Ahhh, ok...so, they're not blackballed...but you can't think of one...but you not being able to think of one has nothing to do with the fact that queer actors aren't even good enough to play queer characters. Because of COURSE straights can play queers better.


Am I Understanding You Correctly?,
Dylan

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.
:LGBTQFlag:

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls"]YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!![/ame]

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

Well here ya go enjoy
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tHppucxMrM"]YouTube- Lady Kisses: That's Gay[/ame]

No, just a rude one. Is this the red zone?

Cool thread. [insert IMHO here]

Tom Hanks was amazing in Philadelphia. I haven't seen Milk, so no rating Sean Penn's performance. What they both have in common though for studio producers is bankable star quality. Studios want to put names that can sell a movie, into their productions. They like to break even and make a few bucks (bucks - translated to mean millions and millions).

An actor's "bankable" name depends on you and I, as consumers. But we are a small drop in the bucket when it comes down to getting people to shell out money at the box office. Demographics come into play. Studios also often screen a movie with several test audiences to see if it has that right combination of actors/storyline. If it doesn't they take it back to the drawing board and tweak it.

All of those creative juices are also watched by groups like GLAAD and other groups. Lots of tweaking goes on, more than likely.

That reminds me, there were a number of various groups that came out against Avatar. It was an equal opportunity offending film, apparently. But in spite of that, it had bankable people involved with the production.

There is more to it than blatantly discriminating. Studios will continue to make movies, that make them money. [/imho]

This just in.
 

[insert IMHO here]

We are fortunate though, that movies today are made without the guidance of the "Motion Picture Production Code" that used to regulate the industry from 1930 to 1968. The code came about in response to the horrific scandals of that time period. It was decided that Hollywood aka "Sin City" needed cleaning up. Lawd sakes, the field day evengelicals would have if they got their hands onto Hollywood today!

Mr. Will H. Hays, a prominent Republican was at the helm of setting the law in that day. And given how diligent he and other Republicans of that era were diligent in their duties, I still am at a loss to understand why there are gay Republicans. But that's another discussion thread.[/end IMHO]

I think a lot of television and movies desensitize people to rape and violence against women myself, and it bothers me too. I rarely watch tv and don't watch a lot of violent movies either so my opinion is taken from that perspective.

It doesn't bother me if straight actors play queer parts if the part itself and story line is a good one. If the role/story line is perpetuating stereotypes then having a queer actor really isn't going to do much good.

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

My own two cents...

Doesn't bother me at all when a straight actor plays a homosexual. Doesn't bother me when a homosexual actor plays a straight role. It's called ACTING. Whoever does it best gets the part. Yay for them.

Did this show air yet?

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

Now, by using straight actors to 'play gay', what does that say to mainstream (homophobic) America? If I go to my neighbor (who's straight), and I say 'act gay'. What's the first thing my straight neighbor is probably going to do? He's probably going to lisp, show me the limp wrist, flutter around, etc. He's going to 'act' based on stereotypes...which perpetuates stereotypes.

And now a question for you. If you see nothing wrong with straights playing gay (while gays are kept out of the career field), can you please break down the difference between white actors doing blackface or men playing drag roles, because women weren't allowed to be actors? Can you tell me the difference?


Thanks,
Dylan...keeping it brief, because there's a helluva lot more to break down in straights 'playing gay'.

I loved this http://www.virginmedia.com/images/ph...ongfoo-350.jpg

I don't think it could have been done any better, by anyone else.

Since when is Vin Diesel gay?

really?

:hippie:

Thanks :D I watched this.
at WORK. :innocent:

wednesday night it comes on :)