Batwoman (2019)

[Frontier]

Not really unless you agree a show about straight characters and not focusing on diversity should practice what it preaches in terms of casting.

It's all about equality and acting ability/do they fit the character, an actor should not be blocked or prejudiced because of his/her sexuality, nor should he/she gain any specialty over it.

Yeah, but in a world of inequality I think it's better to push actors in diverse roles that actually fit those roles instead of casting someone who doesn't.

[Slowpokeking]

Yeah, but in a world of inequality I think it's better to push actors in diverse roles that actually fit those roles instead of casting someone who doesn't.

Inequality will not help fight against inequality, it will only cause bigger gap and push more ppl to your opposite side.

Imagine if a straight actor who had no issue with LGBT and wanted to audition but got blocked.

In a world of inequality, if you want to change it, the last thing you need to do is create more inequality.

[thefinalguy]

The amount of LGBT actors playing straight roles isn't comparable to the massive amount of straight actors portraying LGBT characters.

The discrepancy can't be compared since it's not on an equal footing, to begin with.

Especially since a large amount of LGBT actors historically have gotten blocked from roles and other jobs for their identification.

[Slowpokeking]

The amount of LGBT actors playing straight roles isn't comparable to the massive amount of straight actors portraying LGBT characters.

The discrepancy can't be compared since it's not on an equal footing, to begin with.

Especially since a large amount of LGBT actors historically have gotten blocked from roles and other jobs for their identification.

Doesn't matter, equality is equality. You want to bring equality you need to respect it, not to create another specialty.

Many of the straight actors don't have anything to do with the prejudice at all, why should they be blocked from the role and got their rights take away? How is it solving the problem at all? Some LGBT actors might even fit straight roles better than LGBT ones.

Block someone from a role because of sexuality offstage=WRONG. It doesn't matter which way.

The right way=choose actor based on their skill and do they fit the role, regardless of they are LGBT or not.

[Bat-Meal]

Would you prefer that the new actress, whoever she may be, start off with a suit of the same design for consistency, or go with a whole new design? Or just a new Cowl (since that kept changing with RR in season 1 anyway)?

I mean, typically I'd say be consistent, but throughout the first season (including Elseworlds) the cowl kept changing with no real explanation anyway. I recall a throwaway line at one point where Luke says he's upgrading the cowl, but that was about it. I didn't mind the chin-strap going, I could take it or leave it, but like most I hated the removal of the neck covering. No doubt these changes were related to RR's allergies, which they said in interviews there were problems with, hence the cowl changing to get cotton-lining and stuff.

I guess the cowl with come down to the actress's face structure, as to whether she needs a chin-strap or not. But please please, cover her neck, heh.

They will literally have a new suit and cowl regardless of if they keep the same design, since those things are so form-fitted, apparently they take 3D scans of the actors - or so I heard in some interviews a while back.

[thefinalguy]

Doesn't matter; equality is equality. You want to bring equality you need to respect it, not to create another specialty.

Many of the straight actors don't have anything to do with the prejudice at all, why should they be blocked from the role and got their rights take away? How is it solving the problem at all? Some LGBT actors might even fit straight roles better than LGBT ones.

Block someone from a role because of sexuality offstage=WRONG. It doesn't matter which way.

The right way=choose actor based on their skill and do they fit the role, regardless of they are LGBT or not.

Straight actors will still have more opportunities than their counterparts; not getting the role of Batwoman won't change the fact they have a fair shot at a bunch of other roles (the various amount of female superheroes, for instance). There aren't many leading roles for lesbian so, why not allow to play one?

If it were based upon skill, this discussion wouldn't be had; straight actors, ones that fit a certain standard of masculine or feminine, especially, won't struggle to find work.

It wouldn't make much sense if Supergirl cast a cis actress to portray Nia Nal (and I am aware the character wasn't always trans) when there are so few roles for trans women to portray now.

Blocking doesn't go both ways because it's never in favor of LGBT actors, to begin with, so until that stops, I'm just finding myself a bit unsympathetic to a straight actress not being able to get this ONE specific role. Especially in comparison to a lesbian or WLW actress who is afforded fewer opportunities

[Frontier]

Imagine if a straight actor who had no issue with LGBT and wanted to audition but got blocked.

That's great for an actor that they're fine with LGBT roles but if they are looking for someone more authentic to convey an LGBT character, I think that is totally fine.

[Slowpokeking]

Straight actors will still have more opportunities than their counterparts; not getting the role of Batwoman won't change the fact they have a fair shot at a bunch of other roles (the various amount of female superheroes, for instance). There aren't many leading roles for lesbian so, why not allow to play one?

If it were based upon skill, this discussion wouldn't be had; straight actors, ones that fit a certain standard of masculine or feminine, especially, won't struggle to find work.

It wouldn't make much sense if Supergirl cast a cis actress to portray Nia Nal (and I am aware the character wasn't always trans) when there are so few roles for trans women to portray now.

Blocking doesn't go both ways because it's never in favor of LGBT actors, to begin with, so until that stops, I'm just finding myself a bit unsympathetic to a straight actress not being able to get this ONE specific role. Especially in comparison to a lesbian or WLW actress who is afforded fewer opportunities

No, straight actors are different individuals, there is no "more chance" for low profile ones, it might be their big chance to breakthrough. Some LGBT actors might have better status. You are simply making excuse for inequality here.

Same thing, if a LGBT actor is really good, he/she doesn't need specialty on LGBT roles at all.

I don't mind a trans to play SG as long as she is convincing, fair is fair.

Block does go both ways, if you truly want equality, stop with all the nonsense of specialty. Otherwise it's simply anti-straight prejudice.

[Slowpokeking]

That's great for an actor that they're fine with LGBT roles but if they are looking for someone more authentic to convey an LGBT character, I think that is totally fine.

What does sexuality offstage have to do with the character's sexuality?

If that makes sense, then you are giving ppl reason to block LGBT actors for straight roles because they could be less "authentic".

This is why equality is equality, there is no excuse to ask for specialty.

[Frontier]

I don't see the issue of wanting more authenticity with a LGBT actor playing the lead LGBT character in an LGBT show.

How is that a bad thing in any respect? It's like casting for a specific ethnicity.

What does sexuality offstage have to do with the character's sexuality?

If that makes sense, then you are giving ppl reason to block LGBT actors for straight roles because they could be less "authentic".

This is why equality is equality, there is no excuse to ask for specialty.

I think someone who is genuinely LGBT brings more authenticity to the role then someone who isn't, and people can see more of themselves in an actor who can genuinely express themselves in a role on a show instead of having a straight actor pretend to be gay.

I don't think this is really difficult to understand.

[Slowpokeking]

I don't see the issue of wanting more authenticity with a LGBT actor playing the lead LGBT character in an LGBT show.

How is that a bad thing in any respect? It's like casting for a specific ethnicity.

By that logic, I don't see the issue of wanting more authenticity with a straight actor playing the lead straight character in an straight show.

Ethnicity matters because of the looks on screen, and it should be fair both ways as well. Sexuality isn't and it should be fair both ways, too.

[Frontier]

By that logic, I don't see the issue of wanting more authenticity with a straight actor playing the lead straight character in an straight show.

Ethnicity matters because of the looks on screen, and it should be fair both ways as well. Sexuality isn't and it should be fair both ways, too.

I think people of different sexualities would likely feel very differently about that.

[Slowpokeking]

I think people of different sexualities would likely feel very differently about that.

Actually both groups have ppl who got similar thoughts. Some of them thought their roles shouldn't be played by ppl with different sexuality, some of them don't mind it at all.

The right way is always about pick the right actor and not be bothered with their personal sexuality. Also if the role could be simply identified by the sexuality, then this character must be very shallow.

I think someone who is genuinely LGBT brings more authenticity to the role then someone who isn't, and people can see more of themselves in an actor who can genuinely express themselves in a role on a show instead of having a straight actor pretend to be gay.

I don't think this is really difficult to understand.

You know you are giving straight ppl reason to block LGBT actors from straight roles?

[Frontier]

Actually both groups have ppl who got similar thoughts. Some of them thought their roles shouldn't be played by ppl with different sexuality, some of them don't mind it at all.

The right way is always about pick the right actor and not be bothered with their personal sexuality. Also if the role could be simply identified by the sexuality, then this character must be very shallow.

I see more LGBT people wanting to see them represented on film on every front then being fine with straight people portraying them on TV.

You know you are giving straight ppl reason to block LGBT actors from straight roles?

I think it's more complicated then that.

[Jokerz79]

First and foremost the best actor who audiences should get the role period IMO. But I also support an LGBT actor getting an LGBT role for one reason a lot of straight people including actors just aren't comfortable with performing acts of gay intimacy I'm not talking about sex but intimacy things like hugging, holding hands, or kissing and it comes off as inauthentic and clunky. I'm straight and you can always tell when an straight actors heart isn't in it and their body language with their love interest comes off like friends or they're kissing their aunt or something.

Before someone says well then gays shouldn't get straight roles by that logic. Well some shouldn't if it comes off as fake but many gays spend a portion of their lives in the closet and thus try to pass as straight and have relationships with people of the opposite sex and become comfortable with acts of intimacy with the opposite sex even if they don't get much or any enjoyment on a sexual level from it. This comfort zone is why I feel gay playing straight works more better than straight playing gay.

But then again why worry to quote RDJ in Tropic Thunder "Man everyone's gay once in a while it's Hollywood."