Scarlett Johansson Drops Out of Trans Role Amid Backlash

TheShadowLord

TheShadowLord

Member
One hand, she should have done it for Ghost On the Shell. On the other hand though, should this be treated the same thing as whitewashing? That only transgender' people should play the role and no one else should?
https://www.cbr.com/scarlett-johansson-exits-rub-tug-trans-backlash/

Scarlett Johansson has withdrawn from the fact-based drama Rub & Tug after her casting as a transgender man grew intense online criticism.

The Avengers: Infinity War star was set to play Dante "Tex" Gill, who ran a massage parlor in 1970s and '80s Pittsburgh as a front for a prostitution ring. Gill lived his life as a man, preferred masculine pronouns, and may have begun transitioning at the time of his death in 2003.

However, today in a second statement to Out magazine, announced her departure from the film, and conceded her original comments were insensitive.

Rub & Tug would have reunited Johansson with Ghost in the Shell director Rupert Sanders. With Johansson's departure, it's unclear whether the project will move forward.
 
She should've told the PC bullies to fuck off. It's funny seeing supposedly anti gamer gate people bullying her and celebrating their successful bullying efforts.
 
TheShadowLord said:
One hand, she should have done it for Ghost On the Shell. On the other hand though, should this be treated the same thing as whitewashing? That only transgender' people should play the role and no one else should?
https://www.cbr.com/scarlett-johansson-exits-rub-tug-trans-backlash/

Scarlett Johansson has withdrawn from the fact-based drama Rub & Tug after her casting as a transgender man grew intense online criticism.

The Avengers: Infinity War star was set to play Dante "Tex" Gill, who ran a massage parlor in 1970s and '80s Pittsburgh as a front for a prostitution ring. Gill lived his life as a man, preferred masculine pronouns, and may have begun transitioning at the time of his death in 2003.

However, today in a second statement to Out magazine, announced her departure from the film, and conceded her original comments were insensitive.

Rub & Tug would have reunited Johansson with Ghost in the Shell director Rupert Sanders. With Johansson's departure, it's unclear whether the project will move forward.
Click to expand...

This seems like another case of the left eating itself if the film doesn't get made now. Instead of getting a film that might help normalize trans folks (as Hollywood has helped with before) to the more general public it likely gets shutdown. In my opinion this type of thing only hurts the cause as opposed to helping it.
 
I guarantee no one reeing about this or playing in Ghost In The Shell (though it should have never been live action in the first place) cares about Starfire being black in the Teen Titans live action reboot. In fact, they probably see it as beautiful and progressive.
 
This was dumb. She's liberal as fuck and would give that film more attention than it would get otherwise, if it even gets made now, but people gotta be outraged about something.
 
Last edited:
Off Duty Ninja said:
This seems like another case of the left eating itself if the film doesn't get made now. Instead of getting a film that might help normalize trans folks (as Hollywood has helped with before) to the more general public it likely gets shutdown. In my opinion this type of thing only hurts the cause as opposed to helping it.
Click to expand...
but couldn't the director could have done a casting audition where he is looking for a trans man to play as the lead role? He has already been scrutinized for whitewashing in ghost in the shell.
 
Well I hope Andy Serkis turns down any future motion capture roles.

Will the left boycott Star Wars and LOTR since we know Serkis is neither a galactic Sith nor a disfigured hobbit that is obsessed with a magic ring.
 
I am confused. She is an actress. Isn't it her job to play people/roles/etc. that don't match who she is in real life? Why are people mad?
 
It's odd to me. Actors... act like other people all the time.

Reeves isn't really a underworld contract killer.

RDJ isn't really a super hero

Foxx didn't really live in the south before the Civil War and kill Slave Owners.

Chuck Norris... he isn't acting. Bad example.

They are actors, just acting.
 
JORMBO said:
I am confused. She is an actress. Isn't it her job to play people/roles/etc. that don't match who she is in real life? Why are people mad?
Click to expand...
The critics believe it discriminates against trans males as whitewashing would discriminate against non-whites.Like when she played the Major in Ghost in the Shell
 
Last edited:
I am never surprised at what I read nowadays, especially when it comes to outrage culture. This is just another case of some on the left eating its own. These companies need to start standing up to the vocal minority and tell them to buzz off and do what they're gonna do as originally planned.
 
Last edited:
Disappointing. Her star power would have brought this important topic more in the limelight. But, apparently one of the criticism's is that actual trans people should get the role. In a way i understand, as they know the hardships of such best, but that does not mean they can act better. In the end, this should have been picked on skill and talent, and perhaps starpower/recognition as minor influence.

I mean Eddie Redmayne also did various breaking roles.

Shame. Even as a non-trans, this movie could have brought the whole debate to the bigger table, unlike this smaller movie i covered on ERA before, Lukas Dhont's Girl. - https://www.resetera.com/threads/lukas-dhonts-girl-lifts-the-taboo-on-transgender-people.42378/
 
Really bothers me how the left wing can never make their mind up about stuff.

As recently as just a couple of years ago Eddie Redmayne got a lot of acclaim for playing a trans character now they throw a shit fit over this? It's not fair to actors and actresses.

Plus it seems ironically sexist, like they're saying it's ok for men to play trans characters but not women?
 
Meh. Project is probably dead, or maybe not who knows at this point.

The Sane Psycho said:
I guarantee no one reeing about this or playing in Ghost In The Shell (though it should have never been live action in the first place) cares about Starfire being black in the Teen Titans live action reboot. In fact, they probably see it as beautiful and progressive.
Click to expand...

I mean Starfire is orange, only orange person I know is Trump and he's a bit too old to play her.
 
WaterAstro said:
So what do the critics want? An actual transgender male to play the role?
Click to expand...
Have you not seen the outrage when a white dude with make up plays a Hispanic? Or when Robert D. Junior played a black guy? Or when Charlese Theron played an ugly woman in Monster?

This just seems an extension of that.
kunonabi said:
Pretty much but then they also want trans females to play real females too so it's a bit of a double standard.
Click to expand...

In their minds a trans woman is also a woman.
 
Yeah good luck if this movie now is even being made. Johanson was someone who could have pushed this movie into mainstream now it will end up not being made or some low budget Indy Movie. Good job progressives and woke people
 
Ke0 said:
Meh. Project is probably dead, or maybe not who knows at this point.



I mean Starfire is orange, only orange person I know is Trump and he's a bit too old to play her.
Click to expand...
they could have painted her face orange (like how the Klingons in Star Trek were painted brown). but beast boy doesn't have green color skin either in the show.
 
TheShadowLord said:
but couldn't the director could have done a casting audition where he is looking for a trans man to play as the lead role? He has already been scrutinized for whitewashing in ghost in the shell.
Click to expand...

Hollywood likes to cast stars. Any trans man would be a no name actor. This protest may have jeopardized the chances of this film getting made.
 
kunonabi said:
Pretty much but then they also want trans females to play real females too so it's a bit of a double standard.
Click to expand...
But they don't want a biological woman to play a trans man, who is a biological woman. So a biological man should be able to play the role instead of SJ since they feel a man is a man whether biological or gender transitioned.

And they wonder why people roll their eyes.
 
Spheyr said:
Because they're stupid.
Click to expand...

So talking with some various folks about this issue, the main point of contention isn't that she's playing a transgender role. It's that she's playing a transgender role of a man. If it were a transgender female role, most folks probably wouldn't have made such a stink about it. I think the waters get a little muddy around transgender roles and playing a part meant for the opposite gender because it depicts a falsehood about transgender people, which in turn has potential to create hostility based on falsehoods. There's also the angle of people saying that transgender roles should be played by transgender people, but even I think that's too far and is really a bad argument angle to try and inspire inclusivity.
 
TheShadowLord said:
I don't see how that would be a bad thing since it has happened before(about no name actors as you have said).
Click to expand...

Hollywood doesn't like to make movies without recognizable stars because they think casting actors with name recognition will drive more ticket sales. I'm not condoning it. Just saying that's how it is.
 
"who ran a massage parlor in 1970s and '80s Pittsburgh as a front for a prostitution ring"

I can't be reading that right. Since when is a massage parlor a "front" for a prostitution ring? I just assume that every non-corporate massage place has off the menu options.

Also, screw people pressuring Hollywood to not cast stars. I'm sorry, *every disadvantaged group*, but production companies want to make money. There aren't stars out there in every shape and size. That's a problem, sure. It would be great if there were go-to trans superstars and marketable starts of every type. But there aren't. And this movie may never get made because of this nonsense, because bankrollers want sellable stars, not first timers.

So, yell down a producer who wanted to make a movie about a trans person that wasn't pure exploitation because they didn't make the same movie you'd make it you had millions to do so. Smart plan.
 
Death Dealer said:
Hollywood doesn't like to make movies without recognizable stars because they think casting actors with name recognition will drive more ticket sales. I'm not condoning it. Just saying that's how it is.
Click to expand...
John Boyega and Daisy Ridley weren't recognizable stars until the force awakens. But at least some people would be familiar with Boyega from Attack on the Block. But that is more of an indie movie I think.
 
Good to see she made the right decision. Hopefully the studio will make a more informed choice this time.
 
Horsemama1956 said:
Does this mean gay actors can no longer play straight people and straight people can no longer play gay people?
Click to expand...
A gay actor playing a straight person is "acting up" so it's ok. A straight actor playing a gay person is "acting down" and they should lose their careers, families, and health if they ever grace us with their bigotry ever again.
 
She's in with the SJW clique, and now they're eating her, one of their own.

The idea that actors should be limited to playing parts on the basis of gender and race is inherently sexist and racist. Even shakesperean era stand up made it a point to bend the norms by casting women as men and vice versa, and by having sexless roles for conspicuous characters, just to make the stage play more interesting. So much for progress lol. No surprises there, SJW's are inherently sexist and racist. Let them eat each other.
 
Last edited:
TheShadowLord said:
John Boyega and Daisy Ridley weren't recognizable stars until the force awakens. But at least some people would be familiar with Boyega from Attack on the Block. But that is more of an indie movie I think.
Click to expand...
Star Wars will sell no matter what. This is a movie most people wouldn't have heard about if it didn't have a recognizable person in the lead role.
 
brap said:
Star Wars will sell no matter what. This is a movie most people wouldn't have heard about if it didn't have a recognizable person in the lead role.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that true. Earlier on I was going to suggest the Life of Pi but not sure if it was worth the effort. It made $124 million in the US which is not bad. I guess the cgi could have, I dunno.
 
They sure love to cannibalize one another, and shoot themselves in the foot at the same time with double standards.
 
Horsemama1956 said:
Does this mean gay actors can no longer play straight people and straight people can no longer play gay people?
Click to expand...

No its not quite that extreme because gay people are presently represented in Hollywood in both character and actors just fine. Straight people play gay people and gay people play straight people all the time. However Trans people are woefully underrepresented in both characters that are Trans and actors that are Trans. This is a perfect opportunity to cast a Trans actor in a starring role.


It also doesn't help that Johansson has already been cast in a role that should of gone to someone of another demographic (Ghost in the Shell) so casting her again in a role that should be going to an underrepresented minority is a really dumb move.
 
They could have stood their ground and used the justifications that people are talking about in this thread in their press release. Instead, they bowed to the current social climate fearing loss of reputation and money.

Just another example of why the internet was a mistake.
 
Ancient Gray said:
So talking with some various folks about this issue, the main point of contention isn't that she's playing a transgender role. It's that she's playing a transgender role of a man. If it were a transgender female role, most folks probably wouldn't have made such a stink about it. I think the waters get a little muddy around transgender roles and playing a part meant for the opposite gender because it depicts a falsehood about transgender people, which in turn has potential to create hostility based on falsehoods. There's also the angle of people saying that transgender roles should be played by transgender people, but even I think that's too far and is really a bad argument angle to try and inspire inclusivity.
Click to expand...
You used a lot more words to say what I said in three.
 
Nobody_Important said:
No its not quite that extreme because gay people are presently represented in Hollywood in both character and actors just fine. Straight people play gay people and gay people play straight people all the time. However Trans people are woefully underrepresented in both characters that are Trans and actors that are Trans. This is a perfect opportunity to cast a Trans actor in a starring role.


It also doesn't help that Johansson has already been cast in a role that should of gone to someone of another demographic (Ghost in the Shell) so casting her again in a role that should be going to an underrepresented minority is a really dumb move.
Click to expand...

Are trans actos that common? I guess I rarely see them, which I suppose only reinforces your point about their representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Transformers One - Official Trailer - Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth, Brian Tyree Henry
2
66
3K
touchfuzzy replied
reddit purge ongoing, targeting porn and trans subs
14
2K
MayauMiao replied
  • Locked
Tesla sales tank in Europe as stock drops 40% in a month
NSFW  12 13 14 15 16
769
37K
Cyberpunkd replied
Studios are now assembling fan focus groups to avoid social media backlash and increase sales
2 3
100
6K
Angry_Megalodon replied
  • Locked
Star Wars unveils its first trans clone trooper called 'Sister'
25
2K
Trilobit replied
Top Bottom