Batwoman (2019)

[Slowpokeking]

Would you have a white actor still playing Asians simply because the white actor was a higher profile actor, such as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, David Carradine in Kung Fu.

Would you have a LGBT actor to play a straight character? If your answer is yes, then you have no ground to stand in this argument.

But have a lesbian play a lesbian already gives them a starting point. So some of the work is already done. Less work to go from there than the work trying to justify a straight playing a lesbian.

So have a straight guy play a straight character already gives them a starting point?

Many actors don't have any problem portraying different sexuality, the opposite also works. Just like real life couple might not work on stage.

[Slowpokeking]

Kate has plenty of depth as a character. Her sexuality plays a role in the type of person she is. Part of her origin has her dishonorably discharge from military because of DADT.

Then why should her sexuality be such a big thing. What does it have to with the actor's sexuality at all?

[j9ac9k]

Can we just agree to disagree about what y'all see as the greater good when it comes to the cultural importance of representation and casting of actors?

[Bat-Meal]

Let's all just wait for a casting announcement.

[Kieran_Frost]

If I can weigh in... as an actor who is gay. I'm not bothered by str8 actors playing gay roles. It's acting, not living. It's ultimately "fake", so what's one more lie? Times are slowly changing for gay actors too (mostly thanks to LGBT+ producers, writers and directors actively making a point of hiring openly LGBT+ actors -- like Ryan Murphy). Being gay isn't the career killer it was pre-2000; but it's still an issue at the upper echelon. Let's not pretend it isn't, some roles are still blocked to LGBT+ actors. But that's a side bar. I WILL ADD... this arguement is not the same for trans roles, as the more open decisions of roles and casting is still not there, so ONLY trans actors should play trans roles, until we get better at casting trans actors in non-trans roles.

I understand the desire to have an openly LGBT+ actor play Batwoman, I really do, but it is not a necessity. Not at all. It matters the character is a lesbian, it matters that her sexuality is depicted as fairly and frequently as ANY str8 hero. It does not matter the actual actor is LGBT+, the same way it doesn't matter if the actual actor is a crime fighter. It's fake. So... fake your sexuality. The ONLY situations I can think of where I'm bothered by the sexuality of the actor playing an LGBT+ role

• that actress cast as the lead role in the Color Purple on the West End, only for lots of ant-gay tweets to surface. She does NOT support gay people, she thinks it's a sin. So trying to boost her career by playing a famous LGBT+ character offends me. Luckily she got fired and her career is ruined. Good!
• I might get slack for this... Darren Criss. I HATED his self-flagellation about "not playing gay roles anymore". Oh f*ck off. You use us, make your millions, win your awards, and THEN get sanctimoniousness about not doing it. Just f*ck off.

They do, that's the basic definition of equality. Of course they have the rights to speak for what they want to see. Basic rights doesn't get affected regardless if you are the majority or minority. They are the audience and they have the right to complain if you think one group has such rights.

This arguement only holds weight if we lived in an equilibrium utopia. We don't, so it's very flawed. It ignores ALL context.

[Slowpokeking]

LGBT actors got blocked with straight roles has nothing to do with 99% of the straight actors who wanted to audition for these LGBT roles. Trying to create specialty would only push them, which means more ppl to the opposite side by taking their fair chances away. Also all of those reasons could be used to further block LGBT actors.

This arguement only holds weight if we lived in an equilibrium utopia. We don't, so it's very flawed. It ignores ALL context.

To move towards equality, the last thing to do is to create more specialty.

You can't claim for equality but support specialty, it's gonna destroy the whole purpose from the core. "This world is flawed already, so we need to create more inequality?" It doesn't hold up at all.

[Kieran_Frost]

LGBT actors got blocked with straight roles has nothing to do with 99% of the straight actors who wanted to audition for these LGBT roles.

???

To move towards equality, the last thing to do is to create more specialty.

The first step to moving towards equality is acknowledging it is currently not equal... which you keep tiptoeing around...

[Slowpokeking]

???


The first step to moving towards equality is acknowledging it is currently not equal... which you keep tiptoeing around...

And then to create more inequality and push more ppl to the opposite side, instead of pushing for equality by letting everyone compete fairly?

[Kieran_Frost]

And then to create more inequality and push more ppl to the opposite side, instead of pushing for equality by letting everyone compete fairly?

But it's not equal. Trying to make it "equal" when it's not, by requiring only one side play fair is absurd. No openly LGBT+ actor has ever won Best Actor or Actress at the Oscars. Plenty of str8 actors have won those awards for playing gay roles though. That's not balance. When sexuality effects getting cast in the juiciest roles, that's not equal. When people still have to be closeted in Hollywood because the big bucks still won't build a $100 million film on them, when action starts still have to be "str8". When franchises like Harry Potter, Star Wars, MCU ignore LGBT+ even exist... come on.

Look: imagine one side has been adding four weights to a scale, and for every three they put on the left, they add one weight on the right side. And this continued to for a long time, and now suddenly we are adding two to the left and two to the right. Is the scale balanced? NO. You can't find balance until you first address and correct the mistakes of the past, and you don't achieve that by saying "but but but EQUALITY!"

I'm not saying only LGBT+ actors can play LGBT+ roles; I'm saying it's not currently equal. Which it isn't. I'm saying context matters. Which it does. I'm saying the arguement of "make it equal" is fatally flawed until we find a better equilibrium to redress the scales, not just start playing fair so far down the line.

[Slowpokeking]

But it's not equal.

Then push it for equality, not doing the opposite.

It's like saying this world is full of violence then grab a gun to shoot innocent ppl.

Trying to make it "equal" when it's not, by requiring only one side play fair is absurd.

Nonsense, nobody is stopping you from asking the others to play fair, but since you are playing unfair yourself, then obviously you get less convincing to ask other ppl to be fair.

No openly LGBT+ actor has ever won Best Actor or Actress at the Oscars. Plenty of str8 actors have won those awards for playing gay roles though. That's not balance. When sexuality effects getting cast in the juiciest roles, that's not equal. When people still have to be closeted in Hollywood because the big bucks still won't build a $100 million film on them, when action starts still have to be "str8". When franchises like Harry Potter, Star Wars, MCU ignore LGBT+ even exist... come on.

What does Oscar have to do with it? Openly LGBT actors are already a small number, it's totally possible that it doesn't have anything to do with gender. Far many more straight actors missed Oscar. Neither Peter O'toole(0/8) nor Deborah Kerr(0/6) are LGBT

You want LGBT actors to get fair chance, go for it, you want them to be able to go out from the closet, go for it. But NONE of it got to do with bringing up inequality and blocking straight actors' chance for LGBT roles.

Look: imagine one side has been adding four weights to a scale, and for every three they put on the left, they add one weight on the right side. And this continued to for a long time, and now suddenly we are adding two to the left and two to the right. Is the scale balanced? NO. You can't find balance until you first address and correct the mistakes of the past, and you don't achieve that by saying "but but but EQUALITY!"

It doesn't work like that. It's like white ppl kill innocent black ppl and black ppl kill innocent white ppl for "balance". Is it going to work? NO, it's only going to get the situation worse. Using wrong method would only cause bigger problem. Remember neither straight nor LGBT ppl are a whole, you are blocking those who got nothing to do with your problem.

You can support straight roles to be fair with LGBT, but not bringing up specialty.

I'm not saying only LGBT+ actors can play LGBT+ roles; I'm saying it's not currently equal. Which it isn't. I'm saying context matters. Which it does. I'm saying the arguement of "make it equal" is fatally flawed until we find a better equilibrium to redress the scales, not just start playing fair so far down the line.

Then stop adding more inequality, this world is bad is not a reason for you to take away innocent ppl's rights.

[Immortal Weapon]

Telling a discriminated group how they need to fight for equality is lulz worthy to me.

[Slowpokeking]

Telling a discriminated group how they need to fight for equality is lulz worthy to me.

So a discriminated group is granted the rights to rob other innocent individuals? And are you sure this is the way to solve the problem? Do you even realize how dangerous this thought is?

I guess you must be a supporter of Killmonger in Black Panther right?

[Immortal Weapon]

I guess you must be a supporter of Killmonger in Black Panther right?

I am. Killmonger is my dude.

[Slowpokeking]

I am. Killmonger is my dude.

And his way is not gonna solve the problem, as it was made clear.

[Sutekh]

I am. Killmonger is my dude.

Seriously, who isn't a fan of Killmonger?

And yeah. Nobody is being 'robbed' of a chance to play a role that's specifically meant for someone else. They weren't going to get the job anyway.

I mean, good grief, get a job playing one of the 23,874 straight characters on TV. We're far from a dying demographic.