08-13-2018

[Foo]

so looks like ruby rose is on her way to being bullied out of her role as batwoman, the same way that scarlet johannson had been bullied out of her role. we'll have to wait to see if it actually happens, but it's headed down that way.

Maybe they should try not to be pussies about everything? Who cares what people are saying on twitter? Do they not have any gumption or mind of their own?

[Foo]

Let's be clear, Disney held James Gunn's future in their hands and chose to crush it. No third party exposing who he is should be blamed or those making commentary, it is 100% Disney.

And they had to, because they wanted to play politics just weeks earlier, and not doing so would look awful. He was the lamb to the slaughter.

[DancesWithWerewolves]

39,287 words. By far the longest I've written so far. Got a good boost by applying all that shit I had previously written that went nowhere from a totally separate project, provided good background for one of the characters.

*dances*

Oh and it involved werewolves.

*dances with werewolves*

[DancesWithWerewolves]

Let's be clear, Disney held James Gunn's future in their hands and chose to crush it. No third party exposing who he is should be blamed or those making commentary, it is 100% Disney.

And they had to, because they wanted to play politics just weeks earlier, and not doing so would look awful. He was the lamb to the slaughter.

That's not far off from how I saw it. Disney knew before they hired him.

[zombie]

so looks like ruby rose is on her way to being bullied out of her role as batwoman, the same way that scarlet johannson had been bullied out of her role. we'll have to wait to see if it actually happens, but it's headed down that way.

Maybe they should try not to be pussies about everything? Who cares what people are saying on twitter? Do they not have any gumption or mind of their own?

maybe disney shouldn't be pussies. and in the case of rose cw shouldn't be pussies. you're right. and johansson shouldn't have stepped away either from whatever company was doing that gangster trans flick. but it happened. is it too much to ask that maybe assholes shouldn't be assholes too?

[Foo]

so looks like ruby rose is on her way to being bullied out of her role as batwoman, the same way that scarlet johannson had been bullied out of her role. we'll have to wait to see if it actually happens, but it's headed down that way.

Maybe they should try not to be pussies about everything? Who cares what people are saying on twitter? Do they not have any gumption or mind of their own?

maybe disney shouldn't be pussies. and in the case of rose cw shouldn't be pussies. you're right. and johansson shouldn't have stepped away either from whatever company was doing that gangster trans flick. but it happened. is it too much to ask that maybe assholes shouldn't be assholes too?

ScarJo is a hot babe who will make $100m in her lifetime. Maybe she shouldn't worry about what basement dwellers think?

Asshole gonna asshole. Whatever happened to "Stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?". Now it is like, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but if I am not virtue signaling every five minutes and someone calls out my hypocrisy, I am going to have an anxiety attack.".

[Foo]

I have a simple guide in regards to bullying and butthurt:

If the person has earned my respect, admiration, and or love, they can hurt me with words. If not, they are ants in the afterbirth and can go fuck right off.

[zombie]

actors make their livings on their image. if that image starts to be attacked, it probably can lead to anxiety. and i don't think it was so much the words from the twits but what those words could do to their immediate careers, if not long term.

[Foo]

And here is the thing with ScarJo, she is an advocate, so you know she would be a good shepherd in her role.

the Ruby chick feels kinda unearned, as though her promotion of her sexuality won her a big part.

[Foo]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peo ... 35651.html

[zombie]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

[zombie]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peo ... 35651.html

people being assholes again. i don't even know that guy is though.

but it sucks cause this is going to make right leaning people point the finger to say that "see, diversity and representation with different types of characters and actors to play them is a bad idea" and it's not. not at all.

[Foo]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

Just rubs me weird in general that your sexuality would become the topic of discussion for a job. Surprised liberals do not feel this way. It is not like a good chunk of leading men have not been packing the fudge since the silent film era.

[Foo]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peo ... 35651.html

people being assholes again. i don't even know that guy is though.

but it sucks cause this is going to make right leaning people point the finger to say that "see, diversity and representation with different types of characters and actors to play them is a bad idea" and it's not. not at all.

Let's say he is bi or gay but dates women. Should he need to be publicly outed or something to appease liberals that he is right for the job?

[zombie]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

Just rubs me weird in general that your sexuality would become the topic of discussion for a job. Surprised liberals do not feel this way. It is not like a good chunk of leading men have not been packing the fudge since the silent film era.

why not give more opportunity to openly gay actors? does it mean less roles for straight actors? probably not at all, if you're honest. why not give more opportunity to minority actors? does it mean less roles for white actors? again not if we're being honest. more representation in roles, and in how those roles are cast, is not the bad thing that some people want to try to make it be.

[zombie]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peo ... 35651.html

people being assholes again. i don't even know that guy is though.

but it sucks cause this is going to make right leaning people point the finger to say that "see, diversity and representation with different types of characters and actors to play them is a bad idea" and it's not. not at all.

Let's say he is bi or gay but dates women. Should he need to be publicly outed or something to appease liberals that he is right for the job?

no. he shouldn't have to be. and should the role be rewritten to not be gay at all, to appease conservatives? we can talk to extremes if that's really what you want.

[Foo]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

Just rubs me weird in general that your sexuality would become the topic of discussion for a job. Surprised liberals do not feel this way. It is not like a good chunk of leading men have not been packing the fudge since the silent film era.

why not give more opportunity to openly gay actors? does it mean less roles for straight actors? probably not at all, if you're honest. why not give more opportunity to minority actors? does it mean less roles for white actors? again not if we're being honest. more representation in roles, and in how those roles are cast, is not the bad thing that some people want to try to make it be.

Why consider their sexuality at all? Imagine for a moment you are reading for a part that requires you to kiss a woman. Should there be a discussion about who you are intimate with in real life? Should they dig through your social media to make sure you are straight enough?

The whole thing is so weird. Surely you see the difference between a person's appearance and a screen role and their personal sexual preferences? I don't think Conan the Barbarian should be played by a fat slob because that has never been the physical description of Conan. Who the actor sleeps with in real life matters not.

[Foo]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/peo ... 35651.html

people being assholes again. i don't even know that guy is though.

but it sucks cause this is going to make right leaning people point the finger to say that "see, diversity and representation with different types of characters and actors to play them is a bad idea" and it's not. not at all.

Let's say he is bi or gay but dates women. Should he need to be publicly outed or something to appease liberals that he is right for the job?

no. he shouldn't have to be. and should the role be rewritten to not be gay at all, to appease conservatives? we can talk to extremes if that's really what you want.

Is the role even gay? Does he give handjobs or make out with other men on the Disney ride?

[zombie]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

Just rubs me weird in general that your sexuality would become the topic of discussion for a job. Surprised liberals do not feel this way. It is not like a good chunk of leading men have not been packing the fudge since the silent film era.

why not give more opportunity to openly gay actors? does it mean less roles for straight actors? probably not at all, if you're honest. why not give more opportunity to minority actors? does it mean less roles for white actors? again not if we're being honest. more representation in roles, and in how those roles are cast, is not the bad thing that some people want to try to make it be.

Why consider their sexuality at all? Imagine for a moment you are reading for a part that requires you to kiss a woman. Should there be a discussion about who you are intimate with in real life? Should they dig through your social media to make sure you are straight enough?

The whole thing is so weird. Surely you see the difference between a person's appearance and a screen role and their personal sexual preferences? I don't think Conan the Barbarian should be played by a fat slob because that has never been the physical description of Conan. Who the actor sleeps with in real life matters not.

how long has it been that gay actors were passed over because they were openly gay? is that not to do with who they sleep with? it shouldn't matter, but for a long time, it mattered the other way. a move away from that is a positive move, in my opinion.

[Foo]

scarlett would probably have been good for awareness and of success for similar movies down the line.so it's a shame she got pushed out.

ruby rose may not have earned it. or maybe she just hasn't had the chance to prove herself as an actress. you can't earn anything or prove anything, if you don't get cast. *shrug*

Just rubs me weird in general that your sexuality would become the topic of discussion for a job. Surprised liberals do not feel this way. It is not like a good chunk of leading men have not been packing the fudge since the silent film era.

why not give more opportunity to openly gay actors? does it mean less roles for straight actors? probably not at all, if you're honest. why not give more opportunity to minority actors? does it mean less roles for white actors? again not if we're being honest. more representation in roles, and in how those roles are cast, is not the bad thing that some people want to try to make it be.

Why consider their sexuality at all? Imagine for a moment you are reading for a part that requires you to kiss a woman. Should there be a discussion about who you are intimate with in real life? Should they dig through your social media to make sure you are straight enough?

The whole thing is so weird. Surely you see the difference between a person's appearance and a screen role and their personal sexual preferences? I don't think Conan the Barbarian should be played by a fat slob because that has never been the physical description of Conan. Who the actor sleeps with in real life matters not.

how long has it been that gay actors were passed over because they were openly gay? is that not to do with who they sleep with? it shouldn't matter, but for a long time, it mattered the other way. a move away from that is a positive move, in my opinion.

Never? Gay actors have never struggled for parts. There is a reason why drama and theater are gay stereoypes.