Boycotting the Oscars

The word trans means to move between the word gender means gender, if you move between genders -well that's what it is. I think it's safest to let the words mean what they mean and not assign anything more to it because it's delicate, sorry to deprive you of your dig but my usage is accurate

What do you mean by not natural? They likely shaved so is that what you disagree with? I think they looked fairly natural with normal teeth and all. Go back & look. If you still disagree ok then, I have no idea what you consider natural
Trans is a complete word only in chemistry. While the prefix version does mean across, actors in roles written for women because there were no female actors 300+ years ago doesn't make the actors transgender. It makes them versatile actors.
As for natural, why no mention of actresses who've had breast reductions? Or actors of both sexes who alter their facial appearance through surgery? Or people who use make-up, or Spanx?
 
Gadzooks, not following you down this rabbit hole- I am not Alice & am disinterested because I see nothing to be gained. This tangent adds nothing to the subject at hand and detracts from the issue of transgenders and the issue of prejudice. I'm staying on track

Current system bad, roles have always been muddy water, hope for change > moving on

Then I suppose you should not have tried to claim what you claimed if you did not wish to be Alice.

You bringing it up in the first place was quite the tangent and historically inaccurate.

He used men.

Why "of course"? If you know anything about the history of theater you would know that Shakespeare always used transgendered actors and he did all right getting his point across. As I mentioned there are times when race is an inherent feature such as in the case of a Othello who is defined as a Moor. However, I submit that it would be irrelevant if the head actress in "Bones" or the lead of 'Bourne Identity' was Asian, Indian or Aftican American. Occasionally it may in fact matter, but that's not what it sounded like to me from what I've read. And while we're on the subject of type I think it's ridiculous that all the women on TV have implants and it's not that there's anything wrong with it but seriously if you look at TV from the 80s women were natural and the world didn't end.
 
Trans is a complete word only in chemistry. While the prefix version does mean across, actors in roles written for women because there were no female actors 300+ years ago doesn't make the actors transgender. It makes them versatile actors.
As for natural, why no mention of actresses who've had breast reductions? Or actors of both sexes who alter their facial appearance through surgery? Or people who use make-up, or Spanx?

Trans comes from Latin, Latin is older than chemistry.
 
Then I suppose you should not have tried to claim what you claimed if you did not wish to be Alice.

You bringing it up in the first place was quite the tangent and historically inaccurate.

He used men.
What? No.

Point was men transferring through gender roles is a very very old practice, not modern as some like to think and that in Shakespeare's time it did not detract from the work therefore a transgender James Bond would be arguably old school... Going back a bit but at least it's back on point with why it's not necessary to adhere to 'types'

Lots of stuff here points to intolerance and I don't dig it. Why are some so fixated to saying transgenders didn't happen in Shakespeare's time? I'm fairly certain they have always been around & thats fine by me... Someof you should ask yourselves where the scrutiny is coming from
 
And how on earth would you know? They were men dressed as women, which is what it is. Eddie Izzard does the same and I have known others who claim it is separate from preference. Personally, I think it would be an inviting forum in those repressed times but by all means, prove it wasn't. Since you are so willing to contradict the motives on men dead hundreds of years ago go ahead and prove it. I'm all ears, I'd love to hear about the other outlets for men who liked to dress as females publicly back then

In the meantime things are very off the rails. I would really prefer sticking with today.

Personally, I'd be fine with transgenders taking female roles as long the whole thing is believable what does it matter. Same goes for mixing of race in roles etc

You really are reaching here.


And in a simple Google, I learned something new--lead female roles tended to be performed by boys who had not yet gone through puberty. Interesting.

http://www.theatreunbound.com/know/facts_shakespeare.shtml
 
What? No.

Point was men transferring through gender roles is a very very old practice, not modern as some like to think and that in Shakespeare's time it did not detract from the work therefore a transgender James Bond would be arguably old school... Going back a bit but at least it's back on point with why it's not necessary to adhere to 'types'

Why no what. You made a claim that pretty much ALL the actors were transgendered if they played women.

Locally, there was an actor who was male playing a traditional female role. I know nothing about him personally. So I would never claim he was transgendered without his permission. But he did say he was a male playing the role and his performance was RAVED about. And apparently the acting so seamless that no one even thought to wonder the gender of who was behind the costume and makeup. So until the hypothetical day he discloses he is transgendered, I not anyone else has any business calling him on just because he wore a dress on a stage.

So the rabbit hole is--why would you claim men of Shakespeare's time to be transgendered? And then accuse others of leading down a rabbit hole when there is no research to supper your generalized claim.

It makes no sense historically or within the context of this conversation.
 
For the record I feel that the insistence that transgenders didn't exist in Shakespeare's time is peculiar. Lots of energy expended to say it's a new thing. Got to wonder why, it's not new & neither is the intolerance but that part is sad.

Also, why go so far off course with the original thread which is about diversity in the entertainment industry? Must be a reason to be so committed, what is it?

To quote the bard, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
 
Trans comes from Latin, Latin is older than chemistry.
Eh, not so much. Latin dates back to about 500 BC. Chemistry has been around since at least 3000 BC, if not 40,000 BC (sources Wikipedia). At any rate, actors portraying the roles of women cannot be presumed to be trans- anything. They're actors. Are you claiming Mary Martin and every single other actress who has played the role of Peter Pan was/is transgender? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
Point was men transferring through gender roles is a very very old practice,
Shakespearean actors portraying roles written for women because there were no actresses in those days is not at all associated with men transferring through gender roles. Or women transferring through gender roles - let's not be sexist here.

Why are some so fixated to saying transgenders didn't happen in Shakespeare's time?
Nobody said that. We're refuting your unsupported claim that being an actor portraying a female character equals being transgender, and that all Shakespearean actors were transgender.
 
For the record I feel that the insistence that transgenders didn't exist in Shakespeare's time is peculiar. Lots of energy expended to say it's a new thing. Got to wonder why, it's not new & neither is the intolerance but that part is sad.

Also, why go so far off course with the original thread which is about diversity in the entertainment industry? Must be a reason to be so committed, what is it?

To quote the bard, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

Methinks you did not read my entire post in an effort to defend yourself. Protest too much? Indeed you do.


So in Modern Times, was Robin Williams himself transgendered for playing Mrs Doubtfire, Hilary Swank herself for performing in Boys Don't Cry (she did arrive in character at her audition and was initially declined because they wanted a female for the role...), and the local community theater or school play where there aren't necessarily enough males so a female may step in--are they transgendered?

I don't know that you are using the term correctly at all given what we know about transgendered people today.

Could some have considered themselves transgendered? Sure. Does donning a dress to play Juliet make them automatically transgendered? No. Not any more than Mickey's friends at Disney are transgendered and trans-species.

It seems prudence would be required when discussing a time period when men had to play certain rules because women were prohibited from doing so.

It is clear what I meant. It is also clear that you insist on applying a label incorrectly. That is quite peculiar. Misusing a term doesn't make you magically tolerant.
 
For the record I feel that the insistence that transgenders didn't exist in Shakespeare's time is peculiar. Lots of energy expended to say it's a new thing. Got to wonder why, it's not new & neither is the intolerance but that part is sad.

Also, why go so far off course with the original thread which is about diversity in the entertainment industry? Must be a reason to be so committed, what is it?

To quote the bard, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

You incorrectly described Shakespearean actors who played women as transgendered. The way you wrote it and you're refusal to admit you were incorrect to use transgendered is what took the thread off course.
Is Tom Hanks transgender because he dressed up like a woman on Bossom Buddies? Of course not.
You used the word incorrectly, let it go and stop calling people intolerant.
 
Lisa loves Pooh said:
Andin a simple Google, I learned something new--lead female roles tended to be performed by boys who had not yet gone through puberty. Interesting.
But ugly women like the witches were played by men (no boys)
 
Avatar was based on Asian culture though, and the people who created the show did extensive research on the Asian culture when it comes to behaviors, and postures and their beliefs. So yes, race should be part of it if a certain culture is a huge point of the show.

While I appreciate the dialogue regarding whether it is appropriate or inappropriate to cast actors of particular races in particular roles in particular movies, I actually think framing the conversation that way doesn't get at the heart of the issue. I think the heart of the issue -- at least for me -- is that on a large scale, taking the film and television industry as a whole, there is a significant mismatch between the racial and ethnic demographics of what we see on the screen and the racial and ethnic demographics of our country. Now, again, I do not think there needs to be perfect alignment -- there are, after all, a lot more aliens, superheroes and dinosaurs in film than in real life -- and I get that movies are, by definition, fantasies that don't reflect reality. But it leads to the question, what does the significant under-representation of non-white people in film and TV say about our collective fantasies and aspirations, or the fantasies and aspirations the studio system believes we have or want?

We can talk all we want about the role of casting directors and whether they or producers, writers and directors are at fault, and whether the way casting calls are written makes sense. But I think the bottom line is that the people who finance and control the film and television industry believe that movies heavily featuring non-white actors will not make money. They may not personally believe that movies heavily featuring non-white actors are not interesting or worthy, but they believe the country as a whole will not go see those kinds of films in large enough numbers to justify financially backing many of them. In short, they are afraid to make the bet.

A similar story in a different industry: For many decades, there were no grocery stores in Harlem. People were afraid to open a grocery store there, believing it would be a terrible economic decision. Then, one day, PathMark was convinced to open a store on 125th Street, a main artery through Harlem. It quickly became one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable, PathMark stores in the country. This predated the gentrification that has happened in Harlem over the last decade or so, and in fact it was only following the opening of the PathMark that other national retail chains found the courage to open there as well. Now 125th Street features many national chains, including PathMark, Raymor and Flanigan, H&M, Foot Locker, Children's Place, Modells and many others. I'll leave the debating the merits of gentrification and the replacement of local businesses with national chains for another thread, but the point is people were afraid to make an economic bet, and then they did and a whole new market opened up.

The question is, what can we do to encourage studios to make the bet? Until they're ready to make the bet, things won't really change.

I don't fully know the answer to that question. I wish I did. I think part of it is being a public that is receptive to films and TV shows heavily featuring non-white actors. To do that, maybe each of us needs to examine our own perceptions about race and our own viewing habits.

I'm not sure how to accomplish the other half, which is convincing the studios that we're ready, that it's an economic bet worth taking.
 
But I think the bottom line is that the people who finance and control the film and television industry believe that movies heavily featuring non-white actors will not make money. They may not personally believe that movies heavily featuring non-white actors are not interesting or worthy, but they believe the country as a whole will not go see those kinds of films in large enough numbers to justify financially backing many of them. In short, they are afraid to make the bet.

It was mentioned on the first few pages of this thread that black, latino, asian people don't go to the movies as much as white people. It was suggested that this is not just because of lack of representation on screen, but more of a cultural divide. It might be a cost factor. Movie prices are through the roof. It might be a lack of interest in movie-going as a leisure activity. Whatever the reason, the studios will continue to make the movies they think their vast majority of viewers want to see. So, you are right it is ALL about the money and much less about holding anyone down.

Taken from the MPAA data for 2014, Caucasians made up 53% of the "frequent moviegoer" population, while AA's were 10%, Hispanics 25% and Asians 9%. As wrong as it is, studio execs will continue "making the bet" on the the race that buys the most tickets.
 
Last edited:
It was mentioned on the first few pages of this thread that black, latino, asian people don't go to the movies as much as whites people. It was suggested that this is not just because of lack of representation on screen, but more of a cultural divide. It might be a cost factor. Movie prices are through the roof. It might be a lack of interest in movie-going as a leisure activity. Whatever the reason, the studios will continue to make the movies they think their vast majority of viewers want to see. So, you are right it is ALL about the money and much less about holding anyone down.

Taken from the MPAA data for 2014. Caucasians made up 53% of the "frequent moviegoer" population, while AA's were 10%, Hispanics 25% and Asians 9%. As wrong as it is, studio execs will continue "making the bet" on the the race that buys the most tickets.
A growing minority audience in our area is Indian (from India, not Native American). The local multiplex always seems to have at least one screen devoted to Indian films. These films appear to be very well attended.
 
Taken from the MPAA data for 2014. Caucasians made up 53% of the "frequent moviegoer" population, while AA's were 10%, Hispanics 25% and Asians 9%. As wrong as it is, studio execs will continue "making the bet" on the the race that buys the most tickets.
That's interesting, given that it doesn't reflect the racial makeup of the country: 62% Caucasian, 13% African Amerrican/black, 17% Hispanic, Asian/Pacific 5%
 
Last edited:
It was mentioned on the first few pages of this thread that black, latino, asian people don't go to the movies as much as white people. It was suggested that this is not just because of lack of representation on screen, but more of a cultural divide. It might be a cost factor. Movie prices are through the roof. It might be a lack of interest in movie-going as a leisure activity. Whatever the reason, the studios will continue to make the movies they think their vast majority of viewers want to see. So, you are right it is ALL about the money and much less about holding anyone down.

Taken from the MPAA data for 2014, Caucasians made up 53% of the "frequent moviegoer" population, while AA's were 10%, Hispanics 25% and Asians 9%. As wrong as it is, studio execs will continue "making the bet" on the the race that buys the most tickets.

Population demographics probably play a big part with the money men.

White alone, percent, 2014 (a) 77.4%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2014 (a) 13.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2014 (a) 1.2%
Asian alone, percent, 2014 (a) 5.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2014 (a) 0.2%
Two or More Races, percent, 2014 2.5%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2014 (b) 17.4%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2014 62.1%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts







facebook twitter
Top