Scarlett Johansson Exits 'Rub & Tug' Following Transgender Casting Backlash

[LePetitGAGABLover 21,234]

Why are LGBTQDSKJFJKDSFSFSD+ people so pressedT over something so petty?

Like half of the AHS gay actors play a straight role but I don’t see any complaining. People in this community are starting to act like black twitter and it aint cute.

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

12 hours ago, Haroon said:

I think she’s just giving into unnecessary backlash  It’s just going to fuel people further into thinking that if they kick off about things then others will do what they want  

If you can pull off the look of the character, regardless of sexuality or gender or so on, then you should be allowed to play them  

i agree

inb4 they cast a transgender and the acting ends up ****ing horrible... they should cast the one who can act well regardless of gender sex and race

[littlepotter 72,951]

13 hours ago, Scathach said:

I'm not going to applaud her for stepping down on a role she should have never taken in the first place.

 

13 hours ago, youandi said:

I’m glad she’s done this and done it respectfully and I hope doing so will raise light to the issue and help educate others on why it was an issue in the first place. 

That being said, I really hope the people calling her out to begin with can see that this is a good move on her part and will see it as progress, rather than another reason to call her out. I have no doubts that people will continue to have an issue with her and will claim that she’s only leaving because of the backlash (Like that’s a problem, she wouldn’t leave if she hadn’t been told it was a poor choice) and people have a right to their opinion.

However I’m really finding this ‘call out culture’ to be an increasingly toxic pass time. People have the right to address when something has bothered them and rightly so, people should be educated when necessary, but when it’s done for fun under the guise of being progressive, that is a problem. Not everyone has the same social understanding as each other and attacking someone for a bad choice isn’t always the best way to combat the issue. 

the irony of these consecutive replies

[gag 22,449]

"IT'S ACTING!!!!" comments are idiotic. So was blackface. Y'all gonna defend that too?

[youandi 2,110]

2 hours ago, hunty said:

 

the irony of these consecutive replies

I mean, I know not everyone is going to agree

I’m not saying she’s wonderful for admitting she was wrong but some people live for the chance to chastise people for bad decisions and mistakes 

[loathereality 22,762]

17 hours ago, Vergil said:

I hope she means it and not just saying that cuz “pls don’t end my career”. 

her career won’t end becaue of this obv

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

What gets me is, she could have just quit the role with no further explanation given. But no, she had to apologise. That's the insulting part. Apologise for being offered a chance to do her job. Apologise for a role she didn't even create. This liberal need to flog oneself publicly for doing nothing wrong is wearing really thin. It doesn't endear people to you. It just makes me want to throw up. Check out this video to give an accurate representation of how I feel:

 

She's apologizing for being ignorant on the issue to the community she feels she has harmed... (I mean, in theory, for all we know she doesn't give a ****) The position you are taking tells me you don't think that there was a problem with her taking the job, nor that there was a problem with the way the job existed in the first place... and if that's so, well we're going to have to strongly disagree, and its a different discussion to be had.

~~~~

In other news,

I think this is good. It's important to note that although there was backlash to this... Scarlet Johansson is a huge actress, one of the biggest around for the last decade or so. She didn't have to apologize, she didn't even have to quit. She could have made the movie anyway and honestly, (its an indie film) it would have still been somewhat successful. Ghost in the Shell received backlash, but I mean obviously the movie was still made and stuff. Society at large is cisnormative and transphobic, so whatever backlash she may have received - while it feels large thanks to the internet - would have most likely very minimal impact if any at all. Hundreds of millions of people don't believe this even is an issue worth discussing. So... I do think that she should be given some credit for this apology. It's not like she had to do it. We'll see how she behaves in the future though  

[GhettoFabulous 18,501]

17 hours ago, Luzaleja said:

yeah, because the reason trans actors can't get into auditions for cis roles is because they can't act. I guess Laverne Cox can't act. Jamie Clayton can't act. Cool.

So many cis actors still get roles even though they “can’t act” or give mediocre performances PLEASE! That being said they’re just as good as most cis mainstream actors 

[Dominic 11,922]

Good. It's an opportunity for people who are trans to gain a platform in Hollywood. The false equivalence of "gays play straights" as if Hollywood is limiting its opportunities for heterosexuals. It's about opening it's auditions to a wider range of actors. There are few roles where a trans person will be considered, particularly not cis roles so why not have a trans role go to a trans actor? Makes sense. Scarlet would have been praised for her "daring" and "brave" performance for her role as trans...ridiculous. 

Gays were barely visible onscreen before the 00's and Hollywood lacked any visible gay actors but that has changed. It's time for trans people to gain some visibility, that's all. 

Also, the "but XXX never received backlash" argument is redundant. Not commenting on these past films doesn't mean we can't comment on this and make a change. 

[ALGAYDO 26,646]

5 hours ago, gag said:

"IT'S ACTING!!!!" comments are idiotic. So was blackface. Y'all gonna defend that too?

So gay actors can’t play straight roles, or vice versa? 

What’s with the double standards? Lol 

[Antichrist 9,818]

20 minutes ago, Dominic said:

Good. It's an opportunity for people who are trans to gain a platform in Hollywood. The false equivalence of "gays play straights" as if Hollywood is limiting its opportunities for heterosexuals. It's about opening it's auditions to a wider range of actors. There are few roles where a trans person will be considered, particularly not cis roles so why not have a trans role go to a trans actor? Makes sense. Scarlet would have been praised for her "daring" and "brave" performance for her role as trans...ridiculous. 

Gays were barely visible onscreen before the 00's and Hollywood lacked any visible gay actors but that has changed. It's time for trans people to gain some visibility, that's all. 

Also, the "but XXX never received backlash" argument is redundant. Not commenting on these past films doesn't mean we can't comment on this and make a change. 

are we both living in 2018 ?

[gag 22,449]

9 minutes ago, ALGAYDO said:

So gay actors can’t play straight roles, or vice versa? 

What’s with the double standards? Lol 

Except the topic has never been about that. It has always been that: Scarlett is taking away one of the few roles that are open to trans actors, in a time where these kinds of roles are severely lacking in Hollywood.

The difference between cis and trans roles versus gay and straight roles is that straight people have played gay characters (and vice versa) to the point where it is acceptable. It is, largely, no longer an anomaly for a straight person to play a gay character and vice versa.

On the other hand, trans people do not get roles. There is a severe lack of transgender characters in the first place, and when those characters ARE made... trans actors do not even get these roles. Until trans actors are able to get cisgender roles in mainstream media, cisgender people should not be able to get trans roles.

This goes beyond appearances as you're insinuating, we're talking about the livelihood of real life trans actors and actresses.

[Zugurusu 11]

I mean whyy did she quit?, it's her job to be other People not herself. I get it that some demand stories told from a perspective that inherently understands the subject so it can bring genuiness to a story its not often told BUT that also damages artístic liberty. 

Did Natalie Portman needed to be a ballerina her hole life to do Black Swan? Did Meryl had to endure the horror her character lived in Sophie's choice to nail her performance? No because ladies and gentleman that's called acting and its all about steping to someone else existence in the practice of empathy. 

And also i would really love in the future to see transgender actors and actresses to play other than themselfs, that to me would mean a true exciting oportunity. 

Haven't you guys really thought this hole thing on the casting choice is proyecting stereotypes too? 

I don't believe one or the other is better as long if any of the two choices came as the first one from a creative stand point. When studios Change course of a proyect Just to please i don't know if the material its really Being treated with respect.

Think about it. And let me know what u think. PAWS UP! 

 

 

 

[Dominic 11,922]

36 minutes ago, Antichrist said:

are we both living in 2018 ?

The fact that everyone rushes to use Laverne Cox to justify their argument shows the lack of representation. Please list other examples of visible trans actors in Hollywood

[Antichrist 9,818]

27 minutes ago, Dominic said:

The fact that everyone rushes to use Laverne Cox to justify their argument shows the lack of representation. Please list other examples of visible trans actors in Hollywood

no idea who laverne cox is tho.

please list me some examples of people who are trying to become actors, cuz all im hearing is trans visibility trans visibility, but no actual people who are trans & are striving to become actors.

 

and while we're at that point, its acting. what more do you need? why does everyone need visibility in every single damn aspect of the world?