• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CW network working on Batwoman series

theenglish said:
The problem would come if it were exclusively LGBT actors that got LGBT roles. That would then be discrimination in the same way it would be discriminating to ban LGBT actors from playing straight.
Click to expand...
We are currently a long, long, long, long, long, loooooong way from having to worry about positive discrimination towards LGBTQ actors. For starters, there just aren't that many roles being written.
Having to hold back now because of some hypothetical far off time where gays rule the earth is just ludicrous. Indeed, I'm old enough to remember the same argument being made about black actors being given more prominent roles than just token characters...and here we are in the future and no shortage of white people in entertainment.
 
Awesome Possum said:
Yes, you keep insisting and ignored my counterarguments which were backed by the accounts of actual LGBTQ actors. So I find it condescending that you refuse to discuss any of it and continue to trot out your disproven claims.

I'll take your examples. Willow was a great character, but imagine that she came out as a lesbian because the actress herself came out herself. Taking her courage in real life and applying to the character in a time with few examples of lesbian women. This is of course ignoring all the bi-erasure of the Willow character because that's a road I don't have time to go down.
Click to expand...

It's getting impossible to have a coherent conversation with you because you're making blatant accusations that don't correspond to anything that I've actually said in this thread since chiming in on the topic of LGBT roles going exclusively to LGBT actors.

Regarding the "bi-erasure" of Willow, her self-identifying herself as "gay" and exclusively choosing women doesn't mean she stopped being biologically Bi; it simply represents how she, as an individual, chose to view herself.

You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with people (or at least me) because of a difference of opinion over whether or not LGBT roles should - or ever could - exclusively to to LGBT actors.
 
Reverend said:
We are currently a long, long, long, long, long, loooooong way from having to worry about positive discrimination towards LGBTQ actors. For starters, there just aren't that many roles being written.
Having to hold back now because of some hypothetical far off time where gays rule the earth is just ludicrous. Indeed, I'm old enough to remember the same argument being made about black actors being given more prominent roles than just token characters...and here we are in the future and no shortage of white people in entertainment.
Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement on that and I am impressed by the CW's casting decision. But it shouldn't then become a requirement--many other factors are at play.
 
Marc said:
A columnist in the Toronto Star put up the following on the issue. She also wrote as a Jewish lesbian she hits the mark to play Batwoman and would be available :)

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...rs-wont-solve-hollywoods-casting-problem.html
Click to expand...

Strange. It's like this group of people is made up of individuals all with differing opinions on the subject where one, single opinion isn't the only one that should be adhered to (contrary to what some might be saying in this very thread). Who woulda thunk it?
 
After my earlier post about people with disabilities, I remembered a pretty interesting interview Io9 did where they talked to several actors with disabilities and a couple of them talk about their frustration with Hollywood casting able bodied actors as disabled characters, so the situations really aren't that far off.
Obviously I'm not saying being gay is a disability, but I think in a way it is a better comparison than race. Both groups are outsiders who struggle for representation, and when they do get that representation, more often than not they are represented by outside of that group. It's a lot easier for a straight person to pretend to be gay, or for an able bodied person to pretend to be disabled than it would be for a white person to pretend to be black.
 
My absolute favourite scene in "Coming to America" is Eddie Murphy as the old, white Jewish man telling a joke after the credits. It wasn't meant to offend, it wasn't meant to steal roles from white, old, Jewish actors (who were not at the peak of their comedic career like Murphy was). It was just brilliant comedy.

There was nothing wrong with that.

If an actor can knock a role out of the park (and better than someone who actually fits the profile in real life) there's no reason not to allow that. This is entertainment.

As someone in a wheelchair, I sure as heck will take Patrick Stewart in X-Men representing over ANY other actor out there that's really disabled. No questions asked. It's Patrick Stewart. Also... Ian McKellan is gay and he portrayed Magneto awesomely. Did anybody care? All heterosexual supervillains should be honoured he represented as well. Or should that role have gone to somebody else?

These are characters in fiction. We shouldn't even talk about their personal lives. That should not enter the equation at all. Gay, straight, animal, mineral, doesn't matter at all, just did they rock the part or not.
 
I heard that in Continuum the character Kiera Cameron was supposed to be a man.
But the producers liked Rachel Nicols so much they maked the character female.
I think that was a great decision, and that's the way the casting should be done
 
DigificWriter said:
It's getting impossible to have a coherent conversation with you because you're making blatant accusations that don't correspond to anything that I've actually said in this thread since chiming in on the topic of LGBT roles going exclusively to LGBT actors.

Regarding the "bi-erasure" of Willow, her self-identifying herself as "gay" and exclusively choosing women doesn't mean she stopped being biologically Bi; it simply represents how she, as an individual, chose to view herself.

You seem to be wanting to pick a fight with people (or at least me) because of a difference of opinion over whether or not LGBT roles should - or ever could - exclusively to to LGBT actors.
Click to expand...
I’m not picking a fight, I made a statement and tried to share my feelings as one of the few LGBTQ persons actually in this thread, then people jumped down my throat. You clearly have no interest in any input from a LGBTQ person unless they agree with you, so I won’t bother engaging with you again.
 
M'rk son of Mogh said:
Also... Ian McKellan is gay and he portrayed Magneto awesomely. Did anybody care? All heterosexual supervillains should be honoured he represented as well. Or should that role have gone to somebody else?
Click to expand...

I thought Zach Quinto hit it out of the park as Spock. Definitely had chemistry with Zoe Saldana. As far as who should be eligible to play what kind of character, I tend to leave it up to the productions. My hope is that they are picking the best actors possible, if they aren't, then I'll speak with my wallet.
 
M'rk son of Mogh said:
My absolute favourite scene in "Coming to America" is Eddie Murphy as the old, white Jewish man telling a joke after the credits. It wasn't meant to offend, it wasn't meant to steal roles from white, old, Jewish actors (who were not at the peak of their comedic career like Murphy was). It was just brilliant comedy.

There was nothing wrong with that.

If an actor can knock a role out of the park (and better than someone who actually fits the profile in real life) there's no reason not to allow that. This is entertainment.
Click to expand...
That's not actually an example of what the discussion is about, because the star of the film, Eddie Murphy, playing also multiple bit parts in various stages of makeup was a running gag in the film that was capped by that scene. There wasn't even theoretically a role to so to speak "steal" from an old, Jewish man, since the whole concept of the performance was Eddie Murphy in makeup pushing his skills as a chameleon to the limit, as part of the entire showcase that was Murphy. See also the remake of The Nutty Professor starring Murphy, in which he plays his own relatives.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
That's not actually an example of what the discussion is about, because the star of the film, Eddie Murphy, playing also multiple bit parts in various stages of makeup was a running gag in the film that was capped by that scene. There wasn't even theoretically a role to so to speak "steal" from an old, Jewish man, since the whole concept of the performance was Eddie Murphy in makeup pushing his skills as a chameleon to the limit, as part of the entire showcase that was Murphy. See also the remake of The Nutty Professor starring Murphy, in which he plays his own relatives.
Click to expand...

So you admit he stole jobs from MANY aspiring actors, then!

Good thing Pluto Nash put an end to this criminal's actions.

Seriously, I see no difference. Showcasing an actor's talent (OR selling movie tickets - something people really forget in similar debates) in a role is the whole point of casting a part.
 
M'rk son of Mogh said:
Okay, I was just trying to be funny with that first bit, it obviously failed. My bad. (Should have added an emoji...)
:beer:
Click to expand...
It's not just that. It's that the whole Murphy example just muddies the waters. It has nothing to do with whether, for example, a main character in a drama who's gay should be played by a gay actor. The barber shop customer Saul wasn't so much the character of an old, Jewish man as he was an embodiment of certain set of stereotypes. Any debate about whether there was a casting call for the bit part of an old, Jewish barbershop customer that Murphy got to the front of the line of, or whether the part was crafted simply to showcase Murphy (probably this, though) would only complete the distraction away from the issues here, because when it's all said and done, no matter how you think of any other aspect about it, it was still just a bit part.

I don't feel the pain of under-representation, because people like me aren't exactly under-represented. The question in this sidebar of the Batwoman thread is about parts with auditions, especially, as in this case, leading roles. The issues include representation, authenticity, and embracing the breadth of humanity, not only in characters and cast but also in the audience. A bit part that works only under the conditions of heavy makeup to change the ethnicity of the actor as a gag speaks to none of those issues. So, good grief, indeed.
 
I never said I was against LGBTQ actors playing cishet roles. Cishet actors are far from underrepresented, losing some roles to LGBTQ actors isn’t hurting them. However given how few LGBTQ roles there are, they should be preferred. I’m not sure why that’s so controversial, but I feel proper representation is extremely important. You may not be able to understand that, if you had to go as long as I did before getting to see someone like me on screen you might feel the same way.
 
My biggest worry for this series is the lack of rogues that might be available. I would imagine all the Gotham rogues are out at least for another year or two and that show has burned through a good number of them. Batwoman just doesnt have that core baddie to balance her out unless you count her sister. Of course the DC universe has many hundreds of evil doers she could fight. Time for the Black Spider to make an appearance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top