Rachel Confirms s7 Casting Spoilers

[x-forgetromeo.livejournal.com]

 


I'd like to take this opportunity to say that whether or not you loved/hated Ashley Seaver, Rachel Nichols as an actress is a human being who did not deserve to be sidelined liked this. She obviously loved her job and her co-workers, and is justifiably upset about this. 

CBS pulled the same stunt with Rachel that they did with AJ and Paget last year. Please keep that in mind. CBS might have fixed one of the symptoms by bringing AJ and Paget back, but they have in no way solved the problem of treating their actresses as disposable.

If you can, please send Rachel some love on twitter. 

Comments

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Uh, fans *are* in charge of the show. If people don't want to watch women lead TV programs, they aren't going to. So to write for characters your audience isn't going to watch is a pretty stupid thing for a showrunner to insist on.

And while it's fine to be upset, it's also fine to be upset such a character existed in the first place.

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

Of course it is okay to be upset that the character exists, as long as you don't act like your opinion of her is fact, which I've seen here several times. But the character is not the actress. And the actress is a human being who was treated badly.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

And the actress is a human being who was treated badly.

Again, you'd have a better argument if you weren't talking about someone in the acting business. Rejection is a way of life, and it goes with the territory.

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

First off, just because something happens doesn't make it okay. Acting is a sexist business, but that doesn't mean that sexism is justified. Second, there is a difference between letting an actress know she's fired and her having to find out via twitter. That is just not okay at all.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

I never said it was okay. I am however saying I don't really feel sorry for someone in the industry being "treated this way" since it's something Rachel should be expecting. Rachel was neither well-received, or well-established. Acting is a temporary job no matter what. It's not a shock CBS didn't pick up her option, and Rachel knew that even if she was "slated to return" that doesn't mean it was a done deal. She's experienced this before, when she got character got cut from the second GI Joe movie. I don't see you going around complaining about any potential sexism from *that* decision.

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about GI Joe and didn't know about that. If I were in that fandom, and if there were sexism involved, I would be complaining about that too.

And sexism makes me angry, and I feel bad for the victims of it no matter if it is a normal thing in their industry or not. And also, even if you think firing her was awesome, the way it was done was still not okay. Not telling her so she had to find out via twitter is just wrong no matter if the actual firing was justified.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Only the men were saved from GI Joe. Again, not blaming TPTB. TV and film is an audience-generated industry. If the audience is only interested in the men, it's not the TPTB that are sexist. It's the audience. The only way you're gonna get an equal treatment of men/women in the acting industry is to either make capitalism illegal, or tax everyone so the industry is funded like PBS.

http://collider.com/gi-joe-2-duke-storm-shadow-snake-eyes/79112/

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

But the idea that audiences will only pay to see men or male-dominated casts is crap. If the movie/show is just as good good and if the characters are just as well written, they will go see women or female-dominated casts as well. Men may get the loudest fandoms, but that doesn't mean audiences wouldn't keep watching the show if one of them was removed any more than if one of the women were removed. The industry claims that audiences only like men because it allows them to keep doing what they do.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Statistics and movie revenue don't bear your argument out, so it's not crap. There's a reason "chick flicks" don't bring in nearly the same amount of money action movies do. Also why female lead shows usually don't fare as well as male-lead shows. Desperate Housewives is the exception, not the rule.

And if you can, would you please unscreen my comment above? Thank you.

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

I didn't screen it, so I can't unscreen it. All I'm getting is notification that you keep deleting your comments.

Also, most so called chick flicks are badly made movies that aren't necessarily what women actually want to see in a film. The amount of money they make has less to do with being female-centric and more to do with being really bad movies. The same goes with tv shows. The problem is, Hollywood gives us female-centric media that is of lower quality than the male equivalents, gives us female characters who are not as well written as the male. And then they claim it is the audience's fault when they don't love this stuff and say it is because females are in the lead. They excuse themselves so they don't have to change anything.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Also, most so called chick flicks are badly made movies that aren't necessarily what women actually want to see in a film. The amount of money they make has less to do with being female-centric and more to do with being really bad movies. The same goes with tv shows. The problem is, Hollywood gives us female-centric media that is of lower quality than the male equivalents, gives us female characters who are not as well written as the male.

LOL. Okay whatever. The mere thought that "chick flicks" are somehow worse written than GI Joe just makes me laugh too hard. As to the rest of your statements? Yeah...still laughing too hard.

No one excuses themselves so that they don't have to change anything. They don't have to change anything because when they do, it doesn't work - or more accurately, doesn't make them as much money. You want a system that allows more creativity? Then start campaigning for one that's not based on revenue. Good luck with changing it from a capitalist industry though. The Almighty Dollar is what wins all the time.

If you want more female-driven characters and actors, then go watch more of them. More importantly, get MORE people to watch them. That's the only way the industry is going to change.

[infinitlight.livejournal.com]

LJ has been auto-screening comments containing outside links.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you. FYI, the only link I had is to an article where Rachel first tweeted she was basically bummed about being cut from GI Joe 2 (and who the movie was keeping instead) to a second tweet that she was okay with it.

[soundscape.livejournal.com]

This. There is documented evidence that women don't carry films or television series as effectively as men. There's a whole pop-psychology theory in Hollywood about this, but it's too long to write here.

[sodoesrachael.livejournal.com]

I am however saying I don't really feel sorry for someone in the industry being "treated this way" since it's something Rachel should be expecting.

You keep saying this, but I don't buy it. So what, because I used to work in customer service, I should have expected to be cursed at and have things thrown at me? Because yes, it's a part of the job, an unpleasant one, but I still have the right to be upset and angry over it. And just because it happened semi-often doesn't I went through my day always expecting it to happen, like you seem to be implying every actress or actor should about getting fired... That excuse does not fly, sorry. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect everyone to just agree with you because you say so...

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

So what, because I used to work in customer service, I should have expected to be cursed at and have things thrown at me? Because yes, it's a part of the job, an unpleasant one, but I still have the right to be upset and angry over it.

Uh, what store do you work for? And uh, yeah, you totally would have the right to be upset over such treatment. But I'm certainly not going to feel as bad for you if I find out you're working for The Apprentice rather than Barnes and Noble. You knew walking into your job the possibilities of your fate.

As to the analogy, it's poor, since if I'm the new hire at Christmas time, I'm certainly the first fired after the season is over. The stores aren't as busy anymore, and there's no reason to justify keeping me on if I'm not needed and all I'm doing is costing them money because they have to keep paying my salary. That's business, not sexism or poor treatment.

[sodoesrachael.livejournal.com]

Except that's not how most businesses work, sorry. I used to work for Target, and every holiday season it was the same old story. People who'd worked there for years got their hours majorly cut while all the new holiday workers got more hours, because they could pay them less than people who'd been there longer and had raises. And every single one of the holiday workers at my store got offered to be kept on full time, while the rest of us who'd already worked there for years still had our hours cut. It's why I quit, actually.

So no, your "low man on the totem poll" analogy does not work in the real world either. Why do you think they hired Rachel in the first place after firing AJ? Because she was new, and they could pay her less. The only reason things are going back normal is because Erica's taking over the actual running of the show, and she wanted the original cast back.

It's business. It may be "an industry" but it's all business. The lowest person isn't always the first to go, it has more to do with what makes more sense for the business as a whole. And while it may be "the way things work" it still sucks, and nobody has to like it or 'just accept it.' People are allowed to feel wronged over this, and it feels like you're telling people that their opinions don't matter. They do. You have yours, I have mine, let's all hold hands and sing and look at rainbows, k?

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

Except yeah, it is how businesses work. I worked for Sears and Montgomery Ward, and every store in the mall did the same thing. Seasonal workers were just that: seasonal. Teaching does the same thing too. Budgets get cut, it's the new teachers who go. The "low man on the totem pole" analogy works just fine for the real world, since that's how the real world works.

AJ was fired because she was the low man on the totem pole in the Paget/Thomas/Joe/Kristen/MGG/Shemar train. Paget and Joe, while they came after her, ranked higher than her. While Kristen had a lower salary (based on her position in the credits) she has a massive fanbase - that was noted at the time AJ was fired. So AJ may not have been the lowest time-wise, she definitely was necessity wise. She was then replaced by a lower man on the pole. AJ returning keeps Rachel in the bottom, so yeah, she's the one to go. If Rachel had managed to attain Urkel popularity, she'd still be staying, lowest time or not.

And uh...I've never told anyone their opinions don't matter. In fact, if you'd actually read my comments you'll see several times I've said the exact opposite. You're entitled to your opinion. Much like I'm entitled to point out all the problems with the "CBS is sexist" and "Rachel was treated poorly" complaints. Which is what I'm doing. I'm sorry if that makes you *feel* your opinion doesn't matter, but that's not my fault.

You're picking apart *my* statements, so there's no difference in what I'm doing versus what you're doing. Unless of course, you're doing it because you ARE telling me my opinion doesn't matter. But that would make you...well, employing a double standard.

[sodoesrachael.livejournal.com]

I've read through most of the comments on this post, and my main issue is that you're presenting your *opinions* as fact. Which they're not. Okay, maybe that's how it works a lot of the time in the television industry, but it's certainly not true in every case, just as your analogies don't work every time in the real world. It's a case by case basis. Not every business works from the same model, obviously, and saying "this is how it works" is not true. That's how it works sometimes, not all the time. You're making blanket statements to encompass a very massive industry, which I doubt you know everything about. They're generalizations, not solid fact.

But even so, stating the obvious, that people in charge suck, is not going to make anyone feel better or be less upset over how Rachel Nichols was fired. Even if she didn't find out on Twitter, it was still very sudden, and as of a week ago she was sure she was returning for the seventh season, and now all of a sudden she's not. That would suck. How would you feel in her position? I don't think you'd just 'get over it' because 'that's how it works.' Getting fired sucks balls. I know that and I've never even been fired. And no, she wasn't 'suspecting it', not if her Twitter is any indication. But then, when your boss tells you, 'you're not getting fired' you tend to believe them, no?

Okay, though, YOU don't feel sorry for her because "it's the industry." Fine, have at it. But no matter how many times you tell me "that's just how it works" (which is not true anyway), it's not going to change anything, except my irritation level. That's what I mean by you making it seem like other people's opinions don't matter. I wasn't even talking about me, but other people on who've commented. Isn't there a saying "the world sucks and then you die?" Yes, there is. Or something to that extent. But should everyone just be pessimists and expect terrible things to happen all the time? No, I don't think so. Yes, bad things happen, in business, in school, in *life.* But not many people sit around harping on them all the time. I doubt Rachel did. But now, she's down a job. I, for one, feel very bad for her, and am very mad at CBS for being complete douche-bags once more.

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

I've read through most of the comments on this post, and my main issue is that you're presenting your *opinions* as fact. Which they're not.

Unless you're considering yourself as doing the exact same thing, then you have no case and are pretty much acting the hypocrite here. Sorry pointing out that Rachel's situation is "just how things work" - and backing the statement up - irritates you, but again, not my fault. TV is littered with actors and actresses fired after only a short stint on the show when it became clear they weren't working out and/or the network just didn't want to shell out the money to pay for them anymore. And it's certainly not telling you that you can't be pissed because even though I'm pointing out that's the way things work that for some reason ALSO means I'm telling you that makes it fair. Since uh, no. I never said that, and in fact said the exact opposite.

So sorry, I'm not really feeling it for Rachel. Not only was she new to the job, but also in a situation where this was expected. Her character was never well-received, and unnecessary for the show anyway. Rachel'll be perfectly fine finding a fit somewhere else. For one, she's already got a part in the new Conan the Barbarian movie, so she won't be hurting for money. So no, I'm not gonna waste time shedding tears for her. Rachel bounced back just fine after being cut from GI Joe 2.

And no, as of a week ago Rachel wasn't sure she was returning. That's a fact. She was hoping. She even stated in her tweet "crossing my fingers things don't change". That's a clear indication she knew things were NOT a done deal. "Slated to return" is not the same as "Guess what! I'm definitely returning!" Not even Erica Messner went so far as to say Rachel was definitely returning. At most, she said JJ coming back doesn't necessarily mean Seaver is leaving. Messner I'm sure wanted Rachel to stay. It wasn't up to Messner though, since Messner doesn't pay the bills. CBS and ABC Studios clearly didn't want to pay for 8 full-time regulars, which isn't surprising. BTW, it's also been reported since AJ's return was announced, that Rachel was on shaky ground to begin with. I highly doubt Rachel was unaware of her precarious situation. She basically had to pray Paget wouldn't return in order for her own job to stay safe.

And I never said people should be expecting bad things to happen to them in the real world. Actors though should, since that's pretty much the entire point of the industry. It's one of the cruelest ones out there. Even the Occupational Outlook Handbook says your chances of success are extremely low. But whatever, continue to misread my statements as me telling everyone they're wrong to feel sorry for Rachel, when I never did. Just that I'm not.

And if you'd read most of the comments here, you'll note I've said all this before. So since it appears the only thing you're interested in is personally telling me off simply because A) you don't like what I'm saying; B) I'm pointing out problems with the complaints here; and B) I don't automatically see Rachel as some poor doe-eyed perfectly innocent victim of the Big Bad Corporate World, I'll move on from this conversation, since I'm not interested in a continuing with this fairly useless catfight.

[thenylonkid.livejournal.com]

Uh, fans *are* in charge of the show.
Wow, where's my paycheck?

[blue-sunflowers.livejournal.com]

You're the customer, not the employee.

[thecowboycliche.livejournal.com]

*snort*

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

And no, fans are not in charge. TPTB may listen somewhat to the fandom, but in very few shows do fans have very much say at all. Mostly, they ignore fans. On a few shows, like Supernatural, fans have a little more say. But ultimately, it is still TPTB that are in charge and make choices. And they choose to treat the actresses badly and to see the female characters as interchangeable. Not okay.

[tryxkittie.livejournal.com]

If people don't want to watch women lead TV programs, they aren't going to.

lol you just totally pulled that out of your ass. How the hell do you know people don't watn to twatch women lead TV programs? If producers never GIVE the audience such shows in the first place, then how the hell can they make an accurate assessment of whether audiences want it? It's like, you're conducting an experiment, and you give people a choice between yellow and red boxes. Then, after all the data you come up with the conclusion: people don't want purple boxes. DON'T SELL THEM PURPLE BOXES.

The fact is, they got rid of AJ and Pagent THINKING that people wouldn't care because they're women -- and guess what? The internet exploded with hate. Maybe if producers and people who generally think like YOU stopped making sexist, racist etc. decisions (that basically comes down to all TV must privilege heterosexual white males for heterosexual white males and people who love watching the stories of primarily heterosexual white males) then we'd acutally have more diversity on the screen, and actors and actresses that AREN'T heterosexual white males or playing heterosexual white makes for people who primarily love watching the stories of primarily heterosexual white males would be treated better than disposable trash.