I think the language I've been trying to consistently use is "should", not "must". I appreciate it's a bit of a tedious difference, but it is a difference, because some people seem to be acting like this is The Gay Agenda forced upon their lives, here. It's the opinion of a gay dude who writes TV (and possibly other stuff, I haven't kept up with his work).
I'm talking about Davies' opinion, not yours. He, not you, has the authority to make hiring decisions regarding who gets to act in his projects. That's what producers, directors, and casting directors do. Davies, as a writer/producer, obviously has opinions that could mean the difference between employment and unemployment for an actor, based on that actor's RL sexuality. That is DISCRIMINATION. It's unethical, and wrong.
And I'll admit: I don't like the way he <mucked up> Doctor Who. He did a terrible job on that show, and is one of the reasons I don't watch it anymore. But I'd despise his "reveal your intimate personal details on your resume so I'll know if I want to cast you" views no matter what his involvement may or may not have been in nuWho.
As for your "Gay Agenda" crack... I know you were addressing someone else, but I am not perceiving anyone in this thread who is worried about that (well, okay, I did see one when re-reading the last couple of pages - but that isn't me). I don't want to see
anyone lose a job based on sexual orientation. There are actually laws against that in Canada; sexual orientation is one of the bases for discrimination in the Charter, and people have recourse to their province's Human Rights Commission as well.
For example, it doesn't matter to you. I get that. It's going to be a relative personal investment, or lack of one. So what is your investment here, exactly, if it doesn't matter who gets cast assuming the end product is decent? Is it this "reverse discrimination" argument? I want to understand where you're coming from.
Discrimination is discrimination. Do not try to convince me that there are only some segments of society that can be discriminated against. It won't work. Save your typing.
To that end, I care because progressive causes are something that are important to me. And heck, that isn't even Davies' stance (he says so himself). But the greater cause is definitely more progressive than it isn't. So I care, because LGBTQ folks have historically been shut out of what could be defining roles for reasons completely unrelated to their actual talent.
I don't disagree that they've been shut out. But Davies is advocating shutting out everyone whose stated sexuality doesn't match that of the character they're auditioning to play. That is discrimination, no matter which side it's coming from or which side it's directed at.
I dislike being mischaracterised, so I'll read what I like, thanks. Posts are typically edited (by me) because there's a problem in them that only appears on subsequent reads. Given that I edited it within minutes of posting it, that's something you've been sitting on all day, huh? Or overnight, more likely, given timezones. Maybe that's the cause for your unwarranted attitude.
Maybe you should realize how the forum software actually works. I have my preferences set to instant email notifications of new replies. That means I am sent the original version of your post, not the edited version. So if you say something I don't like, editing it won't help. It's going to remain in my email archive until I decide to delete it (if I decide; there are some posts and PMs from CFC in my archive that date back over 10 years - because I've learned over the years and on multiple forums that it's a good thing sometimes to be able to prove who said what in a contentious situation, and all the editing and deleting on the site won't erase my own records).
Further to that - I don't keep typical North American hours. So don't go by my location when you're assuming when I've read something. And also keep in mind that when I'm replying to something, I might take a few hours, or even a couple of days to compose a reply - either because I'm busy with a lot of other things, or because I'm putting a lot of thought into my post. The final time stamp may be much later than when I started composing my reply.
Given that hypoglycemia is not the sole purview of people with diabetes (though it's definitely a primary demographic), I can imagine that non-diabetic people in fact do.
This sentence is unclear. Do what?
But you missed my point. You can't teach, or instruct someone, to feel what living in a homophobic society (or family) feels like. You can teach someone to use a (fake) autoinjector. People have been acting various forms of passing out (and more advanced medical sequences) for decades.
You've missed MY point. You can't teach
either of them what it's like to feel those unique aspects of being in whatever demographic we're talking about.
Whatever.
You place too much sanctity on the notion that a show somehow deserves to get made.
Where did I say that
anything deserves to get made? My point is that if someone wants to make a movie or TV show or produce a play (remember that my background is in musical theatre, with some dinner theatre on the side - tech side of things, so the production aspect of things is what I'm most familiar with and I
have attended auditions), they should not be restricted to choosing their cast based on the actors' private intimate lives, nor should actors be forced to disclose this information against their own wishes just to get a job, if they'd prefer not to. Actors should not be put at risk of losing a job just because their own sexuality doesn't match that of the characters they want to be hired to portray. And a producer should not be put at risk of having to shut down a project if he can't find an actor capable of doing justice to the main character just because the best candidate happens to be the "wrong" sexuality in RL.
You could argue I'm arguing too much about what pain or trauma is worth vetting more than others, but that's my entire point. It is a spectrum when it comes to determining the portrayal of a subject in film or television, and subjects on the more sensitive end of that spectrum absolutely should be treated with more respect for authenticity.
Treated with more respect, absolutely. But we're talking about a producer who thinks it's his business what actors do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
I'm not refusing to connect anything. Maybe you need to stop arguing with a version of me that isn't the one writing these posts? You're being demonstrably combative for no reason, and I doubt you'd like the same in response. Nobody would.
2 Pot, meet kettle. You have done nothing BUT argue with me, even on the occasions when we're actually in agreement (not something that happens often, but whatever). You keep claiming you "don't understand" my posts, which seem to be perfectly understandable by the majority of the posters in this thread, so I have no idea what your problem is, other than a habit you have of arguing with me and claiming you don't understand my points.
Please stop stressing yourself and just don't read my posts, if you find them so difficult. Or take it to PM and make a sincere, good-faith effort to understand, because whatever you're up to here, it's not a good-faith effort.
You're cherrypicking specific, highly-unique examples as though it proves an overarching point. No. You're picking these because they're unique. You're trying to gotcha the suggested principle because there are things that might be made that are arguably near-impossible to recreate authentically. There are always exceptions to any rule (in the context of casting for film and TV, for the record). However, your example misses the mark. The specific thing you use to highlight the unique nature of Takei's life is his internment in a WWII camp (I despise "relocation centre"). You're going to struggle to find people who fit that regardless of Takei being gay or not. And yes, that is something that again you should probably consult people on if making such a biopic. The least you could is try and cast a gay Japanese-American (though, notably, Takei is American-born). No? Or is that too much effort for a biopic of such a well-known and well-regarded actor?
Oh, please. It's called
using an example. I used an example of a hypothetical situation involving an actor whose Trek-related work I'm very familiar with, including his work on a highly-regarded ST fan film. I could have used any other actor as an example, but I'm using Takei to show just how many boxes Davies would need to tick to get the
perfect actor according to his views that no straight person should ever play a gay character. If his views ever became actual rules, there would be a hell of a lot of people out of work, based on something in their own private lives and which should have no bearing whatsoever in their ability to entertain an audience.
You're putting the show before the people the (completely theoretical, invented for the purposes of this discussion) show is meant to be about. Arguably, that's not how you make a good show. Nobody is suggesting Hollywood haul up someone who can't act so long as they're gay and Japanese-American. Nobody is suggesting you out actors or actresses to their bigoted relatives to make sure they're a decent fit for the role. These are things you're making up to demonise the suggestion. To make it look worse than it is.
I am taking Davies' ideas to their logical conclusion if they ever became real, enforceable guidelines or rules for casting. It used to be that people lost jobs and were blacklisted due to their political opinions (real or suspected). Doing the same for people's real or suspected sexual orientation is even more wrong (political opinions aren't something you're born with).
I don't care about the opinion of a few people you knew however long ago. Times change. It's not like you'd change your mind if I gave an anecdote that went in favour of Davies' suggestion, would you? Be honest. It's just an attempted jab at what you think I know.
WTF does this even mean? If you're referring to my theatre work, let me make it clear: NOBODY CARED ABOUT THE ACTORS' SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Okay? The producer and director chose the cast according to their ability to act, sing, and dance. Their private lives are irrelevant in this case, even if the particular character they played was not a match to themselves.
I'm done with this part of the conversation. You have no real wish to "understand" my posts. You just want to argue and put words on my keyboard and attitudes in my mind that I don't have.
Regardless, stop justifying your behaviour on how you perceive mine. That's a race to the bottom. You talk about good-faith? You say I'm acting in bad faith? And yet you repeatedly use rolleyes emoji and find a way to justify how you're coming across? You're holding me to a standard you're not displaying yourself.
