• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trans actress Josie Totah cast in lead role of ‘Saved by the Bell’ reboot

brap

brap

Banned
One of the most popular cheerleaders at the school, bigots.
BMLU3CH6LFFZ3NH4JISCUEY5SE.jpg


Josie Totah, the 18-year-old star of the short-lived NBC comedy series “Champion” will play the role of Lexi, a popular, sharp-tongued cheerleader who’s both loved and feared by her fellow schoolmates at Bayside High, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Click to expand...
Totah, who came out as transgender in an essay for Time in August 2018 will also serve as a producer in the show.
“My pronouns are she, her and hers. I identify as female, specifically as a transgender female,” she wrote for the Time’s Idea section, in a heartfelt piece entitled, “My name is Josie Totah, and I’m ready to be free.”
Click to expand...

www.nydailynews.com

Trans actress Josie Totah cast in lead role of ‘Saved by the Bell’ reboot

We’re so excited! We’re so excited! The sequel to the hit comedy show “Saved by the Bell” has cast its lead. Josie Totah, the 18-year-old star of the short-lived NBC comedy …
www.nydailynews.com www.nydailynews.com
 
Last edited:
Dthomp

Dthomp

Member
Blech, nobody asked for a Saved by the Bell reboot, and less people wanted a woke version FFS. This shit needs to stop already. If they were the best candidate then great, but what does it matter what's between their legs, or in their minds, or on the chopping block?
 
S

Star-Lord

Member
matt404au said:
How so, Christopher?
Click to expand...
She was pretty good in Champion. My main concern is that the studio will make it super politically correct just for the sake of ensuring maximum diversity. They need to focus on getting decent writers, not making sure a Hollywood checklist is ticked off.
 
StreetsofBeige

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Chris. said:
She was pretty good in Champion. My main concern is that the studio will make it super politically correct just for the sake of ensuring maximum diversity. They need to focus on getting decent writers, not making sure a Hollywood checklist is ticked off.
Click to expand...
That's how it always is.

On one hand, LBGT want to be appreciated and part of the media and society without people ragging on them with stupid stereotypes.

Yet, it seems every time a TV show or movie writes one into the plot, they make the LBGT person outspoken and obvious. Whether it's talking gay or dressing in stereotypical quirky clothes, the media makes it worse by making said person more stereotypical like every LBGT person is an active participant in pride parade.

In real life, I'm pretty sure the avg LBGT person just looks and acts like your usual non-LBGT person getting through life and paying bills. And if anything probably keeps their personal sexuality more discreet than the usual coworkers gabbing about hot guys or chicks.

In the movies, you always know who the gay guy is as he'll laugh and snort, wear a purple shirt, and act girly. Then the lesbian will act more manly, have short hair or a shaved head, and just to make sure everyone knows she likes woman there's always that deal maker kiss.

Maybe I'm the naive one. I never knew every gay guy acts like a girl, and every lesbian kisses other lesbians every day just to make sure.
 
Last edited:
Papa

Papa

Banned
StreetsofBeige said:
That's how it always is.

On one hand, LBGT want to be appreciated and part of the media and society without people ragging on them with stupid stereotypes.

Yet, it seems every time a TV show or movie writes one into the plot, they make the LBGT person outspoken and obvious. Whether it's talking gay or dressing in stereotypical quirky clothes, the media makes it worse by making said person more stereotypical like every LBGT person is an active participant in pride parade.

In real life, I'm pretty sure the avg LBGT person just looks and acts like your usual non-LBGT person getting through life and paying bills. And if anything probably keeps their personal sexuality discreet.

In the movies, you always know who the gay guy is as he'll laugh and snort, wear a purple shirt, and act girly.
Click to expand...

We have a word for this: tokenism. It used to be considered cynical, lazy appeasement from virtue signalling corporations, but nowadays it seems to be what the rainbow people want. Kinda makes one question whether it was ever about “equality” or if that was just a front.
 
Papa

Papa

Banned
Schrödinger's cat said:
I fully believe (and support) that it started as an argument for equality.
But it has since been co-opted by vocal factions who now want preference.

This is far from the only aspect of society and culture where this is the case, of course.
Click to expand...

Equality of what, exactly? They can’t/won’t reproduce. They’re intrinsically unequal. Raising children is an enormous burden, not just physically but mentally and financially. Rainbow people have no skin in that game, so if they are “equal”, whatever that means, over time they will ascend to a financially elite class by virtue of not having to raise a family.
 
Schrödinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat

Banned
matt404au said:
Equality of what, exactly? They can’t/won’t reproduce. They’re intrinsically unequal. Raising children is an enormous burden, not just physically but mentally and financially. Rainbow people have no skin in that game, so if they are “equal”, whatever that means, over time they will ascend to a financially elite class by virtue of not having to raise a family.
Click to expand...
Cultural, societal, legal equality.

I'm sympathetic to both sides of the reproduction / parenting argument.
On one hand science dictates how reproduction works and that if this millennia-old biologically established criteria isn't met then its unreasonable to expect to be part of that process - or be regarded as a stakeholder in it.
On the other hand, a good parent isn't determined by biology and if a child could be raised in a constructive, caring and nurturing environment then I would struggle to deny anyone that option.
 
Papa

Papa

Banned
Schrödinger's cat said:
Cultural, societal, legal equality.

I'm sympathetic to both sides of the reproduction / parenting argument.
On one hand science dictates how reproduction works and that if this millennia-old biologically established criteria isn't met then its unreasonable to expect to be part of that process - or be regarded as a stakeholder in it.
On the other hand, a good parent isn't determined by biology and if a child could be raised in a constructive, caring and nurturing environment then I would struggle to deny anyone that option.
Click to expand...

I support equality under the law and that’s it.
 
D

dionysus

Yaldog
Schrödinger's cat said:
Cultural, societal, legal equality.

I'm sympathetic to both sides of the reproduction / parenting argument.
On one hand science dictates how reproduction works and that if this millennia-old biologically established criteria isn't met then its unreasonable to expect to be part of that process - or be regarded as a stakeholder in it.
On the other hand, a good parent isn't determined by biology and if a child could be raised in a constructive, caring and nurturing environment then I would struggle to deny anyone that option.
Click to expand...

We have got to stop being political correct. Study after study shows that being raised in a nurturing environment isn't enough. Take boys, every conceivable metric, from prison incarceration, high school graduation, poverty, homelessness, etc., Shows a huge gap between kids who's dad is married to their mom and lives with him and any other family arrangement. Single mom's with father figures, not good enough. Father's active in child's life but not married to mother, not good enough. Turns out the traditional family really is best at least when it comes to boys.

As more data is gained on non-traditional arrangements what do expect it to show? Personally I expect it to show the family arrangement that the vast majority of cultures adopted for 10,000 years to be the best.
 
Skyfox

Skyfox

Member
How is this profitable? Isnt there a legal responsibility / feduciary requirement at this company to make money? Isnt it corruption if they knowingly produce a show that will lose audience?
 
Schrödinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat

Banned
dionysus said:
We have got to stop being political correct. Study after study shows that being raised in a nurturing environment isn't enough. Take boys, every conceivable metric, from prison incarceration, high school graduation, poverty, homelessness, etc., Shows a huge gap between kids who's dad is married to their mom and lives with him and any other family arrangement. Single mom's with father figures, not good enough. Father's active in child's life but not married to mother, not good enough. Turns out the traditional family really is best at least when it comes to boys.

As more data is gained on non-traditional arrangements what do expect it to show? Personally I expect it to show the family arrangement that the vast majority of cultures adopted for 10,000 years to be the best.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply - it's appreciated.
I don't consider myself politically correct - or driven by political correctness. But maybe I'm wrong. It's probably something where I'm the least qualified to make that judgement.

I am fervently opposed to identity politics, whichever direction or conclusion they lead to. Ultimately it means someone's identity doesn't automatically mean they are going to behave in a certain way, or are automatically eligable / ineligable for certain [societal / cultural / legal] things. (Scientific, biological things are a different topic)

A traditional family with a mother and a father isn't a guarantee that they'll be good parents.
Similarly, I don't believe that a single-parent, or same-sex parent family guarantees bad parenting ability.

I don't have any intention of dismissing statistics, or the gathering of more of them to get a deeper understand of a topic. I don't deny what they report.
But I do want to remain open minded enough to know that not all humans behave in line with some identity-based template.

Perhaps the traditional family is statistically the best at providing balanced, successful parenting. But I don't think that means that non-traditional families have nothing of value to offer.
 
mcjmetroid

mcjmetroid

Member
And it will bomb and fail but they feel like they might as well stir up some controversy for attention but the show on its own was never going to get any attention.
It's rather pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 888
D

dionysus

Yaldog
Schrödinger's cat said:
Thank you for the reply - it's appreciated.
I don't consider myself politically correct - or driven by political correctness. But maybe I'm wrong. It's probably something where I'm the least qualified to make that judgement.

I am fervently opposed to identity politics, whichever direction or conclusion they lead to. Ultimately it means someone's identity doesn't automatically mean they are going to behave in a certain way, or are automatically eligable / ineligable for certain [societal / cultural / legal] things. (Scientific, biological things are a different topic)

A traditional family with a mother and a father isn't a guarantee that they'll be good parents.
Similarly, I don't believe that a single-parent, or same-sex parent family guarantees bad parenting ability.

I don't have any intention of dismissing statistics, or the gathering of more of them to get a deeper understand of a topic. I don't deny what they report.
But I do want to remain open minded enough to know that not all humans behave in line with some identity-based template.

Perhaps the traditional family is statistically the best at providing balanced, successful parenting. But I don't think that means that non-traditional families have nothing of value to offer.
Click to expand...

Sure, I judge people individually too. But on a societal level you must encourage behavior that has the highest odds of success.

Should we not encourage kids to graduate high school because a small minority of dropouts do really well, even though the majority don't? Should we not discourage teen pregnancy because some of those babies have great outcomes?

Society and culture encourages and discourages behaviors based on the aggregate outcome, not the exceptions.

I am not for some heavy handed government solution, but incentives matter. Take single mothers. In the US, it is very possible for a single mother and her children to be worse off financially after marriage than before due to reduced government benefits. (If the couple are both in the bottom quartile of income for example.) Fixing shit like that is what I mean by encouraging the right behaviors.
 
#Phonepunk#

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sad they didn’t ask Lark Vorhees to be back but they got all the white jocks back so it’s ok. Anyways she has some mental problems apparently so in the fairness of social justice they will dump the WOC with issues and get a white man to pretend to be a girl like always.

just amazing how the trans movement has made it progressive to give white men more roles
 
Last edited:
Paltheos

Paltheos

Member
I don't care. Same as anything else, so long as you can fill the role, you can be anything you want. If you're playing a popular cheerleader in a high school comedy, convention tells us that you should be hot. Are you hot? Then it doesn't matter whether you're born female or transgender.

I wanted to read the article and comment properly but... I don't actually see a link in the OP, and the snippets all read like dumb shit. I don't know if the angle is being played up to appeal to left-wing (and enrage right-wing, as seen here).
 
Starlight Lotice

Starlight Lotice

Member
Saved by the Bellend, if you know what I mean. 😏😏

Did anyone ask for a reboot if we ignore the Transgender role? I thought the classic didn't need one.
 
Nymphae

Nymphae

Banned
Mario Lopez and Elizabeth Berkley, who starred in the original incarnation of “Saved by the Bell” from 1989 to 1993, will reprise their roles as A.C. Slater and Jessie Spano respectively in the revival. The new series will explore what happens when California Gov. Zack Morris (played by Mark-Paul Gosselaar in the original) closes many of the state’s low-income high schools and reassigns affected students to higher-performing schools, including Bayside High.
Click to expand...

Gov. Zack Morris (R)

This is going to be amazingly bad.
 
Doom85

Doom85

Member
I mean, if this reboot's lead is like the original show's lead, trans people should also have the option to play a character who we see as charming and funny when the show aired and then years later we realize what an obnoxious piece of shit they were who constantly manipulated and toyed with the emotions of the people they claim are their "friends".

Seriously, I love Zack Morris is Trash on Youtube. Somehow even though they've used it so many times, the "because they probably fucking killed themselves" bit at the end always cracks me up. How many bodies did Zack pile up in his years at Bayside?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom