Doesn't it kind of miss the point if Frank is a woman?

You have to keep in mind that this is a tribute. Not a literal remake. It's not uncommon for women to play the character of Frank N Furter. In fact, the very first person to ever play Frank 'N' Furter in the audience participation was a woman. As you can clearly see right here... https://hartleyworks.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/1-tim_dori_paradise_garage.jpg

For me, yes.

There's nothing odd/unusual/kink about a woman wearing fishnets and 4-inch heels. The whole reason Tim Curry was able to play it off so well was because he was somehow massively masculine while wearing very feminine clothing. I mean, he's kind of a dudely dude, lol. It wouldn't have worked well with a man who was built like a woman. IDK, is the actress playing a male transvestite in the movie? Just because they are transgender female doesn't mean they can't play male/female/tran roles.

To me, it would be confusing. F-N-F was "manly enough" to pique Janet's interest, but the underlying wink was always that the reason Brad was attracted to him, too, was because he was masculine, not because he came off as a sexy woman. It was very wink-wink.

If Frank-N-Furter is played by a woman, then it would have to be reversed -- Brad would obviously have to be attracted to her as a woman, and then the inside joke would have to be that secretly Janet had the hots for her too, because she secretly is turned on by women. Is that even a thing that can be made funny anymore? I don't know.

I don't think it can be as successful. But then, a large part of the audience might be younger people who never "got" the dynamics of the first movie. And, a lot has changed since then, anyway. Being a transvestite/transgender/bi-curious person isn't as titillating as it was 40 years ago. And, the average suburban American was more uptight like the old Brad and Janet back then, whereas now that stereotype doesn't seem likely, unless the director made them religious or something.

I haven't seen it, so who knows. I think I understand what you mean, though. Perhaps it will be more like a theater play or something.

In their defense, I think they knew that nobody could top Tim Curry so they went as far from it as they could.
I'm intrigued mostly because I know that it won't be as good as 1975, but it COULD be good in its own way...

This actress is actually is a real transexual. And so Frank 'N' Further will be a transexual instead of a transvestite in this movie.

"Transvestite" is not limited to men dressing as women, but denotes simply dressing as the opposite sex. So, a woman can also be a transvestite when dresses as a man. (Which - admittedly - is not the case here.)

[deleted]

[deleted]

"loses the punch" is the perfect way to put it or maybe "loses the balls" is another one. Dr. Frank 'N' Furter as a fully realized trans-woman makes zero sense and is not even interesting.

I don't understand what the makers of this were trying to achieve, and I suspect neither did they. It sounds like "Let's do Rocky Horror!...We got the money!...We can get Lavern Cox!...Oh I love her!...We can get Adam Lambert...He's a great singer!"...and on and on without any real rhyme or reason. It's just another project that somehow got greenlit.

It will come and go with little fanfare. Worth it to see Tim Curry working again. That's about the beginning and the end of excitement for it for me.