Goblins XVII: The shocking end of the story arc

[Typewriter]

I have such a wide range of emotions right now.

Positive - Even though I have trouble believing that it's going to stick I am happy with the recent flow of updates and would love to be proven wrong in my doubts.

Concerned - While I am not a therapist I have seen my fair share of them and Elli talking about no longer using her voice and instead using sign language because of the emotional turmoil it causes her strikes me as alarming. Doing it 'temporarily' until the surgery doesn't really alleviate that concern though because if she spends the next few months learning/using ASL and the surgery doesn't work she's not going to want to stop. This is the sort of thing that reminds me of those people who haven't taken a left turn in thirty years or who never leave the house. Obviously the situation here is a bit more complicated because it comes down to 'turn off a part of your identity by changing the way you communicate' or 'continue your life as normal and deal with your voice causing you vocal dismorphia.'

Irritated - For years the update schedule has been terrible and there's always been some excuse. Apparently the solution to all those excuses is "Need money without begging - better do my job."

[Lissou]

She also still hasn't [...] said how the facial surgery went.

She's shared a lot of updates actually with pictures and even a video. Or did you mean she didn't mention it on the blog itself? You mention the blog earlier in the sentence, you could have meant it for this too.

Thanks for sharing the tweets, I somehow completely missed them.

I don't think going non-verbal is that scary, not when she's learning sign language and therefore communicating. It means that she's not trying to lock everyone out, she just can't stand her voice anymore. It's not the first time she's had high expectations and had trouble dealing with it not going the way she hoped. The mix of using sign language (and other communication methods such as knocks) and planning for the trip that would solve her issue is very positive, in the past she's had trouble dealing with strong emotional issues, and here she has both a temporary solution and long-term planning. That's very positive, IMO

[tomaO2]

Correct, I meant she has said nothing about it in the blog. Talking about it on her trans account does not count. That is just a fraction of her donation base, and her posts about the topic there haven't been thank yous to those that donated, it's been her just being happy about getting what she wanted. That's different. She's not doing this to inform, she's doing this because she just likes to talk about her personal life, and how she managed to do it is not on her list of topics.

She deleted her post asking for donations, rather than making a new one, thanking people, and telling them that the surgery was a success. I think that's really disrespectful. It's like saying, "I got what I wanted, now I'm just gonna ignore these people that helped me when I was at my lowest lows". She had no obligations to do anything for the money, all people wanted was a simple thank you, and she couldn't even do that.

Her work twitter has 11k followers, and her trans twitter has 2k followers. The work twitter is obviously higher because people want to read about the comic, not her politics and personal life. While I don't know how many people read her blog, I think I can confidently state that it is MUCH larger. Her best best to get more patrons is to ask on her blog. That is where she can get the most eyeballs.

Problem is she looks bad by doing so now, which is why I think she only asked on twitter. If she had properly thanked people months ago, then most people (myself included) would not much care, and I'm actually glad she's going for working harder instead of just asking for money. However, because she never thanked anyone, and basically dropped the entire thing, as if hoping that people forget she even asked, that just makes and new donation requests sound like she is only thanking people because she needs to milk them again for more money.

It doesn't come across as a genuine thank you.

If she wanted to ask for money on her blog again, even if it's just for patreon support, I don't think it will be a good look. In my opinion, the best thing she could do would be to finally post the overdue thank you post, talk about how how well she's doing, and then tell everyone about the need for for money after a month or so.

[Draconi Redfir]

i mean idk about you, but i don't donate money for the sole purpose of being thanked for it. i donate to help someone in need.

if my goal was just to hear the words "thank you" after spending money, i'd pay a guy $5 to say the words "Thank you" to me.

[tomaO2]

It's simple politeness. We don't help to be thanked but it's rude to not thank people that have helped you. {scrubbed}

People do it when asking for someone to move out of the way, or what time it is. Would you seriously not say thanks if you needed to borrow a phone?

When a panhandler gets money, he says thank you. Imagine begging for money on the street, and someone gives you five bucks, and you look at that for a money, before promptly turning around and walking away from him. You think the guy that just gave him money will be inclined to do that for you again?

There is a limit to defending bad behavior. Saying thank you is the most basic of basics. {scrubbed}

[Draconi Redfir]

i mean yes, a thanks is the polite thing to do if you're given something. but complaining about not getting one just makes you look entitled.

[tomaO2]

On a completely different topic, because I refuse to continue to argue on saying thank you, Elli was complaining about Halley Barry wanting to take a role playing a trans man and is thrilled now that she decided against it. Straight women are not allowed to play trans roles in her mind, it seems.

In that vein, I would like to ask if the voice actor playing Big Ears is gay. Does Elli hold to her convictions when it's HER movie? The voice actor for Ears is Matthew Mercer.

Matthew Mercer (born Matthew Christopher Miller; June 29, 1982) is an American independent filmmaker, script writer and voice actor. He's married to voice actress Marisha Ray.

Married. Woops, guess not gay. What are the standards here Elli? Are there no gay men that could take the role? Why was it so important to get famous hetrosexual voice actors, when there are homosexual ones that also need work? It's almost like having a famous name attached to a work gets more attention.

This has gotta be the most hypocritical thing I've heard her say. She's fine not promoting LGBT representation on her own projects, but natters away on people doing the same.

[Draconi Redfir]

was the trans man role a voice-acting gig? or a live-action role? There can be a difference between the two.

if it was a live-action gig, getting someone who actually is what you're looking for is generally the best bet, so it's more authentic.

if it's voice-acting for an animated character, generally you want the best person for the job, who might not necessarily be the same as the role. Which makes sense, you'd be hard pressed to find a giant dinosaur to voice Littlefoot's grandfather these days.

[Morgaln]

I'm pretty sure film makers also want the best person for the job. I'd also like to point out that Tom Hanks is not gay and doesn't have aids and still did a great job in Philadelphia. Actors are portraying roles that are not themselves all the time. It's called acting.
Also, many trans people (including Elli) would like nothing more than just be accepted as a member of the gender they identify as without disclosing that they are trans. Looking specifically for a trans actor goes counter to that.

About the thank you thing: if you get gifted $20k for cosmetic surgery that is, essentially, no more necessary than a facelift or a nose job, those people gifting you the money certainly do deserve a thank you. If you can't be bothered to even say thanks, you're looking far more entitled than anyone who points out that a thank you would be appropriate.

[Traab]

was the trans man role a voice-acting gig? or a live-action role? There can be a difference between the two.

if it was a live-action gig, getting someone who actually is what you're looking for is generally the best bet, so it's more authentic.

if it's voice-acting for an animated character, generally you want the best person for the job, who might not necessarily be the same as the role. Which makes sense, you'd be hard pressed to find a giant dinosaur to voice Littlefoot's grandfather these days.

Thats been under fire as well, the voice actors for the simpsons for example, arent going to have a white guy playing apu anymore, and I think there were a few other changes. So yeah, it seems like it doesnt matter if its a live action role of voice acting role, the demand to find someone who is that character irl, or at least the same sex/race/whatever, is growing louder.

[tomaO2]

was the trans man role a voice-acting gig? or a live-action role? There can be a difference between the two.

I assume a live action role but I can NOT find any information on it. Every article is "upcoming movie". That is literally the full extent of the information. More importantly, I am pretty sure Elli doesn't know either, she certainly didn't state what movie Halle would play in, just stated her displeasure that Halle would want a trans role and proceeded to quote some of Halle's offensive statements that I will not repeat here, to avoid being infracted (again...).

Therefore, the difference between live action and animation is currently a mute point, unless Elli clarifies. Feel free to ask her on her trans twitter if you can do so. I certainly can't.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCMp7-Nn1Pg/

This is the interview that got the information being spread around. I believe the entirety of the movie conversation takes place around the 36 minute mark, and Halle mentions that she would be willing to have her hair cut short for the right role, and then talks about how she's thinking of playing a trans character. This implies live action, but doesn't outright state it. With all the face mapping going on for the latest computer animations, it's possible that it is animated.

I'm pretty sure film makers also want the best person for the job. I'd also like to point out that Tom Hanks is not gay and doesn't have aids and still did a great job in Philadelphia. Actors are portraying roles that are not themselves all the time. It's called acting.

That was a long time ago. I agree the sentiment, as I have stated already, but standards are changing. Halle was not the first to decide not to take a trans role, and actors that have taken trans roles have stated that they wouldn't want to do so again, in order to help struggling LGBT actors get their big break.

Also, many trans people (including Elli) would like nothing more than just be accepted as a member of the gender they identify as without disclosing that they are trans. Looking specifically for a trans actor goes counter to that.

While Elli is trying to blend in, she also has stated that she does need more than just being accepted, she needs to also display it.

@Elli_Trans
I LOVE being transgender. It's a huge part of who I am and I like it that way

In addition, like I said, Elli is against Hally playing a trans character.

@Elli_Trans
Oh, Halle Berry is playing a trans man in a movie? That sounds like a terrible idea. Let's see what Halle has to say...

@Elli_Trans
Wow! My respect for Halle Berry just went up so much. I think she handled this with so much class.
*retweets Hally turning down the role of the trans character where she specifically states the reason is because she is not trans herself.*

These are very recent tweets, you can look them up easily enough yourself. The message is clear, LGBT roles should go to LGBT actors. So why is Big Ears, a gay character, getting played by a big name straight voice actor?

That's the thing though, we all know the answer. Big names attract attention that small names don't. Elli knows this, which is why she wanted big names, but now she's saying that other people must make sure to be more inclusive, while she is not being the change she wants to see.

Thats been under fire as well, the voice actors for the simpsons for example, arent going to have a white guy playing apu anymore, and I think there were a few other changes. So yeah, it seems like it doesn't matter if its a live action role of voice acting role, the demand to find someone who is that character irl, or at least the same sex/race/whatever, is growing louder.

Another recent example it The Last of Us 2.

There is exactly one trans character in the game, and there is also exactly one trans male voice actor.

Guess who voices the trans male in the game.

In fairness, the bi character was not played by a bisexual woman, as far as I can tell. Then again, it's a bit harder to know if someone is bisexual or not.

I do recall a backlash for that female Batwoman TV series though. Ruby, who plays as Batwoman, got a lot of attacks for being bisexual, instead of a lesbian, like the character is. She has actually decided to quit her role, and my understanding is that the studio is saying her replacement will be a lesbian.

It's a whole new world now. Past actors that have done LGBT roles are stating that they hope that LGBT rolls will be going to LGBT actors in the future. Straight actors are refusing LGBT roles. Organized pushes on twitter are growing for more LGBT acting, and Elli is also staking a claim that she is for LGBT representation in her posts talking about Halle Berry.

Just one problem with that, she has her own project that isn't holding up to the ideals she expects from others.


EDIT: New actress is announced, another bisexual to play a lesbian character. I'm curious if there will be complaint again about a bi actress playing a lesbian role. She is also black, so maybe that means she will check off enough intersectional boxes to avoid complaints on that.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

On the one hand I'm sure a lot of people in Hollywood are running into a glass ceiling, and that's bad. On the other hand I don't feel this is the way to fix that.

I'm not saying I know the right way to fix it. The ideal is of course the career of someone like Peter Dinklage, he gets offered roles that don't require a dwarf actor. (Someone like Will Smith or Denzel Washington might count too, and Sandra Bullock was offered one or two roles that could go to men as well.) But for that ideal situation, you pretty much have to accept that actors are actors and can act. Peter Dinklage can play "not a hobbit" (or more correctly: he can play a person who happens to be a little person rather than it being a defining characteristic, or with the use of special effects he can play a regularly sized person, or a space giant), and Elijah Wood can play a hobbit. And this goes double for orientation and such because while looking like a hobbit or a black person or is at least somewhat physical, looking like a proper lesbian is all in the acting, e.g. what these people do for a living.

If we end up harpooning the career of a bisexual woman because the character is a lesbian, then what's the point? And while Halle Berry is at this point too big to fail and we don't need to feel too sorry for her career, you know she must have faced that glass ceiling too at some point. And now she's famous, now big movies want her for big roles, and she can't take then because she's not minority enough. So now the Oscar goes to a random theater actor who I'm sure will nail the part but who will never get another movie roll again because the audience insists he can only play trans men.

And while we're at it, fire every female voice actor that voices young boys. A dream role like Ash Ketchum should go to a real young boy, preferably a new one every three years.

[Traab]

Yeah I feel that its one of those good intentioned ideas thats really just a bad idea overall. I mean, the entire point of being an actor is to play a character that you arent in real life. And if you do insist on casting people who are as close to the role as its possible to be, where does it stop? If we remake silence of the lambs do we need to cast an actual sociopathic guy with a doctorate of some sort as hannibel? Does agent starling have to be played by a woman traumatized by a visit to the farm as a child? You might think thats a silly thing to say, but this whole concept started out as objections to whitewashing roles and has now morphed into including sexual preferences and gender identity as well.

[John Cribati]

And while Halle Berry is at this point too big to fail and we don't need to feel too sorry for her career, you know she must have faced that glass ceiling too at some point. And now she's famous, now big movies want her for big roles, and she can't take then because she's not minority enough.

The idea is that if she had accepted the role and continued with production, she would effectively be making someone else's glass ceiling a lot thicker.

I can at least name one trans actress- Laverne Cox- but the only trans actor I heard of had been stealth the whole time and only came out once the sitcom he had a recurring role in had ended- and I don't even remember his name off the top of my head.

[Morgaln]

The idea is that if she had accepted the role and continued with production, she would effectively be making someone else's glass ceiling a lot thicker.

I can at least name one trans actress- Laverne Cox- but the only trans actor I heard of had been stealth the whole time and only came out once the sitcom he had a recurring role in had ended- and I don't even remember his name off the top of my head.

My problem with that is that for every other job, we're currently trying to make things like gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and so on a non-issue. If someone applies for a job as, say, an accountant, it's highly inappropriate to ask them whether they are trans; the question shouldn't come up, ever, because it is no one's business. People are fighting tooth and nail to make it illegal to deny someone a position just because they are trans (or not trans, for that matter, because true equality goes both ways). Now suddenly all of that is supposed to get reversed for actors.
If it turns out to be legal to deny a cis person a trans role, it will in return mean that it is legal to deny a trans person a cis role. Laws do cut both ways like that. That will turn into a very thick glass ceiling for trans actors because I doubt there will be enough trans roles in the near future to make a living from for even a single actor.

That said, from what I've read Halle Berry really didn't seem to understand what being trans means all that well. That doesn't necessarily mean she shouldn't play the role; it means she should learn about what being trans means and the appropriate way to present it.

[John Cribati]

Acting is fundamentally different from doing a desk job.

[John Cribati]

People are fighting tooth and nail to make it illegal to deny someone a position just because they are trans (or not trans, for that matter, because true equality goes both ways). Now suddenly all of that is supposed to get reversed for actors.
If it turns out to be legal to deny a cis person a trans role, it will in return mean that it is legal to deny a trans person a cis role. Laws do cut both ways like that. That will turn into a very thick glass ceiling for trans actors because I doubt there will be enough trans roles in the near future to make a living from for even a single actor.

Okay. Here's a scenario.

You have a 5 foot tall wall, and three people who need to see what's on the other side.

Person A is 6 feet tall.
Person B is 4 feet tall.
Person C is 2 feet tall.

What do you do? What size platform do you give to each person?

Logically, since Person A can already see over the wall, they don't need a platform. Maybe one that's a foot tall so they've got a comfortable bit of leeway, but other than that they're fine.

By that logic, Person B would be given a 3-foot tall platform, and Person C would get a 5-foot tall platform.

That's fair, right? Everybody is made to be the same height and can see over the wall. But it isn't equal, because you've given each person a different-sized platform.

So yeah, there are going to be people who'll end up drawing the short straw, but those folks would be the ones who never really needed a long straw to begin with.

[Typewriter]

An acting job should go to the person best able to perform in that role and ones ability to act has nothing to do with what is in their pants.

[Vinyadan]

I can understand people recusing themselves from roles that represent a stereotyped portrayal of a group they aren't part of. The Apu guy left, but Apu as a character had been under fire for years. An Indian Apu would give legitimacy to the character, the idea that it isn't just a white-created stereotype. This works with just about any group.

There also are certain taboos that are idiosyncratic of a culture. So in America and Canada painting your face after a different race is shameful. Europe watches without really getting it, because its history is very different, and the word racism doesn't evoke "minstrels", it evokes "Holocaust" (selectively). Confusion increases when the concept is broadened to voices rather than appearance, given that e.g. Aida doesn't require any African singer.

It's also that the concept of race and identity in and of itself is cultural, and therefore bound to have different boundaries across times and cultures. A friend of mine thought that some people from Ecuador would be offended by an unflattering depiction of the Japanese, because there were some traits that, to him, made them look like they should identify with the Japanese, although he knew where they were from. It sounds silly now*, but what if, one day, a Pacific identity were to develop autonomously, or be invented by an outsider? So setting hard and fast rules about who can portray whom is impossible, because this stuff is always moving, which means constant dissatisfaction.

*actually, there's a movie by John Woo that portrays something similar, Windtalkers.

[Morgaln]

Okay. Here's a scenario.

You have a 5 foot tall wall, and three people who need to see what's on the other side.

Person A is 6 feet tall.
Person B is 4 feet tall.
Person C is 2 feet tall.

What do you do? What size platform do you give to each person?

Logically, since Person A can already see over the wall, they don't need a platform. Maybe one that's a foot tall so they've got a comfortable bit of leeway, but other than that they're fine.

By that logic, Person B would be given a 3-foot tall platform, and Person C would get a 5-foot tall platform.

That's fair, right? Everybody is made to be the same height and can see over the wall. But it isn't equal, because you've given each person a different-sized platform.

So yeah, there are going to be people who'll end up drawing the short straw, but those folks would be the ones who never really needed a long straw to begin with.

You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying cis people are drawing the short straw. I'm saying that restricting trans roles to trans people is hurtful to the trans cause; because once you do that, you open the door to legally ask an actor whether they are cis or trans, and base your decision on hiring them on the answer either way. That means it gives producers a handle to discriminate against trans people.
Do you really believe that restricting trans roles to trans actors will increase the number of roles that trans actors get? It's more likely that planned trans roles get rewritten to being cis or scrapped entirely, either because producers don't want to go through the hassle of finding a trans person or just can't find someone who's willing to out themselves as trans in order to get that role. How does that help trans representation? Not to mention that we're still in a phase were being trans might mean they get offered less roles in the future if they out themselves, so it might actually be hurting their career.
And again, how is it appropriate to ask an actor whether they are cis or trans? Do actors give up their right for privacy when choosing their profession?

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: let's everyone please get back on topic

[Anarchic Fox]

On topic: don't worry everyone, Fumbles isn't dead. If he had died, it would have been far more traumatic for the readers and GAP.

[Traab]

On topic: don't worry everyone, Fumbles isn't dead. If he had died, it would have been far more traumatic for the readers and GAP.

Yep not nearly enough screaming and gore.

[Fyraltari]

Like this author would allow any of her main characters the sweet escape of death.

[tomaO2]

No, no. That's not true that everyone must suffer horribly, and become traumatized, when dying. There was that guy. That orc guy from the clan of Roak that was extremely chill about dying...
every day...
over the course of 600 years.

Point is he didn't mind it much!

That's literally the best I can do. Even minor characters can't have a peaceful or satisfying death. Even Forgath can't. He's about to be killed and is okay with it and then, boom, death prophasy reminder. Turns out the entire purpose of that thing was just so you can take a solemn moment for him, and turn it into another sob fest. It meant nothing in the end, because he just resurrected.

Maybe K'less? He died the way he would have wanted anyway.

[Draconi Redfir]

i mean, watching someone die old and peaceful ain't exactly entertaining. soo...

[Keltest]

i mean, watching someone die old and peaceful ain't exactly entertaining. soo...

It worked for Yoda.

[tomaO2]

And Shojo, and Durkon. Deaths can be comical as well in OOTS. For Gobins it's always gruesome and upsetting.

There is a reason that "I'm sad" is a meme for the series.

This isn't really a criticism though, at least not from me. Except for Chief's death, I've never much minded this aspect, I wasn't even able to take the dying seriously, no matter how ugly it was, because I was still looking at it through a D&D lense (the depression angle has been pretty overbearing for quite awhile now though, and Forgath's death seemed kinda unnecessary and not an enjoyable reveal of the death prophasy). It's just us pointing out that if someone suddenly dies like this you know that it's not a real death.

Fumbles can't really die at this point anyway, I don't think, but when you look at how people die in this world, that is not how it happens. Ever.

[Keltest]

Shojo and Durkon were murdered. And Durkon wasnt even old, for a dwarf.

[tomaO2]

But they died peacefully, not screaming in anguish. It's not how you die, it's how you face death. Also, their deaths remained interesting to the readers.

The starter for this topic was Fumbles seemingly being disintegrated, and that we know he's still alive because whenever someone dies, it's always a painful, ugly, death. No one gets off easy in Goblins.