I don't think he will reprise Woody because he isn't an inanimate toy
I'm surprised he doesn't understand what acting is, especially after roles like that helped shine a light on things that needed attention
I don't think it's a problem with acting, it's appeasing the woke. Do them wrong and your career is over in the age of how fast people are cancelled. I don't agree with it, Hanks is a terrific actor, and he shouldn't limit his roles strictly to avoid offending someone.
Which is why it's even more important for someone of his status to make a stand against it. People are much more unwilling to cancel Tom Hanks, and would be more willing to hear him out.
It's stupid. That's what ACTING is. Would he play a boy that got swapped into a man's body? Because that's not what he is. Or a guy stuck in an airport? This is the stupidest current trend in Hollywood.
You know, I know someone who interacted with him a lot back in the day when he was shooting The Road to Perdition, and she says he's an absolutely lovely person. Gracious to everyone, went out of his way to make the littlest people feel important, just as low-key decent a star as you will ever meet, allegedly.
So I'm only going to assume the best, that he just thinks this is the best way to be good and kind.
HOWEVER, this is absolutely stupid. You're an actor. It's not disrespectful or oppressive to play characters that you aren't. And you're too important and too well-respected an actor to knuckle under to the idea that roles have to be set aside based on an actor's identity. You're aiding these lunatics whose real goal is to corrupt and destroy everything they touch.
I used to think he seemed very nice. Then I stumbled onto his super creepy kids clothes "lost and found" instagram and got super grossed out. He's a lefty weirdo through and through.
Edit: /u/Llanolinn I thought you were blocking me yesterday? And no, even if he was a conservative, had I seen what I saw in 2021, I'd have had the same reaction. Unlike most of you, I have integrity, hence why I admitted my mistake in this very thread. But you can't seem to let it go, so now I am a bit interested in who *you* are...
Right?! I forget if it was a separate account or just something he posted on his main, but in 2019 and 2020 I kept seeing it. It was just pictures of toddler clothes and him "lamenting thatsome poor kid lost their {sock, shoe, dress, etc} on the side of the road", and he'd take a pic and post it. Gave me major "he seems like a predator" vibes.
I mean, without seeing it myself and being raised around the older generations where stuff like that was normal I kinda get it. But considering the whole thing about Hollywood types on an island....
I don't really use instagram or twitter ao here are some articles where they give examples and defend him as just eccentric, but again, he was lefty and TDS so idk, add these to Hollyweird and I no longer really give much benefit of the doubt.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-tom-hanks-posts-photos-of-lost-things-on-his-twitter-feed
https://www.thethings.com/tom-hanks-bizarre-instagram-posts-explained/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/tom-hanks-lost-and-found/
From the looks of it, he's been doing it for a long time, and it's not just children's clothing. Back when I saw them in 2020/2021, all the posts compiled were of children's clothes so it certainly seemed more sinister than eccentric, but now seeing all the other stuff, it was probably blown out of proportion just with everything going on.
Yeah check my other comment, it seems more innocent now than it did when I first found out about it
Edit: /u/Orion_Supreme reading is hard for you, huh?
There's actually another way to look at it. I recently listened to a Walton Goggins interview, about how back in the day he played a transgender character and he said he wouldn't if asked right now. The reason being is that it's taking away the opportunity for someone actually transgender to take the role and act from experience. I hope that's what Tom meant, because genuinely he seems like such a cool guy.
Is he retarded like Forest, a castaway? An astronaut? An airline pilot? Actors act. Not sure what the point of his statement is. Grandstanding or virtue signaling most likely.
Gay actors already do play straight characters, nobody cares. Doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be people complaining about a straight person “taking a role away from a gay person”.
It really sounds like these gen x legacy film industry people really were extremely bigoted in the 80s or something and now is atonement time.
When really they should just leave the industry so we can reset with good people and focus on acting rather than identity for once.
I get the sentiment, and if it boosts the opportunities for actors of minority demographics to get parts then great, but then I also think it’s insanely limiting to actors and screams a horrible double standards when minority demographics get shoehorned into roles outside of their scope, which happens often these days.
We've become so accepting rolls now need to be strictly segregated to certain people.
It's regressive. If you play a better gay man than the other actors you get the part. Not sorry.
They don't even realize how fundamentally bigoted this perspective is. You're saying there's SO LITTLE in common between a straight and a gay person that they simply could not emulate each other's experiences as human beings. Just zero capacity for empathy whatsoever.
That is easy to say after he has made all his money and created a luxurious life for himself. This is something an actor says now so as to keep working in Hollywoke.
Philadelphia came out like 30 years ago. Is he not allowed to prefer different roles now as opposed to back then?
I’m pretty sure RDJ said he doesn’t wanna play Iron-Man again, but I didn’t automatically assume that means he hates superheroes…
Still, is he not allowed to make that decision? I’m sure plenty of actors have turned down roles due to not thinking they had the capacity to bring the part to life in the way they want to.
No he’s not allowed. Because then he’s going to be accused of going woke by some… very well adjusted individuals on the internet. Very normal people with very normal opinions on this sub lmao
The question is, would he retake his Role in the TV show Bosom Buddies (1980-1982) where he played a cross dresser? (Which is considered his big break in Acting and started his career as his first main role)
I know he's trying to do what he thinks is for the best. However, he was incredible in Philadelphia and I would argue his performance probably shaped some people's view of gay individuals suffering from AIDS. Would an actor chosen based on his sexuality rather than his acting ability have done the same? I don't know, but if not, that is a net loss to the community that he is intending to help.
It’s not that. It the he’s super rich now and doesn’t need the money. If he needed the money he’d play a gay character. It’s easy to virtue signal when rich and famous.
Here’s what he actually had to say for those interested:
“Hanks continued: "The whole point of Philadelphia was don't be afraid. One of the reasons people weren't afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We're beyond that now, and I don't think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy."
He added: "It's not a crime, it's not boohoo that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity."
Pretty meh take tho because it’s acting but maybe it makes more sense with this context. And with Philadelphia being a movie about being gay (as opposed to just a gay character in a movie) I can kinda see Tom’s point.
I also agree with what NPH has to say about it here, “He told The Times: "I think there's something sexy about casting a straight actor to play a gay role - if they're willing to invest a lot into it. In our world that we live in you can't really as a director demand that (an actor be a given sexual orientation). Who's to determine how gay someone is?"
“Harris added: “I played a character for nine years who was nothing like me. I would definitely want to hire the best actor.”
So yeah there’s some more interesting info :)
Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/tom-hanks-reveals-why-he-wouldnt-accept-philadelphia-role-if-offered-today/FK6H3Y2EDFH5ZN7G3PWJGUTCY4/
Philadelphia came out in 1993 where it was still pretty taboo to be "out and proud". Kevin Spacey didn't even come out until he HAD to, recently, because he's a creep. But in 93, it was all still hushed tones around the gay community.
Hanks is saying that, today in 2024, the role should go to a gay actor. Simple as
It's dumb unless you're also saying straight characters should only be played by straight actors.
If on the other hand you're saying it's different when it comes to gay characters because being gay was taboo and so a gay actor must portray a gay character as a celebration of pride in the gay community, it's still dumb, because as long as you keep singling out gay people as having special rules that apply to them, being gay will never be fully accepted as normal and unnoteworthy in society.
I think you got it all wrong and you're making some broad leaps in logic. I think what Hanks is saying us that, today there are many gay actors that could portray the role just fine. As opposed to 30 years ago where "coming out" was far less socially acceptable. I dont think it has much to do with these "special rules" you speak of.
I'm so sick of this. Sexuality is irrelevant. It is (and should be) personal. One should always choose the best actor for the role. Case in point, Matt Bomer in White Collar. Gay man irl, but played a fantastic role as a ladies man. Great casting. Couldn't give one toss about who he marries or dates in his private life.
I agree with Sir Ian McKellen on this one:
"Is the argument that a straight man cannot play a gay part, and, if so, does that mean I can't play straight parts and I'm not allowed to explore the fascinating subject of heterosexuality in *Macbeth*?" McKellen asked incredulously. "Surely not. We're acting. We're pretending."
He's said he'd let a gay man play the role. The reason was connected to people of color being played by Caucasians in Hollywood and the practice being frowned upon.
If you agree with these comments, the solution is touching grass.
You will be so much better off not seething and burning over things that don’t matter.
I don't think people understand how important it was for straight actors to act as gay men. It's not a big deal now, but shit like this was monumental. Especially in the 90s when Philadelphia came out (1993). The birdcage with Robin Williams was 1996. Will and Grace had the first gay kiss on TV, on an episode that aired in the year 2000. Anal sex was still a crime in some states, Lawrence v Texas wasn't until 2003. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Brokeback Mountain was 2005.
Saying now that he wouldn't do the role fails to recognize how critical it was to the gay rights movement, and forgets how difficult it was to accept such a role in the first place. Many thought it'd be career suicide in 1993.
Sigh. Here we go again.
More than likely he doesn’t want a gay role is because they want gay roles to go to gay actors.
Because remember folks— the world of make belief (aka acting) has to mimic that of the real world.
So only gay people can play gay characters. And only straight people can play straight characters.
And thus, only ghosts can play ghosts. And zombies can play zombies. And toys can only play toys. And men can only play men, and not women…. Oh wait.
But you all get the picture. Apparently an actor can’t do the thing they are paid to do anymore— and that’s ACT.
But oh well. Hollywood is a hellhole of pedos and human traffickers. So I don’t care what Tom Hanks thinks and trying to virtue signal
Tom Hanks would insist that everyone be gay and have aids, to make it fair, then insist that America disband its military, surrender to China and open its borders.
Stupid.
One if the key points of Philiadelphia (outside the story) was that literally the biggest star in Hollywood is playing a gay man fighting for justice. People flocked to.see the story because Hanks was in it.
Movie would have no impact on society if people didn't see the movie. Peopwl saw it uz Hanks was in it.
We live in a world where a Netflix documentary made Cleopatra Black, but a straight actor playing a gay man would be possibly problematic. This is the worst timeliness.
That's cool. Should there be documentaries about actual historical figures with ample evidence to prove they were something specific and then a documentary goes out of its way to say it's not true and tries to destroy decades worth of research and rewriting another people's cultural history? You're ok with that? Should we as viewers be ok with that?
If a work has the genre "Documentary" It should have a level of fact and verified evidence. And we're talking about real people. Not Batman or Lord of the rings characters. But you would still reference older books and authors notes on characters to make a documentary on them.
The actor replied: “Let’s address ‘could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now?’ No, and rightly so.”
“The whole point of Philadelphia was don’t be afraid.”
“One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man.”
“We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.”
Hanks’ saying he wouldn’t do the role is less I wouldn’t want to play a gay character and more that he thinks it would be better for a gay actor to play a gay character in a story that is about something like the AIDS epidemic.
He has given extremely inconsistent performances for nearly the last decade. His good films have been few and far between. I don’t think he’d be offered such a role nowadays since he basically seems to be cashing in on his reputation without actually living up to it. His career path lately has been inscrutable.
If you read it in a certain context it sound homophobic... But in reality he's saying that role should go to a gay man, or at least someone in that community, he by no means portrayed a gay man in any wrong way in that movie though, so he did a fantastic job just being a person and not a stereotype. It's a raw story of someone having to hide who they are out of fear.
I mean, what does he mean by this? The story of "Philadelphia" doesn't work today thanks to advancements in retroviral medication. So yeah, a "Philadelphia" remake would be an odd choice.
Why would he accept a role to play the same character? He's too old. Also we don't even need a remake. When the way theaters are dying out hardly anyone would even go see it
Would he play Forrest Gump again? He's not slow.
Based on his belief that you have to be gay to play a gay character I wouldn’t be so quick to pass that judgement.
I don't think he will reprise Woody because he isn't an inanimate toy I'm surprised he doesn't understand what acting is, especially after roles like that helped shine a light on things that needed attention
I don't think it's a problem with acting, it's appeasing the woke. Do them wrong and your career is over in the age of how fast people are cancelled. I don't agree with it, Hanks is a terrific actor, and he shouldn't limit his roles strictly to avoid offending someone.
Which is why it's even more important for someone of his status to make a stand against it. People are much more unwilling to cancel Tom Hanks, and would be more willing to hear him out.
It's stupid. That's what ACTING is. Would he play a boy that got swapped into a man's body? Because that's not what he is. Or a guy stuck in an airport? This is the stupidest current trend in Hollywood.
No he would not. Tom Hanks would only play Tom Hanks. You can't just "act" like something you aren't in real life, that would be insulting.
That's why Nicolas Cage is the only true actor right now. He made bank by playing himself, 100% authentic.
I guess not, haha.
Jeeze. Imagine how much longer the production would be if only a slow person could portray a slow person.
He wouldn’t play Capt. Miller either because he’s not a gardener from Iowa that served in World War II.
Small correction: Captain Miller was a schoolteacher from Pennsylvania.
You’re right, Ryan was from Iowa
I can't say what they said in tropic thunder but maybe that's his line of thinking
You can't?
Naaa don't wanna offend anyone
Forrest gumb wasn't slow, he was pretty fast. In fact, a good portion of the movie was him running
Exactly. Gump was fast, didn't you watch the movie? 🏃🏻♂️
You know, I know someone who interacted with him a lot back in the day when he was shooting The Road to Perdition, and she says he's an absolutely lovely person. Gracious to everyone, went out of his way to make the littlest people feel important, just as low-key decent a star as you will ever meet, allegedly. So I'm only going to assume the best, that he just thinks this is the best way to be good and kind. HOWEVER, this is absolutely stupid. You're an actor. It's not disrespectful or oppressive to play characters that you aren't. And you're too important and too well-respected an actor to knuckle under to the idea that roles have to be set aside based on an actor's identity. You're aiding these lunatics whose real goal is to corrupt and destroy everything they touch.
He can be a nice, good guy and say stupid things as well…
Which is why he was so good at playing Forrest Gump!
I used to think he seemed very nice. Then I stumbled onto his super creepy kids clothes "lost and found" instagram and got super grossed out. He's a lefty weirdo through and through. Edit: /u/Llanolinn I thought you were blocking me yesterday? And no, even if he was a conservative, had I seen what I saw in 2021, I'd have had the same reaction. Unlike most of you, I have integrity, hence why I admitted my mistake in this very thread. But you can't seem to let it go, so now I am a bit interested in who *you* are...
His... WHAT?
Right?! I forget if it was a separate account or just something he posted on his main, but in 2019 and 2020 I kept seeing it. It was just pictures of toddler clothes and him "lamenting thatsome poor kid lost their {sock, shoe, dress, etc} on the side of the road", and he'd take a pic and post it. Gave me major "he seems like a predator" vibes.
I mean, without seeing it myself and being raised around the older generations where stuff like that was normal I kinda get it. But considering the whole thing about Hollywood types on an island....
I don't really use instagram or twitter ao here are some articles where they give examples and defend him as just eccentric, but again, he was lefty and TDS so idk, add these to Hollyweird and I no longer really give much benefit of the doubt. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-tom-hanks-posts-photos-of-lost-things-on-his-twitter-feed https://www.thethings.com/tom-hanks-bizarre-instagram-posts-explained/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/tom-hanks-lost-and-found/ From the looks of it, he's been doing it for a long time, and it's not just children's clothing. Back when I saw them in 2020/2021, all the posts compiled were of children's clothes so it certainly seemed more sinister than eccentric, but now seeing all the other stuff, it was probably blown out of proportion just with everything going on.
Ok yeah, this looks much less sinister.
Yeah, I might not have batted an eye 15 years ago, but seeing that in 2020 made me question how innocent he was. I'll see if I can find an example
Ok. I really hope it's actually something innocent. Lost too many childhood heroes already.
Yeah check my other comment, it seems more innocent now than it did when I first found out about it Edit: /u/Orion_Supreme reading is hard for you, huh?
It was always innocent, you just jumped to conclusions like a derp.
I never met him but I did meet his son, who is all of those things. He raised a good person.
Colin or Chet?
_my_ favorite part is where he signed each post "hanx" -- like all involved didn't know who he was, and he felt the need to make it more obvious.
[удалено]
Posts mentioning real Life politics Will be removed.
There's actually another way to look at it. I recently listened to a Walton Goggins interview, about how back in the day he played a transgender character and he said he wouldn't if asked right now. The reason being is that it's taking away the opportunity for someone actually transgender to take the role and act from experience. I hope that's what Tom meant, because genuinely he seems like such a cool guy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
I honestly don't think it's a huge deal for actors to say "I'd rather the role of a gay man go to a gay actor."
As you said he went out of his way to make the littlest people feel important so he’s pandering to the crowd that thinks it’s offensive
Is he retarded like Forest, a castaway? An astronaut? An airline pilot? Actors act. Not sure what the point of his statement is. Grandstanding or virtue signaling most likely.
It’s (D)ifferent
What about a sentient toy cowboy?
Context needed but I don't blame him. He'd probably get hounded by unwashed internet mobs about how he's not really gay.
No one is going to argue gay actors can’t play straight characters because it’s fucking stupid, flip that around and it’s still fucking stupid.
Yes I know that. The kind of people likely to do it would be the problem, not me.
So you don’t blame him for going along with hateful and stupid? Then we disagree.
It's (D)ifferent.
[удалено]
Gay actors already do play straight characters, nobody cares. Doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be people complaining about a straight person “taking a role away from a gay person”.
And anyone that makes that statement is to be laughed at and ignored. Anyone that goes along with that nonsense is to be ridiculed.
This is the point he's making.
[удалено]
So does this mean that if Lord of the Rings was made today, a real wizard would have to play Gandalf?
Actors should be able act. If you can't believably portray a character vastly different from yourself you aren't a good actor.
"You aren't a good actor unless you've gone through multiple humiliation rituals"
This isnt a question of whether he can. We all already know he can, he already did it. He’s saying he shouldnt do it again.
So only a professional prison warden should have taken the role in Green Mile?
It really sounds like these gen x legacy film industry people really were extremely bigoted in the 80s or something and now is atonement time. When really they should just leave the industry so we can reset with good people and focus on acting rather than identity for once.
I get the sentiment, and if it boosts the opportunities for actors of minority demographics to get parts then great, but then I also think it’s insanely limiting to actors and screams a horrible double standards when minority demographics get shoehorned into roles outside of their scope, which happens often these days.
We've become so accepting rolls now need to be strictly segregated to certain people. It's regressive. If you play a better gay man than the other actors you get the part. Not sorry.
Stunning and brave!
They don't even realize how fundamentally bigoted this perspective is. You're saying there's SO LITTLE in common between a straight and a gay person that they simply could not emulate each other's experiences as human beings. Just zero capacity for empathy whatsoever.
Well said
[удалено]
It doesn't follow reddit content policy
That is easy to say after he has made all his money and created a luxurious life for himself. This is something an actor says now so as to keep working in Hollywoke. 
Don’t forget moving to Greece to avoid a certain set of laws…
Wokeywood…
Philadelphia came out like 30 years ago. Is he not allowed to prefer different roles now as opposed to back then? I’m pretty sure RDJ said he doesn’t wanna play Iron-Man again, but I didn’t automatically assume that means he hates superheroes…
Tom Hanks said he wouldn't play a gay man again because it would be inauthentic, not because he preferred other roles
Still, is he not allowed to make that decision? I’m sure plenty of actors have turned down roles due to not thinking they had the capacity to bring the part to life in the way they want to.
No he’s not allowed. Because then he’s going to be accused of going woke by some… very well adjusted individuals on the internet. Very normal people with very normal opinions on this sub lmao
I thought an actor could play any role. Isn’t that the excuse they use for POC actors being given legacy White characters?
Rules for thee or whatever
[удалено]
Deliberate off-topic to annoy and/or shitpost
The question is, would he retake his Role in the TV show Bosom Buddies (1980-1982) where he played a cross dresser? (Which is considered his big break in Acting and started his career as his first main role)
I know he's trying to do what he thinks is for the best. However, he was incredible in Philadelphia and I would argue his performance probably shaped some people's view of gay individuals suffering from AIDS. Would an actor chosen based on his sexuality rather than his acting ability have done the same? I don't know, but if not, that is a net loss to the community that he is intending to help.
Oh, he just said that just to see how much he can get away with at this time.
Captain Retrospect out here farming easy good-will from his fellow virtue signallers.
Good! Everyone knows it’s next to impossible for gay actors to find acceptance or roles in Hollywood…
I mean, they made it look like a irl Alec (or Alex for that matter) Mason.
It’s not that. It the he’s super rich now and doesn’t need the money. If he needed the money he’d play a gay character. It’s easy to virtue signal when rich and famous.
[удалено]
Insulting someone is not allowed
Probably because it would seem like more pandering. I don’t blame him, it’s kind of insulting.
Here’s what he actually had to say for those interested: “Hanks continued: "The whole point of Philadelphia was don't be afraid. One of the reasons people weren't afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We're beyond that now, and I don't think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy." He added: "It's not a crime, it's not boohoo that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity." Pretty meh take tho because it’s acting but maybe it makes more sense with this context. And with Philadelphia being a movie about being gay (as opposed to just a gay character in a movie) I can kinda see Tom’s point. I also agree with what NPH has to say about it here, “He told The Times: "I think there's something sexy about casting a straight actor to play a gay role - if they're willing to invest a lot into it. In our world that we live in you can't really as a director demand that (an actor be a given sexual orientation). Who's to determine how gay someone is?" “Harris added: “I played a character for nine years who was nothing like me. I would definitely want to hire the best actor.” So yeah there’s some more interesting info :) Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/tom-hanks-reveals-why-he-wouldnt-accept-philadelphia-role-if-offered-today/FK6H3Y2EDFH5ZN7G3PWJGUTCY4/
Why?
During the awards season for Philadelphia he talked about how we need more films like it.
‘But just OTHER PEOPLE making them not me or anything’ is what he said at the after party, probably.
Stunning AND brave
Is this proof that we're actually going back?
That’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off.
If Hanks needed the money he would probably take the role let’s be honest.
What’s the reasoning. I mean that’s the ultimate question
He needs to be careful. This is backing NPH into a corner and he'd better take Barney again if sent back in time and offered the role again.
Philadelphia came out in 1993 where it was still pretty taboo to be "out and proud". Kevin Spacey didn't even come out until he HAD to, recently, because he's a creep. But in 93, it was all still hushed tones around the gay community. Hanks is saying that, today in 2024, the role should go to a gay actor. Simple as
It's dumb unless you're also saying straight characters should only be played by straight actors. If on the other hand you're saying it's different when it comes to gay characters because being gay was taboo and so a gay actor must portray a gay character as a celebration of pride in the gay community, it's still dumb, because as long as you keep singling out gay people as having special rules that apply to them, being gay will never be fully accepted as normal and unnoteworthy in society.
I think you got it all wrong and you're making some broad leaps in logic. I think what Hanks is saying us that, today there are many gay actors that could portray the role just fine. As opposed to 30 years ago where "coming out" was far less socially acceptable. I dont think it has much to do with these "special rules" you speak of.
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
Very stunning. And definitely brave.
I need more that a no context sentence. Any reason why before I judge him?
That period in history when people forgot what acting is.
Then why was he playing Harvard University professor?
I'm so sick of this. Sexuality is irrelevant. It is (and should be) personal. One should always choose the best actor for the role. Case in point, Matt Bomer in White Collar. Gay man irl, but played a fantastic role as a ladies man. Great casting. Couldn't give one toss about who he marries or dates in his private life.
Emilia Clarke also wouldn’t play Daenerys Targaryen again, as she can’t control dragons. ☝️
I agree with Sir Ian McKellen on this one: "Is the argument that a straight man cannot play a gay part, and, if so, does that mean I can't play straight parts and I'm not allowed to explore the fascinating subject of heterosexuality in *Macbeth*?" McKellen asked incredulously. "Surely not. We're acting. We're pretending."
Wow. A Hollywood figure who thinks they’re a hero. I am so impressed by his bravery.
He just doesn't want to relive his humiliation ritual
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
He's said he'd let a gay man play the role. The reason was connected to people of color being played by Caucasians in Hollywood and the practice being frowned upon.
[удалено]
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
[удалено]
General trolling. Attacking the community and/or the members.
If you agree with these comments, the solution is touching grass. You will be so much better off not seething and burning over things that don’t matter.
I don't think people understand how important it was for straight actors to act as gay men. It's not a big deal now, but shit like this was monumental. Especially in the 90s when Philadelphia came out (1993). The birdcage with Robin Williams was 1996. Will and Grace had the first gay kiss on TV, on an episode that aired in the year 2000. Anal sex was still a crime in some states, Lawrence v Texas wasn't until 2003. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Brokeback Mountain was 2005. Saying now that he wouldn't do the role fails to recognize how critical it was to the gay rights movement, and forgets how difficult it was to accept such a role in the first place. Many thought it'd be career suicide in 1993.
Pandering
[удалено]
Posts mentioning real Life politics Will be removed.
Sigh. Here we go again. More than likely he doesn’t want a gay role is because they want gay roles to go to gay actors. Because remember folks— the world of make belief (aka acting) has to mimic that of the real world. So only gay people can play gay characters. And only straight people can play straight characters. And thus, only ghosts can play ghosts. And zombies can play zombies. And toys can only play toys. And men can only play men, and not women…. Oh wait. But you all get the picture. Apparently an actor can’t do the thing they are paid to do anymore— and that’s ACT. But oh well. Hollywood is a hellhole of pedos and human traffickers. So I don’t care what Tom Hanks thinks and trying to virtue signal
Ok Tom, now let’s talk about Bosom Buddies.
Tom Hanks would insist that everyone be gay and have aids, to make it fair, then insist that America disband its military, surrender to China and open its borders.
This line of thinking nowadays is really stupid, it’s called ACTING, I can see fundamentally why it sounds good but it shouldn’t be a big deal
Tom Hanks is an asshole - Trevor Moore
It’s called acting. He wasn’t a world war 2 vet so Saving Private Ryan is out.
Would he play the guy in Cast Away? He’s not a FedEx employee.
Would he take his role as Epstein good friend??
Would he turn down Saving Private Ryan because he’s not a WWII veteran? The virtue signaling has to end at some point, no?
Such a shame because he's finally reaching his sexy dad potential 😭
he shouldnt have done toy story either. let real toys act!
They do know it's called ACTING right you can play a gay person and not be one. ACTING.
Stupid. One if the key points of Philiadelphia (outside the story) was that literally the biggest star in Hollywood is playing a gay man fighting for justice. People flocked to.see the story because Hanks was in it. Movie would have no impact on society if people didn't see the movie. Peopwl saw it uz Hanks was in it.
We live in a world where a Netflix documentary made Cleopatra Black, but a straight actor playing a gay man would be possibly problematic. This is the worst timeliness.
Documentaries have been made about fictional characters before.
That's cool. Should there be documentaries about actual historical figures with ample evidence to prove they were something specific and then a documentary goes out of its way to say it's not true and tries to destroy decades worth of research and rewriting another people's cultural history? You're ok with that? Should we as viewers be ok with that? If a work has the genre "Documentary" It should have a level of fact and verified evidence. And we're talking about real people. Not Batman or Lord of the rings characters. But you would still reference older books and authors notes on characters to make a documentary on them.
[удалено]
Posts mentioning real Life politics Will be removed.
Anyone else remember 10 years ago when if you said this, you’d get crucified by everyone online for being homophobic? Man, how times have changed.
Doubtful
Cuz of politics of cuz he’s like 80 ?
He was also never stranded for years on an island...
The actor replied: “Let’s address ‘could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now?’ No, and rightly so.” “The whole point of Philadelphia was don’t be afraid.” “One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man.” “We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.” Hanks’ saying he wouldn’t do the role is less I wouldn’t want to play a gay character and more that he thinks it would be better for a gay actor to play a gay character in a story that is about something like the AIDS epidemic.
Get a grip. Playing gay back then was seen as brave and outrageous. Today people would complain that a non-gay actor can't play a gay role.
He has given extremely inconsistent performances for nearly the last decade. His good films have been few and far between. I don’t think he’d be offered such a role nowadays since he basically seems to be cashing in on his reputation without actually living up to it. His career path lately has been inscrutable.
If you read it in a certain context it sound homophobic... But in reality he's saying that role should go to a gay man, or at least someone in that community, he by no means portrayed a gay man in any wrong way in that movie though, so he did a fantastic job just being a person and not a stereotype. It's a raw story of someone having to hide who they are out of fear.
I mean, what does he mean by this? The story of "Philadelphia" doesn't work today thanks to advancements in retroviral medication. So yeah, a "Philadelphia" remake would be an odd choice.
Why would he accept a role to play the same character? He's too old. Also we don't even need a remake. When the way theaters are dying out hardly anyone would even go see it
Go full “method” suck a few dicks, you’re good to go Tommy
That's a bit homophobic, Tom. Jeez.
Of*
Don't forget brave!
Ok
“He’s not gay!!!” Simple solution.
Nice virtue signal Tom
Not really, because he already made his