up.

Exactly. It seems her morals are secondary to her ego.

More importantly...her pocketbook. She's a commodity. Money rules in that game, and popularity for an actress is money in the bank. If you want your stock to go down, do something that is unpopular. If you want it to go up, do something that is popular.

So, she wanted her stock to go up. Morals are always secondary with capitalism...as I've said many time, the morals of a capitalist is profit.

Ego? Well, what can be more ego-gratifying than a huge bank account, a home in Beverly Hills, and a private airplane?

Money and possessions.
That is somehow worse than her feeding her ego.

eddie wrote:Money and possessions.
That is somehow worse than her feeding her ego.

I think you are missing the point though Eddie

She may well be career driven and this may have made her bow down

This though should not escape the fact there is people out there, clearly trying to enforce ther views through this.

I mean over a role?

I mean what happens if someome black is cast for Bond? Would you be happy that actor backs down to hate from the Far right?

Could it be that he does not want that hate towards himself and his family daily?

People should be condemning those trying to force their views either through hate and basically blackmail

It's her choice. It's a money/popularity game. Public opinion counts for a lot in a public game. Just think what politicians go through

Original Quill wrote:It's her choice.  It's a money/popularity game.  Public opinion counts for a lot in a public game.  Just think what politicians go through

So you would allow someone to face abuse and not condemn their actions here

Nobody is stopping you condemning here is there to those that basically were blackmailing her.

Like I say, some karma would be great and the film falls through

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's her choice.  It's a money/popularity game.  Public opinion counts for a lot in a public game.  Just think what politicians go through

So you would allow someone to face abuse and not condemn their actions here

Nobody is stopping you condemning here is there to those that basically were blackmailing her.

Like I say, some karma would be great and the film falls through

It's none of my business. We're just officious intermeddlers, gossiping over the business transaction. We can have any opinion we want.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you would allow someone to face abuse and not condemn their actions here

Nobody is stopping you condemning here is there to those that basically were blackmailing her.

Like I say, some karma would be great and the film falls through

It's none of my business.  We're just officious intermeddlers, gossiping over the business transaction.  We can have any opinion we want.

 
And yet you made opinions on this, so you made it your buissness, to offer some

Talk about a contradiction

People did meddle already here and poorly, which does not benefit people or more to the point those who work in the film industry.

Jobs are not given democratically through the opinons of the public, but the best person for the job offered by those producing that film.

What nobody has reasoned, is whether or not she could have played the role here?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Money and possessions.
That is somehow worse than her feeding her ego.

I think you are missing the point though Eddie

She may well be career driven and this may have made her bow down

This though should not escape the fact there is people out there, clearly trying to enforce ther views through this.

I mean over a role?

I mean what happens if someome black is cast for Bond? Would you be happy that actor backs down to hate from the Far right?

Could it be that he does not want that hate towards himself and his family daily?

People should be condemning those trying to force their views either through hate and basically blackmail

do you EVER read your posts?
you literally do that all day every day
You don't even limit yourself to famous people

There's currently an opinion both understandable and concerning, among some in the LGBT community, that gay and trans roles should start being given to LGBT actors.

I get this, from the pov (misplaced imo) that only people from those groups can tell those stories.

This is understandable, and the lack of openly gay, and more so trans, stars is an issue in itself, BUT the above view raises problems of its own.

Firstly, an actor's job is to take on situations outside their own experience. They are supposed to become people unlike themselves and convince audiences to the point of garnering a spectrum of emotions.

Secondly, and more concerningly, is that IF having only gay actors play gay characters is founded on the view that only gay actors SHOULD play gay characters; then doesn't the opposite hold equally true?

How damaging could such a view be to actors like Luke Evans and Russell Tovey?

People should be given roles on merit not their sexuality or gender identity.

In the case of the film in the OP, it would have done significantly more to help the trans community to have Johanssen play the lead, than sticking some unknown in there. As movies from Brokeback Mountain to Love, Simon and others have helped with gay acceptance - often using straight leads.

Didge wrote:And yet you made opinions on this, so you made it your buissness, to offer some

I told you quite frankly, we are "just officious intermeddlers, gossiping about the business transaction." That is clearly the OPPOSITE of making it our business...so don't tell lies about what I said, liar.

God you are slimey.

Eilzel wrote:In the case of the film in the OP, it would have done significantly more to help the trans community to have Johanssen play the lead, than sticking some unknown in there. As movies from Brokeback Mountain to Love, Simon and others have helped with gay acceptance - often using straight leads.

Smart thinking-it-through, Les.  And that discussion would surely have come up had Johanssen's role even been the consideration.  This lends credence to the idea that the whole thing would have been a purely business decision.

The external noise was probably just background static that grew up around the facts.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:And yet you made opinions on this, so you made it your buissness, to offer some

I told you quite frankly, we are "just officious intermeddlers, gossiping about the business transaction."  That is clearly the OPPOSITE of making it our business...so don't tell lies about what I said, liar.

God you are slimey.  

What buisness transaction?

There has been no buisness transaction

So you are talking nonsense here

It was a job offer, that now a person has turned down

You have not got a clue

You lied, by getting involved in this debate Qrump

That is thew issue on every debate with you, your constant lies

Eilzel wrote:There's currently an opinion both understandable and concerning, among some in the LGBT community, that gay and trans roles should start being given to LGBT actors.

I get this, from the pov (misplaced imo) that only people from those groups can tell those stories.

This is understandable, and the lack of openly gay, and more so trans, stars is an issue in itself, BUT the above view raises problems of its own.

Firstly, an actor's job is to take on situations outside their own experience. They are supposed to become people unlike themselves and convince audiences to the point of garnering a spectrum of emotions.

Secondly, and more concerningly, is that IF having only gay actors play gay characters is founded on the view that only gay actors SHOULD play gay characters; then doesn't the opposite hold equally true?

How damaging could such a view be to actors like Luke Evans and Russell Tovey?

People should be given roles on merit not their sexuality or gender identity.

In the case of the film in the OP, it would have done significantly more to help the trans community to have Johanssen play the lead, than sticking some unknown in there. As movies from Brokeback Mountain to Love, Simon and others have helped with gay acceptance - often using straight leads.

Thank goodness, someone with sense at last speaks and why this minority militant trans here, should be condemned for the stupidity in how they tried to force a person to step down from this role

These minority militant Trans do more harm to the Trans community than anything else

+1

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:There's currently an opinion both understandable and concerning, among some in the LGBT community, that gay and trans roles should start being given to LGBT actors.

I get this, from the pov (misplaced imo) that only people from those groups can tell those stories.

This is understandable, and the lack of openly gay, and more so trans, stars is an issue in itself, BUT the above view raises problems of its own.

Firstly, an actor's job is to take on situations outside their own experience. They are supposed to become people unlike themselves and convince audiences to the point of garnering a spectrum of emotions.

Secondly, and more concerningly, is that IF having only gay actors play gay characters is founded on the view that only gay actors SHOULD play gay characters; then doesn't the opposite hold equally true?

How damaging could such a view be to actors like Luke Evans and Russell Tovey?

People should be given roles on merit not their sexuality or gender identity.

In the case of the film in the OP, it would have done significantly more to help the trans community to have Johanssen play the lead, than sticking some unknown in there. As movies from Brokeback Mountain to Love, Simon and others have helped with gay acceptance - often using straight leads.

Thank goodness, someone with sense at last speaks and why this minority militant trans here, should be condemned for the stupidity in how they tried to force a person to step down from this role

These minority militant Trans do more harm to the Trans community than anything else

+1

Sadly, a lot of terrible have happened due to people who acted badly with the best intentions

Eilzel wrote:There's currently an opinion both understandable and concerning, among some in the LGBT community, that gay and trans roles should start being given to LGBT actors.

I get this, from the pov (misplaced imo) that only people from those groups can tell those stories.

This is understandable, and the lack of openly gay, and more so trans, stars is an issue in itself, BUT the above view raises problems of its own.

Firstly, an actor's job is to take on situations outside their own experience. They are supposed to become people unlike themselves and convince audiences to the point of garnering a spectrum of emotions.

Secondly, and more concerningly, is that IF having only gay actors play gay characters is founded on the view that only gay actors SHOULD play gay characters; then doesn't the opposite hold equally true?

How damaging could such a view be to actors like Luke Evans and Russell Tovey?

People should be given roles on merit not their sexuality or gender identity.

In the case of the film in the OP, it would have done significantly more to help the trans community to have Johanssen play the lead, than sticking some unknown in there. As movies from Brokeback Mountain to Love, Simon and others have helped with gay acceptance - often using straight leads.

Luke Evans is gorge!   I could look at him all day!  

That get up he wore in Immortals...