Greatoneshere

2 minutes ago, number305 said:

 

So would you turn down a job in a workplace that wasn't diverse enough.  Tell your employer they should hire someone else?

If the project was about diversity, probably. I'm a first generation Pakistani-American though, so . . . I wouldn't need to leave but I would say that if I were white. 

Just now, number305 said:

I think you are putting more on the actor than is fair in most respects.  I know these people are rich - but at the same time they are always looking for their next job.  You can't expect them to come back from an offer to play a part and suggest that they take a smaller/different role and give their role to someone else.  I'm not saying that can't or won't happen, but it isn't what typically ever happens.  Just as it isn't the average employee's role in a company to ensure there is racial diversity.  In this case the movie studio is the employer and the duty to ensure any kind of equality (whatever that means to whomever) is going to have to fall to them.  

It does happen though. I do agree it's not the norm, but this isn't a normal situation either. As I said, I don't think ScarJo has to do anything, but it's preferred. At least a failed attempt. Publicize the issue. I don't know - something. We always live in this "me first" culture. Maybe ScarJo should pass on the job, there are plenty of others someone like her could get. Like I said, she shouldn't have to, but it'd be nice. 

1 minute ago, TwinIon said:

That sure makes it sound like it's primarily the story of one person. If it's really a case of "this movie gets made with Johansson or doesn't get made," it's highly unlikely that there's a comparable role in the film that would be marketed around. It's not like you spend $120M to make Rampage if Dwayne Johnson is the zoo keeper at the beginning of the film and not the action star.

 

I mean, if the only goal here is to make a movie about a trans person playing a trans person, then theoretically Johansson could pay for the whole production herself, but that's not a very useful hypothetical.

I mean, I did say major role, not the zoo keeper at the beginning of Rampage (I haven't seen Rampage but it sounded like it's a minor role? lol). 

But if it is indeed the story of one person, and it can only be funded with a major star in the major role (both are assumptions giving the studio a lot of rope), then okay, cast Johansson. But we all see how only hiring already bankable stars does indeed just perpetuate the same bankable stars preventing anyone new from making inroads. It's a tough situation to be fair. 

2 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Or, better yet, push for a trans actor to get a non-trans role. Because while the under-representation of trans actors is a problem, I think it would be just as big of a problem if trans actors were perpetually typecast for trans roles.

Agreed, that's even better. Even more "fair" in some ways by avoiding the criticisms of typecasting, possibly.

49 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I think @Wild has a good point. Right now, for a movie like this, I wouldn't be surprised if it came down to "this movie gets made with Scarlett Johansson or it doesn't get made at all." Same for Transparent and Jeffrey Tambor, etc. I think we'll see more trans actors in whatever roles in the future, but the reality of making movies, especially small ones, is that a marketable actor like Johansson changes the calculus for what gets made and what doesn't. It's not all that different than movies like Skyscraper or Rampage are far more likely to get made if they can get the Rock.

 

Yes trans people are underrepresented on screen, and yes it would be better if trans people can represent themselves on screen, but I also don't have an inherent problem with cis people playing trans or whatever else.

If that were true, Johansson should push to put a trans actor in the role and take another major role in the movie, if that's what it is about, no? I'm not saying they have to, but they theoretically could. 

On 7/6/2018 at 6:11 PM, ALIEN-gunner said:

Rian "Round-Head" Johnson's tweets are based on the same fabricated lie. Keep up please. 

How is it based on a lie? He personally knows and is friends with the actress. Why would he perpetuate a lie about his friend and co-worker?

On 7/6/2018 at 7:27 PM, Emblazon said:

How much is Bradley Whitford in it? 

He just showed up in the second to last episode of this season for the first time. So, for now, he's not in it much but he's clearly gonna be a major recurring character I think. 

10 hours ago, Rev said:

Nope and I'm also totally cool with trans actors playing cis roles if they have the talent for it. They're actors. It's their job to pretend to be people they're not.

While I agree, that's not how it works in reality, so saying it should be this is like saying: "everyone should always be honest". Well yeah, sure they should, but people aren't, that's why we have laws that force/compel people into being honest as best as possible (and even then, the system is highly unsuccessful). Institutionalized lack of representation is a real thing. "Best person for the job" is the biggest lie we tell everyone because that's not how hiring practices have almost ever worked. Especially thanks to subconscious biases and instituionalized biases. 

Similarly, representation matters since the system doesn't work like it should. So it needs to be forced, similarly, as it does in my "everyone should be honest" example. While I'm not upset ScarJo is playing a trans person at all, I think they should have tried to hire a trans person. 

8 episodes is perfect. It's already renewed for a season 3. 

The first season was surprisingly good (technically was meant to be a movie that was simply split into 4 parts instead). I look forward to this! Warren Ellis is a great writer. 

The Cold War wasn't that long ago. Have these Americans forgotten?

4 hours ago, run32.dll said:

I'm pretty sure just about everyone wearing a MAGA hat at this point is primarily doing it to own the libs. Even people in their 60s.

Absolutely. For some people it's a base: "fuck you, I'm so counter-culture" when they are the ones in fucking power. And they know it and they still don't care. It's a lot of hate all wrapped up into one stupid fucking hat. I hate that goddamn unsightly thing. 

I am fully on board them being the "I feel bad and I've changed" bandwagon. It's best case scenario. If they mean it, then I say accept them with open arms and continue to educate them out of their hatred, etc. 

9 hours ago, johnny said:

I thought season 1 . . .  was amazing 

Same.

Season 2 has also been excellent so far, if spinning its wheels too much. Everyone should be watching this show. 

4 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Y'all should move here quickly and help defeat him.

Never suggest such a despicable thing to me again! Disgusting.  

(My family owns a house down there and it is very beautiful in Florida). 

5 hours ago, Snaynay1 said:

Can you state the years when any of this existed?

When the country created laws that tried benefiting people to one degree or another. Laws that Trump is repealing or eradicating, which shows we were better of before than we are now. Did we reach the ideal I described? As I said, no, but it was bending in that general direction, and that's enough. 

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

There's a 2% of GDP target that only 5 NATO countries are hitting.

Link? Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see who is and isn't hitting the 2% target and how much less than the 2% target each are actually contributing.  

If all true, then I do agree that everyone should pay, but Trump is trying to get NATO allies to do that in the worst ways possible.

Bigliest negotiator eh?  

19 hours ago, Jason said:

 

I do think Germany is legit freeloading on not just the US but NATO as a whole. The US could definitely afford to spend less than we do but it's still obnoxious to see Germans lecturing us about our spending priorities being out of whack and how their system is so much better when part of the way they afford their system is by letting other countries pay to defend them.

 

And to whatever extent Canada can be argued to be freeloading...I mean, you just have to look at a map to understand why that's simply not as a big of a deal as Germany doing it.

From my understanding though NATO allies pay proportionally respective to their GDP's, correct? Are any actually in debt to us over that? Are some not contributing proportionally to us but relative to their GDP?

15 hours ago, osxmatt said:

Is The Hill intentionally leaving out part of the story? I assumed you thread title was sensationalism, but it’s literally out of pure spite.

 

How is this not the top story of every major news outlet?

You're so cute.

I mean that in the most genuine, nicest way possible. No condescension. 

This story fucking should be. If only . . . 

3 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

"Rookie mistake" instead of "corrupt intent."

DING DING DING

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

She should be prosecuted.

Yep. 

53 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

It turns out we accidentally bought a shitty prebuilt that can't be upgraded. 

#notmydesktop

43 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

It's not fixable, our dumbness is our minimum spec and everything will be designed for it.

But that's not how it works with desktop PC's! 

1 minute ago, Jason said:

A very fine person. 

I heard there are good people, nice people, on both sides. 

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Then that's your answer right there as to what it should never happen.

Sorry, I didn't fully understand that. What do you mean?

Just now, mclumber1 said:

NYAG, and possibly other state AGs, should pursue crimes that are state level and not mirrored federally, just in case this ploy is successful.

This is the loophole I'm sure would be used when and if possible. But you can't pin like-for-like crimes in every instance, or even similar ones to force a re-litigation. It's something though. 

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

This is is a situation where there should be no exceptions whatsoever.  Within the legal system, this should be as ironclad as the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury of trial.

Eh, I don't think so. We already have appellate review, I don't think it's hard to imagine allowing a state court to re-open a case using an appellate review process to re-litigate a case where something extreme happened that can't be re-litigated at the federal level (for whatever reason).

I think it's dangerous to make the argument you're making because the need for re-litigation at different judicial levels has happened before and I like at least a window to remain open for that possibility. I doubt it could be abused, if legislated correctly. Highly suspect judicial cases do exist.