Ruby Rose covers some of her tattoos because they're Christian and wouldn't fit the character (Jewish).
Spoilers Batwoman - Season 1
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
At least two of Ruby Rose's tattoos were referenced as being part of the Kate Kane character's identity, so one would not be wrong to expect that whomever steps into the role will need to have replicas of those specific tattoos applied.
A tattoo is a story.
Why you got it.
Where you got it.
When you got it.
Why you got it.
Where you got it.
When you got it.
I'm not on Twitter personally, but will do hashtag searches every now and then, and people apparently didn't get the message that "straight actors need not apply" because a lot of the suggestions that are being proposed on Twitter are for non-LGBT individuals, and it's kind of annoying me.
^^this
It's just a role. a fictional character. Gay, straight, bi, trans - most simply don't care after a certain point. The makers of shows usually look for actors that bring something above and beyond what's on paper regarding the character's personality and archetype and might make alterations to the character after that point as well. True, they often do look for certain physical traits as well. And all that's up to solely the makers of each show and what they want for their show.
Also, if Robert Reed could sell Mike Brady to a nation that didn't realize he was gay in real life... Or for a more recent example, Jim Parsons regarding Sheldon Cooper's newfound heterosexuality (but used to be asexual)... then the opposite can be true as well. It's about the definition of "acting" - playing a completely different person/personality type.
One more time:
It is not about ability. It is about inclusion. It is not about the roles, which are imaginary; it is about the people who play them, who are very real and need gainful employment to survive just like everyone else. It is about making sure that a group of human beings are not systematically discriminated against in the workplace. There are few enough opportunities for them in the industry that depriving them of roles that they would be ideal for just makes things worse.
If heterosexual white males did not still have their thumb on the scale, if we actually lived in that ideal world where identity didn't matter and only talent did, then of course, of course it would be only about the roles, and anyone could play them. But it is disingenuous to pretend we already live in that world. The imbalance still exists, and as long as it does, it's dishonest to pretend that it's a symmetrical situation. A gay actor playing a hetero character is a member of the less advantaged group getting a job, which reduces the imbalance. A hetero actor playing a gay character is a member of the more advantaged group getting a job, which perpetuates the imbalance. It is not the same.
I hear people's arguments on this, I get what they're saying but I find it hard to totally get on board. I spent years trying to raise myself out of poverty working liquor stores, working underneath trailers in the middle of Michigan winters and I would've been pissed to find out that I missed an opportunity because I didn't fill a quota. Sorry, you're privileged, keep working those 10.5 hours shifts at the liquor store with a 15 minute break. This is how we get the idiots elected that we do. I know this won't be a popular thing to say and I'm sure people will think less of me for saying it. I don't know what the answer is for more inclusion but if it involves excluding others it will never quite sit right with me.
Better make sure you only hire Jewish LGBTQ as well. Be sure to include that in the Google searches on the next proposed cast member announcement.
Better make sure you only hire Jewish LGBTQ as well. Be sure to include that in the Google searches on the next proposed cast member announcement.
It's not "excluding" anyone. It's ridiculous to pretend that heterosexual white people are in any way starved for job opportunities. I'm so goddamned sick of the whiny victim rhetoric of people who have all the advantages in life. It's like people sitting at a huge banquet table overstuffed with a hundred courses of fine cuisine, and screaming that they'll die of hunger if they have to give up a few scraps of their bounty to the thousands of genuinely starving people outside.
Nobody is saying that every LGBTQ character has to be played by an LGBTQ actor for all time. It's just about trying to get enough LGBTQ people into prominent roles to improve representation overall, to come closer to equality than we currently are. Look at the situation with trans actors, as already mentioned. Historically, almost no trans characters were played by genuinely trans actors. So it should be obvious that it's better to have at least some than none. And if there are virtually none, then that is why it is so important to get started on improving those numbers. When such a huge imbalance exists, it's important to take every available step to reduce the imbalance. Like I said, it's only after that imbalance is negated that you can legitimately talk about it going both ways.
It's wrong to look at the people trying to push back against centuries of being pushed down and claim that they are the only ones doing the pushing. Don't blame them for pushing back, blame the system that's still trying to crush them. Help them restore balance, and then there won't have to be any pushing on either side. But we aren't there yet. Not by a long shot.
It would be funny if the actress who gets it pretends to be gay to get it.
No. Not really.
I don't know if you understood my post.
The producers of Batwoman want the role of Kate to be played by an out LGBTQ actress, but a plot of the people on Twitter who are either putting out suggestions or have indicated their interest in the role are ignoring that very important caveat, and I find it annoying.
You do realize "Tootsie" wasn't a documentary. Stuff like that isn't funny in real life.
Cancelled after two episodes.
Moon Knight has disassociation identity disorder.
In the comics, it's still three straight white dude in his head.
What if his DID gets woke?
Although we already covered this in Doom patrol with Crazy Jane.
Just imagine the scandal if it came out. It could break the internet.
So the actress will have to prove they are gay. This could get awkward in the casting room
Sigh. You’re right. But why? Why, first, would anyone suggest such a thing? And second, why would anyone do such a thing? There’s enough people offended by every little thing on the internet. We really don’t need this.
Rachel Dolezal.
But why do you think it would be “funny?” That’s the more prevalent question.
Does anyone seriously think that David Rappaport Casting and Greg Berlanti and Caroline Dries aren't going to be cognizant of whether or not potential Ruby Rose replacements are actually living as out members of the LGBTQ community?