Was Laverne Cox MIscast In The New Rocky Horror Picture Show

I happened to turn on the TV and saw that The Rocky Horror Picture Show was on Fox. It was a remake. I'm not going to start a rant on remakes here and why most of them are so bad. Usually, it has to do with the "modern spin" they always choose to put on a movie in a misguided effort to make it better.

I had nothing better to do. I decided to give this version a chance. It only took until Frank N Furter entered the picture to see that this was going to be a different show and would surely create a controversy. Transgender actress Laverne Cox took on the role.

This brings the first question. Was she doing it just because it would be fun to take on the role that made Tim Curry famous, or was she wanting to start the debate that her appearing in the role would cause? If it was the latter, that was a brilliant move.

Laverne's appearance in this role started the conversation about the various sub groups within the transgender community. You see, the T in LGBT has it's own big umbrella. There are cross dressers, sissies, transvestites, gender fluid, transgender (pre op, non op and post op) and other groups I'm sure I'm forgetting.

When Curry made the role famous, he was clearly playing a bisexual transvestite. The "horror" of the movie had to do with the idea that he had captured this couple and would have his way sexually with them, basically against their will, and that they might eventually submit and become one of them. There was the "stigma" of being gay.  Plus, you had the sense that Frank was dangerous and could snap at any time and kill them if the mood took him.

One of the debates over Cox taking this role is that she is transgender. She identifies as a woman. That's what transgender is. You don't identify in the gender in which you were born, and you seek to transition to the other gender, male to female or female to male. That's what transgender is.

Transvestite is entirely different. It's a clothing and sexual fetish. You may be a man who will dress in societal norms, and then at times you will dress in clothing and go for the whole appearance of the opposite gender. And, sex is one of the goals for a transvestite. There's sometimes the appeal of the blurry lines. If you are a male dressing as female and have sex with a man as his "woman" of the moment, you aren't gay because of how you were dressed. This is the way some transvestites think. They might never engage in sex with a man if they are dressed as a man themselves.

So, knowing that the original movie has a male transvestite in the lead role, was Laverne Cox the appropriate person for this part? There's big debate over that, and I'll add my two cents. I don't believe she belonged in that role, and it took some of the edge away from the movie.

There's a question some men may not want to honestly answer to anybody, but I'll ask it anyway. If Tim Curry's portrayal of Frank forced himself on you, would you submit or would you fight it? If Cox's portrayal did the same thing, what would be your answer? I'm willing to bet that more men would play with Laverne. I know it's an uncomfortable question to ask, because people are still freaked out by the transgender community enough to commit violence against them in 2016.

When it comes to the role, I heard it suggested that Laverne was just too pretty to pull it off. I agree that she is a beautiful woman, and in this case, that's not what the role calls for. In the original, you know Frank is a he. In the remake, the female pronouns are used more, because that's just natural for Laverne. She is a transgender woman. I would never disrespect her by suggesting otherwise.

The thing that freaks the heterosexual male out about transgender women is that some women have done so much to make themselves beautiful and feminine that the men themselves can't "tell" by looking at them. So, some of these women will appeal to certain men enough to want to have sex with them. When the subject of her "born gender" comes up, it messes with the man's head, and the gay discussion takes over.

Hence, the biggest reason the T is in LBGBT when the T has needs that don't always jibe with the LGB. Many transgender people don't want to fight a cause, be in anybody's face or any of that. They are the gender they present and want to be accepted as they are, not talked about in terms of what they "used to be" or any of that.

This is another struggle that so many go through in the transgender community as they start their transition. People can "tell" what gender they were born just by looking at them. Adding further insult is the fact that despite the efforts to present themselves in public, there are some people who refuse to acknowledge them properly when they can see the obvious effort being made. She is still a he to them, and that brings up another insensitive comment I read in the post movie discussion.

It was the discussion about whether Laverne herself has had the surgery, which I personally feel is out of bounds. Somebody made the rather disrespectful comment that no matter what she had "cut off" she was still a he or an it. To those who don't understand, these thoughts go through the minds of many who transition, and some are still suicidal over the whole thing. They don't doubt that they are doing the right thing. What they struggle with is the idea that they will never completely be that gender, no matter how they look.

People like to rate a transgender person on how they look. She's passable, that's a man and so on. Cox herself was judged in portraying Frank, and some said she was just too pretty for the role. The role required a man in woman's clothing. This may be true, but Hollywood loves to miscast. Consider all of the transgender roles that clearly called for somebody like Cox, yet went to naturally born or "cisgender" women. Yes, there are transgender actresses who constantly get overlooked.

I don't personally feel this version of Rocky Horror measured up to the 1975 movie. How could it? But, Laverne and the cast gave it their all, and I can't fault them for that. Cox had fun with the role, and she intentionally or unintentionally sparked a conversation that can lead to better understanding of the transgender community. That's a good thing.

Even in this discussion, the Trump vs Clinton election had to rear it's ugly head. Curry had a role as the narrator, and he's still recovering from a stroke suffered in 2012. Somebody asked a question that appeared insensitive because they discussed his performance not being so good. Automatically, this person was branded as hateful and intolerant, which apparently can only be the case if you are a Republican.

The reality is, ignorance has no political, ideological, racial or religious preference. We are all guilty of it from time to time. Fortunately, we all have the opportunity to grow and learn as human beings. One of the nice things about Laverne Cox taking on the role of Frank N Furter is that it gives people a chance to engage in a discussion about transgender issues and come to more of an understanding.

What If You Don't Like Either Candidate?

I had a political thought. I'm with Monty Brewster. None Of The Above. It makes me sad the way people are talking about people who are voting for somebody they don't support. News flash, folks. The politicians don't give a damn about us and will do what they want regardless of who gets in.

The price of food, rent and everything else will still leave many of us living from paycheck to paycheck. And the politicians and the corporate billionaires who buy them off will just get richer as the real agenda moves forward. You want to really make America great again? Do it yourself by starting within your community.

I don't support Trump or Clinton, because they both leave much to be desired. I dislike Clinton a little more, but there is no way I could ever in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? I still think that person is evil and not for the people. Haven't we learned by now what we get when we do that?

I have friends who will vote for Clinton. I have friends who will vote for Trump. I disagree with their staunch support of their candidate of choice. That doesn't make them stupid or anything else. If they are voting from the heart, I can respect that. No need for name calling.

We all see it. The world is turning upside down. We've been on a steady decline for years, and it's gotten worse since that fateful day 15 years ago. People can feel it. People are scared. What do you do? What has happened to this country in the last 30 years? How did it happen? Who is to blame?

Then, we get into election season and people start thinking that their vote is going to make a difference. It's not, of course. My friends in California are largely Trump supporters. California will go for Hillary regardless. Popular votes don't matter. Electoral votes do. California could run a piece of turd against a Republican (and they sort of are), but that piece of turd would win.

The county is more divided than ever. This left vs right nonsense is only one example. Religions are pitted against each other. People hate on Muslims the way the country hated on all people of Japanese decent back in WW2. But not all of any group is evil. Every group has bad elements. I'm not fond of Christians who preach hate, which I know Jesus would not condone.

Black Lives Matter? No. ALL lives matter. Not all black people are bad because a few get stupid and are baited by certain black authority figures on TV. Not all police are bad because we have some rogue cops who act like Judge Dredd and go beyond their job description. Not all Mexicans are bad for coming here and looking for a better life. It's all being used, this and that, to destroy this country.

How do we change it? By realizing that we are being pitted against each other in an act of divide and conquer while the global elite who have most of the money, own most of the stuff and have most of the power take control. They are laughing at us all. They don't care about any of us. Useless eaters is what we are to them.

What do I know? I know that I don't know everything. I'm learning every day. I don't have the answers. I have more questions, but I will never stop learning and seeking the truth. My mantra is simple. Question Everything. Listen to everything, but don't believe what you hear until you can verify it. We are being lied to at every turn. Just remember, God gave you a brain. Use it. Don't let anybody think for you.

Star Trek Continues A Faithful Tribute To The Original

If you're like me, you weren't thrilled by the reboot of the Star Trek franchise on the big screen.  It has all of the fancy special effects, but it lacks that certain feel that the older movies or the five series had.  Call it the Gene Roddenberry vision.  Call it what you will, but there's a segment of fans of this franchise that want Star Trek to be Star Trek.

Fortunately, there is a man who has stepped in to make Star Trek happen in a way that most of us probably never anticipated with Star Trek Continues.  His name is Vic Mignogna, and he is a life long fan of the original Star Trek series.  In fact, if you've listened to him discuss what this show and William Shatner's portrayal of Captain Kirk meant to him as a kid, you know he is a man dedicated to creating a show faithful to the vision of series creator Gene Roddenberry.  The look, sound and feel of this show are on a level unseen since the original series ran in the 1960's.

Vic started the Star Trek Continues effort differently that most fan created endeavors.  He didn't start a crowd finding campaign for his first episode, Pilgrim Of Eternity.  He felt that he needed to prove to the fans that he could do it.  Therefore, he funded the first episode out of his own pocket.  This was an unofficial sequel to an original series episode titled Who Mourns For Adonis.  Vic even convinced Michael Forrest to reprise his role as Apollo.  The episode was a hit with the fans, and successful crowd funding campaigns have enabled the crew to make six more episodes since then.

If you've watched any of the first seven episodes created by Vic and the wonderful cast and crew, you would agree that these episodes could have run back when the original series ran.  Star Trek Continues picks up where the original show went off the air.  It was originally a five year mission, and these episodes are meant to be a continuation of that mission.  Officially, it is not seen as series cannon, but Rod Roddenberry, son of Gene, has said that if his father were alive today, he would approve.  Rod goes on to say that it's official cannon as far as he's concerned.

In the recently released episode titled Embracing The Winds, the subject of women getting a chance to be starship captains in Starfleet is part of the story, while Chekov has his skills put to the test.  This show tackles topics that would have fit right into the original series, such as slavery in an episode involving the Orions.  The episode is called Lolani, and it's a favorite with many fans.  They also return to the Mirror, Mirror universe for a really good episode called The Fairest Of Them All.

The climate for Star Trek fan created content is a bit rough as CBS and Paramount have taken legal action against some fan created projects.  Star Trek: Axanar is in limbo as the matter may end up in court next year.  The Star Trek: Renegades series, which included Trek alumni Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig and Tim Russ, removed Star Trek from their name in a concern over legal issues.  Mignogna has made it clear that they are not deriving any profit from this show, they claim no ownership of it and it's being created simply for fans to enjoy.

One reason it might be wise for Paramount to leave this show alone is there is still a segment of fans who do not like the new direction the franchise has taken in recent years.  Many of these fans turn to Star Trek Continues for their one or two new episodes a year.  Letting this continue would be a good public relations move on behalf of Paramount.  As long as the Star Trek Continues crew is not selling the content and profiting from it, it's not harming the franchise owners.  It's only helping grow the brand.

As of September, we've heard of no legal issues against the Star Trek Continues crew.  They debuted Embrace The Winds at the beginning of September.  Mignogna revealed that he himself has invested in the neighborhood of $150,000 of his own money to make this show a reality.  He likens it to a hobby.  After bills are paid, you have money to spend on entertainment.  This, he says, is his entertainment.

What might make Paramount feel threatened enough to shut down this amazing recreation of the original Star Trek is the fact that they are preparing to launch a brand new weekly TV series.  If they view these new episodes as a threat to that, they might act on it.  In all reality, most of the Star Trek fans who watch this show will watch anything officially Star Trek that is released.  One would hope that they will look at this show and see it for the loving tribute to the original that it is and let it continue.

Some have speculated that CBS could offer this show a TV deal.  It seems unlikely for a prime time spot to open up, but what if they put it some place in late night or got a syndication deal to air it on weekends?  Syndication was what relaunched Star Trek back in the 1980's with The Next Generation.  Some people bristle at this idea as it takes the creative freedom away from Vic and his crew.  On the other hand, such a deal could almost assure the five year mission would be seen to the end with a good enough budget to make it easier for them to do their thing.

When you think about it, the Star Trek Continues crew is working within the same sort of budget that the original series had.  They improvise when they have to and let the story keep you entertained.  It's not about the flashy special effects that so many of the science fiction efforts rely on these days.  It's good writing and the acting skills of Vic Mignogna (James T. Kirk), Todd Haberkorn (Spock), Chuck Huber (Leonard H. McCoy), Chris Doohan (Montgomery Scott), Grant Imahara (Hikaru Sulu), Kim Stinger (Nyota Uhura), Wyatt Lenhart (Pavel A. Chekov) and Michele Specht (Elise McKennah) that make Star Trek Continues so good.

Check Out The Episodes On The Star Trek Continues Website By Clicking HERE

Alex Jones Trolled Or Misinformed On Wikileaks News Conference?

Self proclaimed alternative media leader Alex Jones admitted that he got trolled by the supposed big announcement of Julian Assange of Wikileaks early Tuesday morning.  Jones decided to have a special live edition of his show to cover the early morning event after reports that what was going to be released could prove to be damaging to Hillary Clinton and ultimately lead to the end of her presidential campaign.

This Wikileaks conference turned out to be more about celebrating ten years of releasing documents.  Before Assange ever spoke, there were other speakers discussing the process they go through to release the data, the very real threats on people's lives for doing it and highlighting some of their accomplishments.  By the times Assange spoke, he merely hinted at things to come as they continue to do what they do.  He also noted the Americans watching the live stream by saying that 3 in the morning is not when Wikileaks releases that type of information.

At that point, Jones pretty much lost it and lamented the fact that he had been "trolled" by Assange.  But, had he?  Leading up to this moment, Assange had only hinted at what he might have concerning Clinton and indicated that it was interesting and entertaining.  He never really said that what he had was some sort of "October Surprise" even though others had insinuated that.  In fact, he mentioned that others were misquoting him and making assumptions.

Who are these others he might be referring to?  One would be former Donald Trump "right hand man" Roger Stone, who had gone on the Infowars show with Jones and said that the information was bombshell and  would be the end of Clinton's campaign.  He even hinted at the idea that he and Assange had spoken privately on the matter.  This appears to be the information Jones went with before doing the special broadcast, and it highlights a problem with the news he produces on his shows and website.

As a show and news site that offers different theories and perspectives on the news, Infowars has it's moments.  There are times when they are very much on target.  However, there are other times when they are off the mark, engaged in pure speculation or obviously coming at it with their own agenda.  That's no different than what a mainstream left or right news site might do.  They can give you things to think about, but in the end you might want to dig a little deeper before you blindly believe everything you hear.

In the case of Jones, one of his core themes through the years when he's spoken of presidential politics has been that left vs right doesn't matter.  At their core, they are still owned by the people who are destroying our country.  Neither candidate is for the people.  He's even spoken about how picking between the lesser of two evils is still evil.  However, Jones has unapologetically thrown his support behind Donald Trump.  In fact, he's gone so far as to attack the Libertarian option, making allegations against Gary Johnson that seem a bit far fetched.
\
One might speculate as to why Jones has done this.  Is it because he merely wants to stop Clinton, which obviously is one reason?  Or is it his attempt to rise into the mainstream media if/when Trump wins and pad his own pockets?  His true motives are his own, but it is obvious that Jones is selling the notion that Clinton must be stopped and Trump is somehow going to save America.  Because of that, he took the bait set more by Stone than Assange, rather than research it a little bit more.  If you've followed Jones, this isn't the first or last time he's done this with a story.

In the end, nothing relevant came out of the press conference, other than the fact that Wikileaks is celebrating ten years and people have died for getting real information out to the people.  People in high places want the founder of Wikileaks put away permanently and have spoken of his assassination.  But, at least for now, there is no bombshell revelation about Clinton.  As for anybody trolling Alex Jones?  One might point a finger at Stone or Jones himself.  You'd think Jones would do more research before jumping right into something like this.  Then again, this is something William Cooper tried to warn people of years ago.  It appears as if Jones still hasn't learned.