I was born in 59. I have LPs older than that.For those of us whose memories go back to the 1970s, yes.
You must be very young.
I was born in 59. I have LPs older than that.For those of us whose memories go back to the 1970s, yes.
You must be very young.
No, it absolutely would have happened because a) he didn't come out until years after he landed the gig, and b) no one's asking for that kind of pigeonholing. Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.
Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.
Jade Tailor of The Magicians has joined the Battle for the Cowl:
https://www.cbr.com/batwoman-magicians-jade-tailor-replace-ruby-rose/
Aye.Doing one's own stunts can be commendable, but it can be risky as all hell. And stunt doubles to exist to mitigate this issue.
Assuming that's the only reason. (Maybe she questioned some of the scripts - there are several possibilities.)
People can like or dislike the show, but Ruby going through that sort of injury and surgery is considerable and hard.I hope she had a robust recovery, and I hope she's able to take on another role.
Anyway, whoever gets it I hope they make very clear to them the reality of eight-nine months of sixteen hour days that lie ahead for them for the next six years.
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.
Anyway, whoever gets it I hope they make very clear to them the reality of eight-nine months of sixteen hour days that lie ahead for them for the next six years.
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.
But that's exactly why people have "quotas," to force people that are hiring to look places they wouldn't normally. People miss way more opportunities because the people making hiring decisions don't investigate beyond the obvious candidates, meaning some combination of straight, white, male, conventionally attractive, and middle-class, because those are the markers our society associates with success and competence, and so the next generation of competent and successful people will be straight, white, male, attractive, and middle-class, and it'll be easy to look at that and say, "Well, I guess people who look like that are just naturally better at everything!" so they get the monied parents, the educational opportunities, the college admissions, the internships, the entry-level jobs, and the cycle just continues, with a perpetual underclass of people who are kept down unintentionally by the very fact that, in prior generations, they were kept down deliberately.
And there's also the fact that there are, in fact, people who are good at what they do who wouldn't have been considered without a quota. The lie people tell about affirmative action is that no disadvantaged person could ever outperform an advantaged person on a fair playing field, that, in this case, the best queer actor must be worse than the worst straight actor. The way you lose out on a job for not filling a quota is because someone who would've been hired before you would've been ruled out out-of-hand without a quota.
It seems to me the issue is more LGBTQ characters and more openly LGBTQ actors more than who plays what roles. I am not sure how a LGBTQ actor playing a LGBTQ character opens the door more towards playing more non-LGBTQ characters. It seems it would do the opposite in that your pigeonholing them to only playing just LGBTQ characters.
Jason
Interesting point. Any actor should be able to step into a role whether their sexuality is not matching that of the character, since the entertainment business had no trouble casting gay performers as straight characters.
Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.
Quite right. It's not about specific individual characters. It's about improving industry-wide inclusion for the actors, giving more opportunities to groups that still don't get opportunities in fair proportion, or that need to fight harder or be given an additional leg up in order to earn opportunities that would be preferentially given to the favored group through conscious or unconscious bias.
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.
I said this in another thread, and I'll repeat it here. While on the one hand I'm all for the producers etc. wanting to have due representation with the Kate Kane character, this is a dangerously slippery slope. Every attempt to provide this inclusion more broadly can result in the very discrimination they're attempting to overcome. All producers that want to make certain representation occurs properly must be very careful going forward that their efforts, like this one, that 'only gay can play gay', don't result in a larger 'gay can only play gay' backlash.
I hate to say it, but for each role like Kate Kane, where they want the representation to be as clear as it is, there will need to be a role where the actor and the character don't have to match, and the representation is at best serendipitous. This is exactly the type of situation where small steps are needed, so the giant leaps don't go in the wrong direction.
Complaining that hiring one actress is a "slippery slope" is ironically a slippery slope argument and about as shit an observation as there could be.
Or shoot certain scenes over again with the new actor. In a similar "previously" situation on ER, one actor walked up to a doctor and punched him in the face in the original episode, but the scene was re-shot for the teaser when that actor was replaced.
They reshot certain famous scenes from season 1's Spartacus with Liam McIntyre when the need arose.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.