Have you seen it? What do you think about it? Is it a good representation of trans people?
Read the book, it's good.
Haven't seen it, no showings near me, but the trailer looked good and the reviews seem overall good, not great but good. Considering it's about the first SRS in recorded history I can't imagine it being a bad representation. I really want to see it though.
>>5313090
really sick of trans women being portrayed by men
>>5313458
ya but the movie starts out with her being pre transition.
Like Dallas Buyers Club was totally fucked up,
but I think here it's way more fitting
>>5313476
so use a male character during pre-transition scenes only?
or better yet: USE A TRANS ACTRESS
>>5313090
Looks like quintessential oscar-bait. Might watch it on Netflix, but no way I'm spending $10 to see it in theatres.
That being said, I'd cum on Eddie Redmayne's face
>>5313458
Fuck off oddish, you can't name an MTF actress with as much or more recognition than Eddie Redmayne.
>>5313498
i don't give a shit about name recognition? Eddie Redmayne is a dude. And even he had his first, breakthrough role. It's time to find new (trans) actresses.
>>5313479
That's stupid.
>Use two different actors to portray the same character
Because that makes any kind of sense
>Have someone who has transitioned and make them act as their former selves.
Can't see any problem there
Besides how many transgender actors are there? With name recognition? That would fit the requirements for the role?
I mean you could get someone like Laverne Cox, but an African American playing the historical Danish person who was white is a stupid idea. And Laverne COX was able to do pretransition scenes because she has a twin who isn't trans.
>>5313544
>I don't give a shit about name recognition
Exactly, because you don't have to fund the film or make a return on that investment
Shut up, you baka.
>>5313549
you can't make a return on your multi million dollar film with Eddie Redmayne?
And even though that counter point is already enough of an argument, let me give you an even better one: if you're making movies as a money-making venture fuck you, you disgust me, and don't make movies anymore. Especially about trans people.
>>5313545
>Because that makes any kind of sense
I've seen it work before. The Skin I Live In is a good example. Technically, also, Orange is the New Black did this.
>Besides how many transgender actors are there? With name recognition?
fuuuuck name recognition. I want new actors. There's millions of actors out there just waiting to perform their hearts out, and plenty of them are probably trans. Do you think the producers for this film, or any trans film, even had open auditions, or a calling for trans actors? Chyeah, no.
tried to find somewhere to watch it, but no luck, call me stupid
>>5313498
is everyone forgetting about jamie clayton or laverne cox
>>5313589
I meant this is for Oddish, sorry I'm a shit poster.
>>5313544
>i don't give a shit about name recognition?
Any major motion picture studio. An Oscar winning actor sells more tickets than any trans actor on the scene today. Its like people forget movies are made to make money, not to make people feel good.
>>5313599
>jamie clayton
literally who?
>laverne cox
there's a big reason she can't play the Lili Elbe
>>5313652
>>jamie clayton
>literally who?
You haven't seen Sense8 yet mate?
>>5313593
Ahahahahahahahaha
Go live in Communist Russia
>making movies for money is bad
>>5313593
>I want new actors
watch indie films, Sundance starts in January
>>5313684
movies are the premiere of art and money ruins creativity. enjoy your uncreative money grabs and self congratulatory award ceremonies. sorry for wanting something unique or true to form.
fucking capitalists.
>>5313458
it's not like they should be portrayed by real women though
