Zoolander 2 deemed “transphobic”

MakeEmLaugh

A petition has been started to boycott the comedy film Zoolander 2 on the basis that it is “transphobic”, comparing it to “blackface”. At the time of posting, the petition had over 7,300 signatories.

In the trailer for the upcoming film, an androgynous character, played by Benedict Cumbatch (with long hair) is asked by Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and Hansel (Owen Wilson) if he is “a male or female model”, with the follow up question, whether or not he has “a hotdog or a bun”.

According the petition,

Cumberbatch’s character is clearly portrayed as an over-the-top, cartoonish mockery of androgyne/trans/non-binary individuals. This is the modern equivalent of using blackface to represent a minority.

If the producers and screenwriters of Zoolander wanted to provide social commentary on the presence of trans/androgyne individuals in the fashion industry, they could have approached models like Andreja Pejic to be in the film. By hiring a cis actor to play a non-binary individual in a clearly negative way, they film endorses harmful and dangerous perceptions of the queer community at large.

What do people think?

Are people like this being a bit over-sensitive? Should they wait until the film is released and available to watch in full before they pass judgement, rather than base it on the trailer? Or do they have a point?

https://twitter.com/Care2/status/667083027235803136

Jim Bob Scratcher

People must have very little going on in their lives if this offends them.

The Sidewards Man

What do you think op?

Azalea

Why is offence only being taken about such characters now? They've appeared in a number of films and television shows down through the years. "Phobic" in this case means there's an intention to be hateful - that's hardly the case here.

readyletsgo

As a bi man all I can say is, ugh, people have way too much time on their hands!

It's Zoolander! he's a model, idiot?

MakeEmLaugh

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

What do you think op?

The journalist Glenn Greewald wrote, of the film Zero Dark Thirty, “the film is now garnering a pile of top awards and virtually uniform rave reviews. What makes this so remarkable is that, by most accounts, the film glorifies torture by claiming - falsely - that waterboarding and other forms of coercive interrogation tactics were crucial, even indispensable in finding bin Laden...

A large Hollywood studio would never dare make a film about the episode which is America's greatest source of collective self-esteem and jingoistic pride without clinging tightly to patriotic orthodoxies...

I don't believe that this film is being so well-received despite its glorification of American torture. It's more accurate to say it's so admired because of this.”

It turned out Greenwald hadn't seen the film yet, which makes his comments on the film somewhat redundant.

I say, wait until you see a film before passing judgement.

Deep Six

I wish people would get a thicker skin and even the slightest ****ing grip on reality. This ultra PC mindset is pathetic. You're either proud of what you are and able to see the humour in a situation (regardless of topic) or you are just parading a pseudo-identity with the backbone of a snail.

Riddle101

Looks like some people are taken it too seriously. On the otherhand, this will probably just add more publicity to the movie, just like when there was a cyber threat made just before the movie The Interview was released. I don't think anybody really cared all that much about that film before the cyber threats were made.

As for the OP. It sucks really. Comedy isn't the same as it used to be, with all this political correctness now.

fonecrusher1

Dear god. What an utterly pointless thread. Talk about a non-issue.

:pac:

TheLastMohican

Again, PC gone haywire. And sad bastards with little in their lives ....... getting a bit of attention.

batistuta9

Deep Six wrote: »

I wish people would get a thicker skin and even the slightest ****ing grip on reality. This ultra PC mindset is pathetic. You're either proud of what you are and able to see the humour in a situation (regardless of topic) or you are just parading a pseudo-identity with the backbone of a snail.

i think a lot of these types like to be seen as 'fighting for a cause' & getting some kind of 'win'


seen the trailer, I'd boycott it because it looks shít.

J. Marston

Non-binary? That's a new one.

Omackeral

No seriously f*ck off with this. Can we at least agree to leave the transphobic stuff in 2015 please? Everyone just be what you want to be and don't bother yourself with what and who other people want to be if it doesn't concern you. Let's all just agree to hate ISIS, they're very bold.

Bulbous Salutation

Is it funny? Not enough funny stuff these days.

Lights On

This thread is very PCphobic imo. You would want to cut it out lads.

MakeEmLaugh

Lights On wrote: »

You would want to cut it out lads.

Not a genitalia-based pun, I hope...

DareGod

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

People must have very little going on in their lives if this offends them.

Haven't you ever visited the internet before? People do have very little going on in their lives.

NachoBusiness

More and more people are getting sick to death of these militant trans activists.

They even unbelievably accused Jared Leto of transmisogyny because of the role he played in Dallas Buyer's Club.

There's a new movie coming out called Stonewall and it has had a petition started to boycott it by a well known trans activist.

Their attitude is starting to grate with even the gay community and has resulted in one man starting a campaign to 'Drop the T' from LGBT.

hatrickpatrick

Lights On wrote: »

This thread is very PCphobic imo. You would want to cut it out lads.

Your post is an example of troll-shaming, bro. Check your cishet privilege, sh!tlord.

In all seriousness, if people doubt the utter lunacy of these SJW f*ckers they should take a gander at the collection of forums where most of these campaigns originate - Reddit's sh!tredditsays, srsdiscussion, circlebroke2 and socialjustice101 sections.

My only hope for humanity is that those who post on these forums are in fact highly dedicated trolls who are deliberately winding people up, as opposed to people who actually support the repressive crap they propose.

Optimalprimerib

I have to say, when i saw the trailer, this thought did come into my head. This is very topical at the moment where people are tripping over themselves to be seen as tolerant towards all genders natural, or fabricated.

To make a joke about it could be in bad taste. This is not my personal opinion, it doesnt bother me, but i knew it would bother others.

tommyboy2222

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

sonny.knowles

PC BS

c_man

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Their attitude is starting to grate with even the gay community and has resulted in one man starting a campaign to 'Drop the T' from LGBT.

I don't get why they're in with them to begin with. It's like the union in the Simpsons, "The International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs and Nuclear Technicians."

Skoop

Yes, it's a mystery as to why they wouldn't hire some transgender model no one has ever heard of over Binklyboop Crumpetbatchler, one of the most famous actors in the world at the minute. Bet they're kicking themselves over that one.

namloc1980

Can you imagine the faux outrage and PC whinging if Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles was released today! The PC Brigade would have a meltdown.

whatdoicare

Ah this is a load of pc crap, how could they get offended with two seconds of Cumberwhatsisname giggling when asked if he has a bun or a sausage??

Its just a stupid comedy, they need to get over themselves.

Zoolander went black face in the first one, didn't see anyone from the black community boycotting the film!

Caovyn Lineah

I'm getting ****ing fed up of all this ****. These people will find an issue with everything and it's pathetic.

They are taking this from a trailer and about 7 seconds of footage.

Wibbs

NachoBusiness wrote: »

More and more people are getting sick to death of these militant trans activists.

I think more and more people are getting sick to death with militant activists full stop. There's a backlash. Not just among the twitterati, I see it in Real Life(™) too and among people who would be generally middle of the road left leaning shure whatever you're having yourself types. And this has the real danger of hurting actual real people within marginalised groups. Too many of these muppet "activists" are crying "Wolf!" and we know how that story ended.

Ten of Swords

SJW outrage.

So hot right now

IsMiseMyself

NachoBusiness wrote: »

More and more people are getting sick to death of these militant trans activists.

They even unbelievably accused Jared Leto of transmisogyny because of the role he played in Dallas Buyer's Club.

There's a new movie coming out called Stonewall and it has had a petition started to boycott it by a well known trans activist.

Their attitude is starting to grate with even the gay community and has resulted in one man starting a campaign to 'Drop the T' from LGBT.

To be fair, Stonewall was supposed to tell the stone of Stonewall, an event that was largely spearheaded by black transwomen. Casting a straight wide dude to play a straight-acting gay fella as the lead (and largely ignoring the actual truth) is completely rewriting the history. Like if you're gonna tell a trans story properly, tell it fecking properly. It would have been a bit like casting Brad Pitt as Ghandi, calling him Willis and still declaring it to be a film about Ghandi.

Cumberbatch, however, is clearly playing a ridiculous parody, so the two don't really compare.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Your post is an example of troll-shaming, bro. Check your cishet privilege, sh!tlord.

In all seriousness, if people doubt the utter lunacy of these SJW f*ckers they should take a gander at the collection of forums where most of these campaigns originate - Reddit's sh!tredditsays, srsdiscussion, circlebroke2 and socialjustice101 sections.

My only hope for humanity is that those who post on these forums are in fact highly dedicated trolls who are deliberately winding people up, as opposed to people who actually support the repressive crap they propose.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction

People need to bear in mind intent. If something is intended to take a malicious dig at a group then I can see why people would be upset, but 99% of the time (or so it seems), it's just intended to be funny or irreverent, or even just neutral.

If everyone desperate to take offence simply accepted that none is intended like adults - in every area of life not just things like the OP - life would be so much easier.

I don't believe a character in Zoolander 2 was intended to target and ridicule or humiliate any group.

Fleawuss

I'll see the movie eventually somewhere. The only one ever really humiliated in a Ben Stiller movie is Ben Stiller imho. I find him seriously unfunny. But then he's laughing all the way to the bank so good luck.
PS I wonder would he play the anti Semitic card fairly quickly if someone made fun of an ultra orthodox circumcision ritual?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

Son Of A Vidic

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you imagine the faux outrage and PC whinging if Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles was released today! The PC Brigade would have a meltdown.

Mel Brooks a comic genius who just happens to be Jewish. He'd probably get life in prison for this today.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJP5mf8Q4Tw

seamus

The problem is not that someone's offended by this. People have been offended by stuff since day dot.

The problem is that any idiot can set up an online petition and any other idiot who complains about the "PC brigade" can use this inconsequential petition as proof of "PC gone mad"

One eyed Jack

Fleawuss wrote: »

I'll see the movie eventually somewhere. The only one ever really humiliated in a Ben Stiller movie is Ben Stiller imho. I find him seriously unfunny. But then he's laughing all the way to the bank so good luck.
PS I wonder would he play the anti Semitic card fairly quickly if someone made fun of an ultra orthodox circumcision ritual?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

What, you mean like the scene in "Meet the Fokkers" where they did exactly that, with the flying foreskin?

I guess there's your answer - he didn't.

I agree with seamus on this one. Any idiot can set up a change.org petition, and there's no shortage of idiots will jump on anything just to say how 'outraged' they are, and this in turn gives other idiots yet another opportunity to be 'outraged'.

Personally, I find it all a bit embarrassing the whole idea of people claiming that because they identify as part of such and such a group, that they assume authority to speak for or to represent the interests of that whole group or whatever.

I despise the word 'retard', but when the whole 'outrage' kicked off on social media about Robert Downey Jnr. suggesting to Ben Stiller (playing a failed actor), "You never go full retard", you have to consider the context. Neither of them in character were the sharpest pencil in the box, and I found the irony and the intentional parody in that scene hilarious, because it wasn't intended to be malicious, and in the context of the film as a whole, it was apt, appropriate, it wasn't just gratuitous or whatever else.

I watched Wayne's World the other night, and anyone who's seen it will know the filing clerk with the two different coloured eyes, and the two lads Wayne and Garth, again playing not the sharpest pencils in the box, the whole scene where they were unintentionally mentioning the eye and trying not to make eye contact reminded me so much of people I meet all the time who are afraid to mention anything like common phrases like "dot the i's and cross the t's" :pac:

I really do wish some people wouldn't take themselves so seriously, give other people the benefit of the doubt and trust that not everyone is out to be malicious and make jokes at their expense. If people could learn to laugh at themselves, it would make their lives a hell of a lot easier. Not everyone is a malicious ballbag ffs! :rolleyes:

I'd say to the idiot, to any idiot actually, that gets their knickers in a twist about the slightest little thing that they perceive to be an insult directed at them -

"Get some perspective, and pick your battles, not everything is about you!"

Fleawuss

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What, you mean like the scene in "Meet the Fokkers" where they did exactly that, with the flying foreskin?

I guess there's your answer - he didn't.

I agree with seamus on this one. Any idiot can set up a change.org petition, and there's no shortage of idiots will jump on anything just to say how 'outraged' they are, and this in turn gives other idiots yet another opportunity to be 'outraged'.

Personally, I find it all a bit embarrassing the whole idea of people claiming that because they identify as part of such and such a group, that they assume authority to speak for or to represent the interests of that whole group or whatever.

I despise the word 'retard', but when the whole 'outrage' kicked off on social media about Robert Downey Jnr. suggesting to Ben Stiller (playing a failed actor), "You never go full retard", you have to consider the context. Neither of them in character were the sharpest pencil in the box, and I found the irony and the intentional parody in that scene hilarious, because it wasn't intended to be malicious, and in the context of the film as a whole, it was apt, appropriate, it wasn't just gratuitous or whatever else.

I watched Wayne's World the other night, and anyone who's seen it will know the filing clerk with the two different coloured eyes, and the two lads Wayne and Garth, again playing not the sharpest pencils in the box, the whole scene where they were unintentionally mentioning the eye and trying not to make eye contact reminded me so much of people I meet all the time who are afraid to mention anything like common phrases like "dot the i's and cross the t's" :pac:

I really do wish some people wouldn't take themselves so seriously, give other people the benefit of the doubt and trust that not everyone is out to be malicious and make jokes at their expense. If people could learn to laugh at themselves, it would make their lives a hell of a lot easier. Not everyone is a malicious ballbag ffs! :rolleyes:

I'd say to the idiot, to any idiot actually, that gets their knickers in a twist about the slightest little thing that they perceive to be an insult directed at them -

"Get some perspective, and pick your battles, not everything is about you!"

Haven't seen those Fokkers so I'll take your word for it. I'm sure some idiot would take offense though.

Wabbit Ears

Reminds me of the Blumia slagging from the first one

"you can read minds"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6Jg17Ouus

MilesMorales1

Yawnnnnnn. People getting offended at something on the internet, again. Move along, not much going on here.

Bio Mech

Wow 7000 whole signatures? That could sink the entire movie business.

Paramite Pie

But why transgender models??

smash

I hate the use of term "cis" or "cisgender". This shit needs to stop.

RWCNT

smash wrote: »

I hate the use of term "cis" or "cisgender". This shit needs to stop.

Why?

strelok

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

do we have a word for people who aren't albino?

RWCNT

strelok wrote: »

do we have a word for people who aren't albino?

I don't know, perhaps? How do you feel about the word "straight"?

One eyed Jack

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

Because it's nonsense.

That's why.

Azalea

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

I dunno. I mean, why is it so embraced only in the last couple of years? It seems... forced or something. And it always seems to be used in the context of how sh-t straight men are.

Cee-Jay-Cee

The whole thing more than likely started with one sad little lonely ****wit who is probably in his mid 40's, lives at home with his mother, has no social life or skills and sits at home writing blogs on **** he sees on tv/cinema. Like minded ****wits jumped on his silly little bandwagon and now over 7000 of them are in a silly little crusade to ban the film. The cinema going population of the US/world is considerably bigger and the figure probably only represents a minuscule % and so will be largely ignored and proper order too.

One eyed Jack

Azalea wrote: »

I dunno. I mean, why is it so embraced only in the last couple of years? It seems... forced or something. And it always seems to be used in the context of how sh-t straight men are.

When I see it used in an article, nine times out of ten it's heterosexual men the term is being applied to, closely followed by the word "privilege". I do wonder is it used as some sort of pseudoscientific label to lend some authority to an article's usually outlandish claims, to cover for the lack of any actual evidence.

Or is it just another attempt at identity policing politics. I think it is.

Gazzmonkey

J. Marston wrote: »

Non-binary? That's a new one.

Same here...

So if Binary is having a zero or a one,

Then non-binary is having both a zero and a one?

One eyed Jack

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Same here...

So if Binary is having a zero or a one,

Then non-binary is having both a zero and a one?

Not necessarily. It's anything basically that for the person themselves falls outside the 'social construct' of the zero/one binary gender classification system.

In Germany they recognise a third sex - intersex, but I'm not too sure how they classify gender, or is there a word in German for some of these terms, or any other languages besides US English!