Ah the Academy Awards. You may have heard about a little dust up over the lack of diversity in this years awards nominations. Apparently only Caucasians who don't tan well will be receiving awards this year. Same as last year, iirc. Some people, including Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have a problem with this and launched a boycott of the award show. Neither will be attending and, if I understand it correctly, are encouraging others to boycott as well. A Twitter campaign is going on in full force. This has led to supporters pressure on Chris Rock to drop out of his hosting duties.
So here are my questions. Should Chris Rock walk away from hosting the Academy Awards? Is it even fair to ask that of him? The issue is certainly a real one. The complaints are absolutely worthy of redress. Still, there's the issue of Chris Rock being the only one asked to toss away a paycheck for the boycott. I don't see any others being asked to forgo a payday to support the cause or raising money to compensate Chris for lost wages. I'm pretty sure there's a signed contract somewhere that he'll be in breach of. I doubt the Academy will take him to court, but will breaching his contract affect his ability to get gigs in the future? I can't imagine producers being too happy with him should he walk away. If you talk to Chris Rock, what would you have him do? Should he man up and take one for the team? Or should he host and use it to bring the issue to a national audience?
No, I'm not going to quote the article as I usually do because it's really long with a YouTube link and a fair number of pictures. Take a few minutes and read up if you're haven't been following the story.
Chris Rock can do whatever he wants, it doesn't bother me. Plus, it doesn't matter what he does, people will criticize him for it.
The snubs are bull gak though. That fact that Ryan Coogler (who was snubbed for Fruitvale Station) and Michael B. Jordan aren't even nominated just shows up idiotic the Academy is.
If Chris Rock were smart, he'd not bow out but instead call attention to the problem and then go a step further by saying "why should we only care during Oscar's night? This entire industry has a diversity problem all year round, which is funny given how much this industry complains about a lack of diversity everywhere else."
I think this whole issue is a clusterfeth and starts running into problems from the moment you are forced to ask "are there no black nominees because they were black or because they didn't have any good performances worthy of an Academy Award".
This question then extends to "were they not worthy of a nomination, or are there no worthy performances because there are less opportunities for black actors" and you can go down the rabbit hole as far as you want with that one.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's hard to pin down what exactly is causing the issue and how it may be fixed.
Of course, there weren't any black people nominated, so the Academy must be racist, right? WRONG! There weren't any black people nominated because the Academy felt that none of them acted/directed/etc. well enough to qualify for an Oscar. Simple as that. Why does everything have to be a race issue these days? People need to get over themselves and stop playing the race card at every opportunity.
As for the original topic, Chris Rock would go up greatly in my estimation if he went ahead and hosted the show.
It seems a little odd accusing the Oscars of being racist, when they have a black man hosting the awards. The Oscars are usually quite annoyingly PC and political: "I'd like to thank the person who cast me as a blind, autistic, Parkinson's disease-ridden mute, for making this award almost inevitable." --David Mitchell
Smacks wrote: It seems a little odd to accusing the Oscars of being racist, when they have a black man to hosting the awards. The Oscars is usually quite annoyingly PC and political: "I'd like to thank the person who cast me as a blind, autistic, Parkinson's disease-ridden mute, for making this award almost inevitable." --David Mitchell
So could we consider the Oscars a giant "white savior narrative"? Perhaps the Oscars are secretly just the most meta performance show ever
d-usa wrote: I think this whole issue is a clusterfeth and starts running into problems from the moment you are forced to ask "are there no black nominees because they were black or because they didn't have any good performances worthy of an Academy Award".
This question then extends to "were they not worthy of a nomination, or are there no worthy performances because there are less opportunities for black actors" and you can go down the rabbit hole as far as you want with that one.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's hard to pin down what exactly is causing the issue and how it may be fixed.
You also have the fact that the movies the Academy tends to focus on also have lilely less roles for black actors.
I hear there are alot of people are talking about Samuel JAcksons performence in both Kingsmen & Hateful 8. which are movies the oscars are never gonna touch.
Personally, I think that Chris Rock should do the job... If they are worried about him being too "inflammatory" during his parts, and want him to submit a draft, he should do it..... and then not use it, opting instead for one he wrote and didn't show them
Also... He should pull a Dave Chapelle's "Racial Draft" skit moment, and bring Leonardo DiCaprio in as an honorary black person Since clearly THAT is the reason he hasn't won one yet
I have to agree with zergsmasher. I doubt anyone would complain if no white people were nominated. Besides blacks have won at this award show, when they deserved to. Just like everyone else.
d-usa wrote: I think this whole issue is a clusterfeth and starts running into problems from the moment you are forced to ask "are there no black nominees because they were black or because they didn't have any good performances worthy of an Academy Award".
This question then extends to "were they not worthy of a nomination, or are there no worthy performances because there are less opportunities for black actors" and you can go down the rabbit hole as far as you want with that one.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's hard to pin down what exactly is causing the issue and how it may be fixed.
You also have the fact that the movies the Academy tends to focus on also have lilely less roles for black actors.
I hear there are alot of people are talking about Samuel JAcksons performence in both Kingsmen & Hateful 8. which are movies the oscars are never gonna touch.
His mistake is that he keeps making movies that are actually enjoyable
jhe90 wrote: The acadamy snubs tons of white actors too. It's a very closed and political group. You have to make the "right film"
I'm glad that "the right film" is apparently a two hour post-apocalyptic car chase.
See black people, this is why you aren't winning any Academy Awards this year: because you didn't make Mad Max: Fury Road. I hope you've learned your lesson.
ZergSmasher wrote: Of course, there weren't any black people nominated, so the Academy must be racist, right? WRONG! There weren't any black people nominated because the Academy felt that none of them acted/directed/etc. well enough to qualify for an Oscar. Simple as that. Why does everything have to be a race issue these days? People need to get over themselves and stop playing the race card at every opportunity.
As for the original topic, Chris Rock would go up greatly in my estimation if he went ahead and hosted the show.
Everything has to be a race issue because racism is widespread and affects society at all levels.
Endemic racism in the industry greatly reduces the chances for black people to show what they can do given a fair playing field. Consequently there are fewer possible black entrants for Oscars.
It's the same reason there are so few famous women scientists in history. For hundreds of years, women weren't allowed to be educated, so they didn't produce any science. As soon as proper education of women started to happen, bingo! We started to see some prominent female scientists emerge.
I can't say whether he should or not, though. I definitely feel racism is endemic in Hollywood but was it the cause of this specific outcome? I think it's pretty hard to call it - there are a lot of factors since it's a very political thing.
I will say that to the "no black actors or actresses did a good enough job or did the right kind of movie" crowd that Will Smith's Concussion is typically the exact right job in the exact right kind of movie - enough to get a Golden Globe nomination. Similarly, Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation.
Breotan wrote: Still, there's the issue of Chris Rock being the only one asked to toss away a paycheck for the boycott. I don't see any others being asked to forgo a payday to support the cause or raising money to compensate Chris for lost wages.
Seems a bit fishy to me. Maybe not a deliberate attempt at racism but then oscar committees seem fairly rando.
Also when you read the possibility of something being racist and immediately decide it is black people pulling a race card that doesn't help anybody. This years oscars has nobody that isn't of european decent, meaning there are no non-white nominations for any acting awards.
Thr number of non-white acting award winners in the 80+ years is pretty abysmal also.
There just might be a real issue. It seems to not be super important because nobody is getting hurt over this, but as a cultural element it does harm to not represent all the people that enjoy films.
d-usa wrote: I think this whole issue is a clusterfeth and starts running into problems from the moment you are forced to ask "are there no black nominees because they were black or because they didn't have any good performances worthy of an Academy Award".
This question then extends to "were they not worthy of a nomination, or are there no worthy performances because there are less opportunities for black actors" and you can go down the rabbit hole as far as you want with that one.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's hard to pin down what exactly is causing the issue and how it may be fixed.
It may be less of a racial issue, and more that the academy's voters simply aren't the kind of people who would go and see the movies that have been used as examples for the snubs this year. It's the same reason that comedies are rarely nominated, because the academy prefers, shall we say, literature to pulp, much of the time.
The woman who played Aunt Viv for the first few years on Fresh Prince has opened up and is letting the world know exactly what she thinks of Mrs. Smith's boycott.
Of course he won't. He's a black comedian who has made a career out of gaking on white people. This whole situation is just giving him material to work with for his routine
Breotan wrote: The woman who played Aunt Viv for the first few years on Fresh Prince has opened up and is letting the world know exactly what she thinks of Mrs. Smith's boycott.
Again?
While it might be enlightening to hear the opinion of other black actors and (did she say blacktresses?), she has a well known ulterior motive. She has been a notoriously vocal detractor of Will Smith since she was fired from Fresh Prince. So I think the only insight you're lightly to gain from this is that she still hates Will Smith. Though I agree with her that the accent was a bit funny, I found it really hard to take him seriously.
The snubs are bull gak though. That fact that Ryan Coogler (who was snubbed for Fruitvale Station) and Michael B. Jordan aren't even nominated just shows up idiotic the Academy is.
Did you really think Jordan was that good in Creed?
I really liked the movie, but I thought his performance was just fine. Not great. Not even remotely bad. Just fine. I mean, it's probably on par with Damon in The Martian, but certainly not as good as DiCaprio (who, lets be honest, is going to win), Fassbender, or Redmayne.
I haven't seen Trumbo, so I can't comment there. I personally thought Brolin in Sicario was more deserving than Damon (and I loved the Martian..but really it's just Matt Damon being Matt Damon).
I wouldn't have had Coogler up there, either. Again, not because he's not a good director, but because Creed was "just fine." Alex Garland also was snubbed for a far superior movie.
10.6% of the Best Actor nominees in the past 30 years have been black. They're underrepresented proportional to their actual population share, but not by very much.
If anyone ought to be bitching, it's folks of Hispanic descent. 1.3% of Best Actor nominees in the same period have been Hispanic/Latino.
I think that asking Chris Rock to step down is a bridge to far. He's an A-list talent, and hosting the Oscars is a big deal for a comedian. It could also derail the show, and who knows how many crew and support personnel that come with a specific host.
As for the broader issue, I think this year being a complete shut out in the four acting categories (for a second year), no best picture nomination for a movie with a non-white lead (and done' forget, up to 10 can make that cut), and one Mexican (and no women) for best director, makes it frustrating for people of color in the industry. Once is an occurrence, twice is a coincidence. I wouldn't lose my stuff, as it's a small data sample, but there were some very well regarded performances and movies that weren't nominated, and I think it's natural to wonder why.
That kind of happens every year though. I mentioned in the thread on the Hugo Award/Sad Puppies that if the Academy Awards were a fan choice award, the nominees and winners would all look very different. People express shock every year at the movies and actors that don't get any recognition, let alone the ones that don't win/win.
The Academy seems to have a very peculiar sense of what it's looking for, sufficiently peculiar that us plebs get confused every year for some reason or another.
LordofHats wrote: That kind of happens every year though. I mentioned in the thread on the Hugo Award/Sad Puppies that if the Academy Awards were a fan choice award, the nominees and winners would all look very different. People express shock every year at the movies and actors that don't get any recognition, let alone the ones that don't win/win.
The Academy seems to have a very peculiar sense of what it's looking for, sufficiently peculiar that us plebs get confused every year for some reason or another.
Old people that grew up when hollywood was different and refuse to change is what its about really.
Chris Rock is amazing. Anyone asking him to stand down is a dick. Regardless of their gender, nationality, or sexual preference. I'm sure he'll do a good job.
As for the broader issue, I think this year being a complete shut out in the four acting categories (for a second year), no best picture nomination for a movie with a non-white lead (and done' forget, up to 10 can make that cut), and one Mexican (and no women) for best director, makes it frustrating for people of color in the industry. Once is an occurrence, twice is a coincidence. I wouldn't lose my stuff, as it's a small data sample, but there were some very well regarded performances and movies that weren't nominated, and I think it's natural to wonder why.
So what would you proffer as the snubs, outside of the aforementioned Jordan and Coogler?
Straight Outta Compton was okay. I personally don't think anything about it was particularly Oscar worthy, though....
As for the broader issue, I think this year being a complete shut out in the four acting categories (for a second year), no best picture nomination for a movie with a non-white lead (and done' forget, up to 10 can make that cut), and one Mexican (and no women) for best director, makes it frustrating for people of color in the industry. Once is an occurrence, twice is a coincidence. I wouldn't lose my stuff, as it's a small data sample, but there were some very well regarded performances and movies that weren't nominated, and I think it's natural to wonder why.
So what would you proffer as the snubs, outside of the aforementioned Jordan and Coogler?
Straight Outta Compton was okay. I personally don't think anything about it was particularly Oscar worthy, though....
I'd posit his absence has far more to do with Beasts of No Nation being a Netflix Original and the release structure of it (and pending theatrical boycott) more so than his skin color.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The main snub I can think of would probably be Concussion.
Which may also explain why a couple of the players already mentioned in this thread are so vocal.
Did you like it?
I was wunderwhelmed with it. Smith really overacts, and it felt very preachy.
So what would you proffer as the snubs, outside of the aforementioned Jordan and Coogler?
Straight Outta Compton was okay. I personally don't think anything about it was particularly Oscar worthy, though....
And yet it's been nominated for an Oscar. Best screenplay, which is a bit weird considering out of a film with that large of a black influence, they've managed to nominate four of the few white people working on it.
So what would you proffer as the snubs, outside of the aforementioned Jordan and Coogler?
Straight Outta Compton was okay. I personally don't think anything about it was particularly Oscar worthy, though....
And yet it's been nominated for an Oscar. Best screenplay, which is a bit weird considering out of a film with that large of a black influence, they've managed to nominate four of the few white people working on it.
cincydooley wrote: I'd posit his absence has far more to do with Beasts of No Nation being a Netflix Original and the release structure of it (and pending theatrical boycott) more so than his skin color.
I doubt any snubs of black actors (or non-white actors generally) was the result of conscious racism. That's possible, but unlikely. After all, they clearly recognize slam dunk performances. What happened this year, and arguably last year, is that in a field of a handful of borderline nominations (as in, nominations with no realistic chance to win, but merely to fill out the card), the black performances keep striking out.
There was a saying I heard once that said that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, but didn't end racism. After all, he was a blue chip hall of famer, rookie of the year, MVP, and helped the Dodgers win a World Series. It'd be tough to keep him out with anything less than an official color ban (which MLB always denied having). Racism in baseball ended when you can have black players as middle relievers, platoon infielders, and guys batting .215 riding the pine. In other words, the hallmark of diversity isn't having all stars of all races, but in having replacement level players of all races.
There's a reason to pick other actors ahead of Elba, Smith, or Jordan. there were also reasons to pick them instead of Bale or Damon. If you lose enough close calls, you start to wonder if there's a thumb on the scale. And I don't doubt that a mostly white, mostly old, somewhat out of touch Academy just doesn't relate more to the performances of white Actors, and gives them the nudge.
As others have pointed out, this isn't the illness, it's a symptom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: Best screenplay, which is a bit weird considering out of a film with that large of a black influence, they've managed to nominate four of the few white people working on it.
d-usa wrote: The main snub I can think of would probably be Concussion.
Which may also explain why a couple of the players already mentioned in this thread are so vocal.
Did you like it?
I was wunderwhelmed with it. Smith really overacts, and it felt very preachy.
Never watched it, just know it's considered one of the snubs.
He was up for a Golden Globe for it, and those often/usually foreshadow the Academy Awards nominations. Being nominated for one, but not for the other, often creates suspicions of a snub.
I'd like to acknowledge the wonderful work of this year's nominees. While we celebrate their extraordinary achievements, I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it's time for big changes. The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership. In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.
As many of you know, we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years. but the change is not coming as fast as we would like. We need to do more, and better and more quickly.
This isn't unprecedented for the Academy. In the '60s and '70s it was about recruiting younger members to stay vital and relevant. In 2016, the mandate is inclusion in all of its facets: gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We recognize the very real concerns of our community, and I so appreciate all of you who have reached out to me in our effort to move forward together.
Interestingly, she's the third woman, and first African American to hold that position, and is a PR executive in her full time job.
Seaward wrote: 10.6% of the Best Actor nominees in the past 30 years have been black. They're underrepresented proportional to their actual population share, but not by very much.
If anyone ought to be bitching, it's folks of Hispanic descent. 1.3% of Best Actor nominees in the same period have been Hispanic/Latino.
Wait so if US demographics are going to be the factor for deciding who gets an Oscar, aren't Jews then massively over-represented? I don't really need any Academy numbers to know that way more than 2% of Oscar winners have been Jewish. Why is this not suddenly a factor?
The fact that Arnold or Bruce Campbell never got a mention just proves the Oscar's have terrible taste in movies.
The people who watch films aren't a 1:1 of the make up of the population, so the argument that they are somehow close doesn't really correlate. Now if the percentage of actual viewers matched up with nominees that might mean something.
Ahtman wrote: The people who watch films aren't a 1:1 of the make up of the population, so the argument that they are somehow close doesn't really correlate. Now if the percentage of actual viewers matched up with nominees that might mean something.
If that's true then Tyler Perry would have one.
It's possible. At one time nobody ever though McConaughey would get one, and Madea has tried to get serious and be an action star in Alex Cross.
Ahtman wrote: The people who watch films aren't a 1:1 of the make up of the population, so the argument that they are somehow close doesn't really correlate. Now if the percentage of actual viewers matched up with nominees that might mean something.
If that's true then Tyler Perry would have one.
No, they would still have to be good movies so he wouldn't qualify. Besides I never said who should or shouldn't win, just that the people who watch movies aren't proportionate to the ethnic numbers in the whole population.
cincydooley wrote: I'd posit his absence has far more to do with Beasts of No Nation being a Netflix Original and the release structure of it (and pending theatrical boycott) more so than his skin color.
I doubt any snubs of black actors (or non-white actors generally) was the result of conscious racism.
That one isn't even unconscious racism. The cinemas boycotted the movie for some combination of the following financial reasons: they didn't think enough people would want to see Beasts of No Nation to make it worth tying up one of their screens when they could just watch it at home on Netflix; they didn't think enough people would want to see a movie about children being brutalised and brutalising others (at least, not without whitewashing and sanitising the premise like The Hunger Games did) to make it worth tying up one of their screens; or they wanted the movie to fail so that the idea of refusing them their usual three month timed exclusive didn't spread.
Does anyone remember when Crash beat out Brokeback Mountain for best picture, and everyone called the Academy homophobic?
I think it’s more that the weirdness of the Academy members is a lot more complex than simply shutting out black artists because of racism. The Academy actually loves movies about racism. It’s only a few years since 12 Years A Slave won best film, and a black actress won best supporting in that movie. That was a great movie and a rightful winner of course, but there’s also been some very favourable treatment of some very average movies about race. The Help was nominated for best film, and a black actress won best supporting, and that film was pleasant at best. And of course there was Crash, which actually won, despite being absolutely fething awful.
It’s actually a very weird kind of racism. The academy is kind of like a white guy who really wants to be friends with every black person he meets, but the only thing he can ever talk about with a black person is racism, and how he isn’t racist at all. So if a film about racism is made, the academy covers it with nominations and awards whether it deserves them or not. But the academy seems unaware that black people are actually involved in some really good work that isn’t about racism.
Thing is, faced with a weird kind of racism like that, I’m not really sure strong activism and boycotts is the right approach. By placing race first and foremost, it's likely to exacerbate the weird kind of racism the Academy suffers.
That one can be understood more through industry politics, I think. A film that releases in just enough cinemas to meet the Academy’s rules, and then distributes almost entirely through Netflix is always going to have a hard time among the old Hollywood set that dominate the Academy voters.
Will Smith is the other one that people are suggesting has been hard done by, and I don’t know, I haven’t seen Concussion. But given Smith has been nominated twice before, and both times lost to black actors, it seems a stretch make that a story about racism.
sebster wrote: It’s actually a very weird kind of racism. The academy is kind of like a white guy who really wants to be friends with every black person he meets, but the only thing he can ever talk about with a black person is racism, and how he isn’t racist at all. So if a film about racism is made, the academy covers it with nominations and awards whether it deserves them or not. But the academy seems unaware that black people are actually involved in some really good work that isn’t about racism.
That's about as good a description on how racial politics work with the Academy as anyone could get.
Let's not forget that at it's heart, the Academy is still an old boy's club and will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future.
LordofHats wrote: That kind of happens every year though. I mentioned in the thread on the Hugo Award/Sad Puppies that if the Academy Awards were a fan choice award, the nominees and winners would all look very different. People express shock every year at the movies and actors that don't get any recognition, let alone the ones that don't win/win.
The Academy seems to have a very peculiar sense of what it's looking for, sufficiently peculiar that us plebs get confused every year for some reason or another.
Yup. I never understood why people look at the Oscars as anything other than the opinions of a relatively small group of individuals.
LordofHats wrote: That kind of happens every year though. I mentioned in the thread on the Hugo Award/Sad Puppies that if the Academy Awards were a fan choice award, the nominees and winners would all look very different. People express shock every year at the movies and actors that don't get any recognition, let alone the ones that don't win/win.
The Academy seems to have a very peculiar sense of what it's looking for, sufficiently peculiar that us plebs get confused every year for some reason or another.
Yup. I never understood why people look at the Oscars as anything other than the opinions of a relatively small group of individuals.
yep just the movie business patting their own back.
Ahtman wrote: The people who watch films aren't a 1:1 of the make up of the population, so the argument that they are somehow close doesn't really correlate. Now if the percentage of actual viewers matched up with nominees that might mean something.
If that's true then Tyler Perry would have one.
Pretty sure the idea of Tyler Perry winning an Oscar just made something inside my chest start bleeding.
Wait so if US demographics are going to be the factor for deciding who gets an Oscar, aren't Jews then massively over-represented? I don't really need any Academy numbers to know that way more than 2% of Oscar winners have been Jewish. Why is this not suddenly a factor?
The fact that Arnold or Bruce Campbell never got a mention just proves the Oscar's have terrible taste in movies.
I don't think US demographics ought to be a factor in deciding who gets an Oscar, I'm merely pointing out that African-Americans aren't as underrepresented (at least in the Best Actor category) as people like to claim. They're pretty close to parity with the actual demographic proportion of African-Americans in the broader population.
n0t_u wrote: So are any of the nominations actually talented this year or is it more time filler?
So...I've seen 6 of the best film noms (Bridge of Spies, Max Mad, The Revenant, The Martian, Spotlight, and The Big Short) and IMO, Spotlight is by far the best movie of the bunch.
I was actually really lukewarm on Bridge of Spies. It isn't bad by any stretch, but I think it earned the nom due to the Spielberg + Hanks = nom formula.
Mad Max is a fun, well made, great looking, but ultimately hollow film. I really like the movie, but I still have trouble seeing it as this feminist opus. Fun movie, though.
The Revenant is a beautiful, well acted, majestic film that doesn't have a lot to do. It's a revenge film. A really great looking, well done one, but a revenge film.
The Martian is a fun, light, well acted movie from good source material. Matt Damon is charming in it, but essentially plays Matt Damon.
Spotlight is amazing. The best ensemble acting I've seen in a movie in some time. Great story. My favorite movie of the year.
The Big Short was good and well acted, but it didn't leave any real lasting impressions on me. I've read the novel, too.
If I'm being honest, I think Inside Out and Ex Machina are more deserving of a best picture nomination than a few of the actual nominees.
LordofHats wrote: That kind of happens every year though. I mentioned in the thread on the Hugo Award/Sad Puppies that if the Academy Awards were a fan choice award, the nominees and winners would all look very different. People express shock every year at the movies and actors that don't get any recognition, let alone the ones that don't win/win.
The Academy seems to have a very peculiar sense of what it's looking for, sufficiently peculiar that us plebs get confused every year for some reason or another.
Old people that grew up when hollywood was different and refuse to change is what its about really.
I know you're all about posting from your phone so shortcuts, glib, 'clever' and all that, but ageism?
cincydooley wrote: The Martian is a fun, light, well acted movie from good source material. Matt Damon is charming in it, but essentially plays Matt Damon.
I can't really agree with this assessment, as I don't really see him playing himself... If he does, he is miles better than Nicholas Cage, who is quite blatantly playing the same role over and over again.
This again huh, so tired of this crap. You have to be good and top 5% of your race or else you get cut for being white. Thats not racest at all you just keep lowering standards for each race til you get a couple of each no matter how many before them desrve it.
I hate this idea of forced diversity. There probably is a problem with the awards and Hollywood in general (though I do think it's getting a lot better) but this sort of reaction will just lead to quota-filling token nominations. It needs to change naturally, not through Internet outrage and Twitter campaigns.
I don't really care if Chris Rock does it or not. The awards are stupid anyway. I don't think he should be brow beaten by keyboard warriors into not doing it though.
jhe90 wrote: Of all the race issues, in all the world, this is a storm in a teacup.
The acadamy snubs tons of white actors too. It's a very closed and political group. You have to make the "right film"
More like a storm in a toliet. Because the urge to flush the toilet is extremely strong. But I don't care enough to look at whats bubbling to the surface.
You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?
And "yeah, it's messed up, but shut up and take it until it "naturally" fixes itself" seems like sort of a weird, weak argument. What exactly is "naturally" fixing itself - waiting 20 or 30 years without complaint?
Ouze wrote: You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?
You mean that this can't all be traced back to SJWs?
CaoCaoTipper wrote: this sort of reaction will just lead to quota-filling token nominations.
Will it though? Will it really? Your post seems to be half saying that "keyboard warriors" get nothing done, and half worrying that they'll cause the apocalypse.
It needs to change naturally, not through Internet outrage and Twitter campaigns.
How do you propose that the change is going to come about "naturally" then? Because it's been changing "naturally" for the past 60 or so years, and there's still a disparity.
I don't really care if Chris Rock does it or not. The awards are stupid anyway.
"Actually I never cared about it in the first place, that's why I commented on it complaining about keyboard warriors".
Ouze wrote: You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?
You mean that this can't all be traced back to SJWs?
SJBS!!!!
That being said, the urge to play buzzword bingo is overwhelming, I know. But maybe we can avoid crapping up every thread with the usual meaningless acronym garbage. That's clearly where this was headed, in my opinion.
Ouze wrote: You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?
You mean that this can't all be traced back to SJWs?
The urge to play buzzword bingo is overwhelming, I know. But maybe we can avoid crapping up every thread with the usually acronym garbage. That's clearly where this was headed, in my opinion.
Sorry, was partway through the rest of my post and got waylaid; I did have somewhat of an actual point to make.
sebster wrote: Does anyone remember when Crash beat out Brokeback Mountain for best picture, and everyone called the Academy homophobic?
I think it’s more that the weirdness of the Academy members is a lot more complex than simply shutting out black artists because of racism. The Academy actually loves movies about racism. [spoiler]It’s only a few years since 12 Years A Slave won best film, and a black actress won best supporting in that movie. That was a great movie and a rightful winner of course, but there’s also been some very favourable treatment of some very average movies about race. The Help was nominated for best film, and a black actress won best supporting, and that film was pleasant at best. And of course there was Crash, which actually won, despite being absolutely fething awful.
It’s actually a very weird kind of racism. The academy is kind of like a white guy who really wants to be friends with every black person he meets, but the only thing he can ever talk about with a black person is racism, and how he isn’t racist at all. So if a film about racism is made, the academy covers it with nominations and awards whether it deserves them or not. But the academy seems unaware that black people are actually involved in some really good work that isn’t about racism.
Thing is, faced with a weird kind of racism like that, I’m not really sure strong activism and boycotts is the right approach. By placing race first and foremost, it's likely to exacerbate the weird kind of racism the Academy suffers.
Identity politics has pigeonholed black people as victims. If you're not portraying a victim, then the judges aren't interested.
Ouze wrote: Only if we give it to him repeatedly, at high speed, to the back of his head.
That dude is movie cancer.
The first I heard about Tyler Perry was when a couple of Australian film critics were saying a movie of his wasn’t very good, but they were doing it with this weird kind of conciliatory language when normally they’re very blunt about bad movies.
Then having seen Gone Girl people I saw some people rave about his performance and give Oscar buzz, when there was really nothing special about his role. He wasn’t bad, it was just a simple, secondary role. So it got even weirder.
Then I saw one of his own movies, and oh wow it was terrible. And it was movie that some people with otherwise reasonable taste had said was good.
So I'm starting to guess there's a lot of politics going on? From the little I've read Perry holds an important social place, as a black man making films that do extremely well with black audiences. But it seems people then want to signal their politics by raving about the dude, rather than actually just judge his films on their own merits.
sebster wrote: So I'm starting to guess there's a lot of politics going on? From the little I've read Perry holds an important social place, as a black man making films that do extremely well with black audiences. But it seems people then want to signal their politics by raving about the dude, rather than actually just judge his films on their own merits.
Yeah, that circles back to what myself and others (like you!) have said - sure, there is racism in hollywood - the overt kind, and the soft kind like low expectations, as you've described with Tyler Perry. However, did it cost Will Smith and Idris Elba (for example) nominations this year? .... probably not. There are a lot of moving parts in the Oscar machine and while racism is a few gears here and there the big cogs are probably campaigning and shmoozing.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, that circles back to what myself and others (like you!) have said - sure, there is racism in hollywood - the overt kind, and the soft kind like low expectations, as you've described with Tyler Perry. However, did it cost Will Smith and Idris Elba (for example) nominations this year? .... probably not. There are a lot of moving parts in the Oscar machine and while racism is a few gears here and there the big cogs are probably campaigning and shmoozing.
Yeah, definitely this. If a big studio decides it is going to invest in a very serious film about a very worthy subject, and it wants Oscars nominations and wins to drive its marketing campaign, then the political machine it puts in place will make sure that movie gets Oscar nominations and maybe even wins. That doesn’t really change whether people in question are black or not.
What changes, I think, is what kinds of movies the studio wants to make with black stars, and what films it won’t. And I think I’m now just repeating what we’ve both already said. Whoops.
Oscars not only award for movies.
There's others put there, and they have different criteria and voting systems.
An Oscar is a nice bonus for the film makers, what they want more is money and bums on seats globaly. You can have critics and awards loving you, but if it makes less than cost, still a fail, just a rather well made fail.
Obviously black actors have not been cast in Oscar roles/films
Yes or no? Well that's up for debate yet black actors still make good money in Hollywood and get cast in films and tv on a regular basis.
A black actor was lead cast on star wars, one of biggest franchise, may not win Oscar bit shows a black actor can get a good role, and there not a victim, or the one you kill off in first half hour.
That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.
That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.
2016 =/= the 1960's.
You're missing the point he was making. Focusing so much on race and viewing everything through a filter of racism helps perpetuate those problems. He was criticizing the mindset of dividing people into categories of "black" and "white".
But by all means, feel free to say how a black man is stupid for not wanting everything to be all about race.
In my experiance, the most racist people are those who view everythin through a lense of racism, assuming people are in situations because of it, not inspite.
Cheesecat wrote: That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.
2016 =/= the 1960's.
You're missing the point he was making. Focusing so much on race and viewing everything through a filter of racism helps perpetuate those problems. He was criticizing the mindset of dividing people into categories of "black" and "white".
But by all means, feel free to say how a black man is stupid for not wanting everything to be all about race.
Morgan Freeman isn't an expert on racial injustice just because he's famous and has dark skin. Obviously he has his own insights and experiences to speak to, and they may be instructive, but linking to an video called "Morgan Freeman solves the race problem" where the advice is "stop talking about racism, and it disappears" is a pretty weird appeal to authority.
That's seems stupid to me, I don't see how not talking about race or race issues solves racial problems. I guess MLK Jr. should of just shut up and did as he was told instead of talking about the injustices of black people.
2016 =/= the 1960's.
You're missing the point he was making. Focusing so much on race and viewing everything through a filter of racism helps perpetuate those problems. He was criticizing the mindset of dividing people into categories of "black" and "white".
But by all means, feel free to say how a black man is stupid for not wanting everything to be all about race.
I like how you echo an opinion about wanting people to ignore race, but then defend that point by arguing that it was made by a black man, and so is unassailable.
timetowaste85 wrote: If we just treated people as being people, and not by the color of their skin, it would be a helluvan improvement.
Nobody's accomplishments should rest on the color of their skin. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist.
Basically!
Equality comes from seeing as people as the same, not their experiences but they themselves as the same in terms of equality. Seeing as their fellow man, and ignoring their skin color, as the skin color is not deteriment on who they are.
It will control you if you let it. You either repeat the past or look to the future.
It must be nice to say things like "color shouldn't matter" when the reality is it does. Sort of like pretending things are a meritocracy when all evidence says otherwise. It makes us feel better to pretend such things are true, and really, in the end, feeling smart and right are better than actually being either.
Ahtman wrote: It must be nice to say things like "color shouldn't matter" when the reality is it does. Sort of like pretending things are a meritocracy when all evidence says otherwise. It makes us feel better to pretend such things are true, and really, in the end, feeling smart and right are better than actually being either.
I can agree with that.
But I won't treat them any differently. You treat everyone the same, but you treat them differently based on the experiences they have had. Making an assumption makes asses out of us.
But I won't treat them any differently. You treat everyone the same, but you treat them differently based on the experiences they have had. Making an assumption makes asses out of us.
This. Me personally, I try to be more like Morgan Freeman.... That bit where he says, "I am not a black man, you are not a white man. I am Morgan Freeman, and you are Mike Wallace." That's basically how I try to treat everyone, especially on first meeting.
I dont think Not talking about Racism is a good idea, its a silly idea. But I think not viewing everything through the lense of racism is a good start. like how someone earlier explained how it might not be the Academy is racist, but the wider problem of why blacks are not in Oscar movies? I mean look you had John Boyega as arguably the main lead of star wars. You have Compton become amazing. but the oscars dont look at those.
Or another example. schools. UCSC science has been called racist for not having as many blacks or hispanics in them? Is the science department racist? Unlikely, the likely answer is to find out why certain races might not be going into certain majors. Everything viewed through the lense of racism is a problem.
To be fair, name one Star Wars actor from any Star Wars movie that was nominated for a Best Actor/Actress or Best Supporting Actor/Actress (for a Star Wars role).
The movies aren't particularly well acted. We watch it for the crazy aliens, awesome effects, and gak blowing the feth up. Oh, and the force and gak.
That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.
Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.
Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.
I think Ice Cube sums up how that is... on page 3 there's the clip of him on the Graham Norton Show, where he basically says if you're making movies for the awards, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, for him, an award for Compton is really just icing on the cake.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is my point, a Black Actor was a LEad in the biggest movie of the year, but it isnt one the oscars would ever touch. So are black people getting roles the Academy will pay attention too.
Straight Outta Compton apparently is. The Caucasian screenwriters were nominated but none of the non-Caucasian actors or crew were.
Because the acting was mediocre? There are plenty of instances where writers are nominated but their actors aren't. Hell, FOUR of the best screenplay nominees don't have actors nominated this year.
Straight Outta Compton was an Ok movie with some good performances, and a lot of bad stuff left out but I never expected it to be up for an Oscar.
Creed on the other hand should have gotten more than just Sylvester Stallone a nom. I don't think it will win but the Film and Michael B Jordan deserved at least a nomination.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, I think that Chris Rock should do the job... If they are worried about him being too "inflammatory" during his parts, and want him to submit a draft, he should do it..... and then not use it, opting instead for one he wrote and didn't show them
Ahtman wrote: Straight Outta Compton was an Ok movie with some good performances, and a lot of bad stuff left out but I never expected it to be up for an Oscar.
Creed on the other hand should have gotten more than just Sylvester Stallone a nom. I don't think it will win but the Film and Michael B Jordan deserved at least a nomination.
Honestly, I didn't think there was anything special about his performance. It's good. But for me that's where it stopped. Wasn't exceptional. Certainly wasn't bad. Was "just good." FWIW I'm not sure Stallone deserved one either for just Rocky mumbling through his lines and having movie cancer.
I like the film, but my biggest takeway was how much I liked how they introduced boxers with the video game style fighter profile.
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but analysis done by the Economist ( here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race ) shows that the amount of academy awards given to black nominees pretty much falls in line with the percentage of black population In the U.S. This doesn't NOT mean that there isn't a prejudice, and the article seems to lay the blame more at the feet of Hollywood itself and the drama schools, but do take a read and judge for yourself as I'm not sure I fully understand it.
Ouze wrote: You guys are aware Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith are not "keyboard warriors", right?
You mean that this can't all be traced back to SJWs?
CaoCaoTipper wrote: this sort of reaction will just lead to quota-filling token nominations.
Will it though? Will it really? Your post seems to be half saying that "keyboard warriors" get nothing done, and half worrying that they'll cause the apocalypse.
It needs to change naturally, not through Internet outrage and Twitter campaigns.
How do you propose that the change is going to come about "naturally" then? Because it's been changing "naturally" for the past 60 or so years, and there's still a disparity.
I don't really care if Chris Rock does it or not. The awards are stupid anyway.
"Actually I never cared about it in the first place, that's why I commented on it complaining about keyboard warriors".
Won't lie, that post was a bit of a rambling based on half baked ideas and barely any knowledge of the whole drama ^^ I think most of my points still stand though, as opinion. I do think this sort of reaction will lead to quota filling nominations, because I think the Oscars are a pointless publicity pagent anyway. It's purely speculation as we won't know for years to come, but saying "will it tho" doesn't really convince me otherwise. I'm not saying "keyboard warriors" can't effect any change at all, I'm saying the changes are usually knee-jerk reactions by big bloated organisations purely done to save face, not done in any sincere need to be more inclusive.
As for not caring about the Oscars, that's all the more reason for me to comment about it, thank you for the passive aggressiveness. People are so hugely upset by what's essentially a pointless set of awards that are based on opinion and nothing more. As if a bunch of people casting votes on movies is somehow setting us back into the slave-era. I didn't realise that opinion meant I wasn't allowed to comment, sorry.
Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.
As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.
Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.
As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.
I think public recognition and praise will come to those who deserve it, despite whether they get an award. The Oscar snub is a well known thing. Hitchcock and Cubrick, two of the best and most celebrated Hollywood directors in history never received an Oscar. Ice Cube himself said, when talking about Straight Outta Compton and it's snub from the Oscars "I’m not pissed. I’m not surprised. It’s the Oscars, they do what they do. The people loved the movie, the people supported the movie. It was No. 1 at the box office, over $200 million worldwide. I can’t be mad, you know."
Maybe that's not the circumstances for everybody that could get an award, you might be entirely right. I'd be interested to see some statistics on what effect an Oscar has on someone career. It usually appears that the Oscars are awarded AFTER the subject has had tonnes of praise and rewards though. They aren't really for the little guy.
Except they aren't pointless, they just don't matter to many of the viewers. It is an industry show and to those in the industry, such as actors, producers, and directors, it means a great deal and can change their fortures as well as income. Does it effect my income? Nope. Does it effect yours? Odds are it does not. Does it to the people in the industry? You bet it does.
As for bringing up the population issue, well, that has already been addressed. If the number of black actors, directors, producers, and audience were in line with overall population numbers it might work, but they are not.
I think public recognition and praise will come to those who deserve it, despite whether they get an award. The Oscar snub is a well known thing. Hitchcock and Cubrick, two of the best and most celebrated Hollywood directors in history never received an Oscar. Ice Cube himself said, when talking about Straight Outta Compton and it's snub from the Oscars "I’m not pissed. I’m not surprised. It’s the Oscars, they do what they do. The people loved the movie, the people supported the movie. It was No. 1 at the box office, over $200 million worldwide. I can’t be mad, you know."
Maybe that's not the circumstances for everybody that could get an award, you might be entirely right. I'd be interested to see some statistics on what effect an Oscar has on someone career. It usually appears that the Oscars are awarded AFTER the subject has had tonnes of praise and rewards though. They aren't really for the little guy.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't change the economic change and marketing that come with winning or being nominated. The Oscar isn't a guarantee of success either, just look at Cuba Gooding Jr. Of course that is acting, for the people that don't get much notice that aren't in front of the screen, such as wardrobe and make-up, it makes a difference. The fact that it has become a staple of television doesn't really change that, though I would imagine it has had an effect on it.
CaoCaoTipper wrote: Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but analysis done by the Economist ( here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race ) shows that the amount of academy awards given to black nominees pretty much falls in line with the percentage of black population In the U.S. This doesn't NOT mean that there isn't a prejudice, and the article seems to lay the blame more at the feet of Hollywood itself and the drama schools, but do take a read and judge for yourself as I'm not sure I fully understand it.
Well, they mean exactly what they say: black actors actually have done all right from 2007-2013 (the data set they used). Of course, that ignores the years of 2014 and 2015, which both resulted in all white nominations for actors.
However, the article goes on to make two points. First, white actors are grossly overrepresented. While black actors get roughly their "share," Latino and Asian actors are nearly absent, and white actors benefited. They showed that while 70% of SAG members are white, all 40 nominees over two years being white would be a one in a hundred thousand anomaly.
Second, they point out the complete absence of directors of color, which is one area that nobody really can defend.
So yes, for one seven year period, not counting the years in question, black actors actually got their fair share. However, all other non-white actors, and directors of color, are almost fully absent.
I watched Beasts of No Nation tonight. After all the hype, I was really expecting to be blown away by Idris Elba's performance, but I wasn't. He did a decent job, his "somewhere African" accent was certainly a lot more convincing than Will Smith's, but he's a supporting actor, and I didn't think he stood out especially. If I compare his performance to that of Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York (for which an Oscar was awarded)... The rolls are actually quite similar: "a tyrannical commander, who takes the main character into his wicked fold", but Bill the Butcher is terrifying, for the whole film I was on the edge of my seat wondering when he was just going to flip-out and kill someone. You never question for a moment why people do as he tells them. Joe Pesci has a similar intensity in Goodfellas (which won him an academy award). Even LL Cool J (who is not exactly known for his acting prowess), is really fething scary in the film "In Too Deep", if nothing else, he won my respect in that film.
Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation... His performance was good, but not so good that I feel it's a crime (or even surprising) that he wasn't nominated for an Oscar.
Well, I watched FF. And despite people talking about Michael B Jordan being a decent actor...he was garbage in that role (albeit, not entirely his fault, given the train wreck of that movie). But he did nothing to make me think he was Johnny Storm. Nothing at all. They all were piss poor in their roles, but seeing how he was "hand selected" to be a great Johnny Storm...he fell VERY flat. Insulting performance.
Chris Evans=Johnny Storm
Michael B Jordan=Vin Diesel wannabee who sets on fire.
Second, they point out the complete absence of directors of color, which is one area that nobody really can defend.
Do you mean in nominations, or movies as a whole?? Just about the only "black director" that I can think of, is Tyler Perry, or at least, he's taken on a number of roles behind the camera, so I wouldn't be surprised if he directed his own crap movies.
Now, I don't think Tyler Perry is representative of the creative talent of that demographic, but I think it may, sadly, show that people who choose directors may go "well... we've seen what T.P. does, so "Black Director X" must be the same... let's hire the Jew instead"
timetowaste85 wrote: Well, I watched FF. And despite people talking about Michael B Jordan being a decent actor...he was garbage in that role.
He was garbage in Creed too. I was really Psyched for that for that Movie, I rewatched all the rocky films in anticipation, I thought it was going to spawn a whole new generation of cheesy but awesome boxing movies... but it was just gak. People keep saying that he looks like Apollo, but he doesn't, he looks like Kanye West, and Kanye West looks like a douche.
Carl Weathers was awesome as Apollo, Mr T was awesome as Clubber Lang. Both of those guys were around 100KG, and had character. Michael B Jordan is just skinny and unlikeable, I don't understand why he is in action movies at all.
To be fair, I don't think it's that Kanye West looks like a douche, and more than Kanye West is a douche and anyone who looks kind of like him is gonna innately look like a douche
Honestly, I didn't even think of him looking like Kanye (who I think is a PoS). I couldn't care less what he looks like. He just had no personality that could embody the character he was paid to play. Now, really that's Trank's fault. Hiring somebody wholly unrealistic for the role...he put Jordan in a spot to fail. But Jordan also put no emotion into it and was completely unbelievable. They really failed together.
I think Jordan was good in Chronicle - he had some pretty strong charisma there, I thought. I think trying to analyze someone's acting prowess based upon how well they did in Fantastic Four is problematic.
Ouze wrote: I think trying to analyze someone's acting prowess based upon how well they did in Fantastic Four is problematic.
I think watching Fant4stic is problematic.
Not if you're drinking and rented it to make fun of for two hours!! It provided entertainment for me as it was so bad it was easy to ridicule. I also had five others with me.
timetowaste85 wrote: Not if you're drinking and rented it to make fun of for two hours!! It provided entertainment for me as it was so bad it was easy to ridicule. I also had five others with me.
At that point anything would have probably worked, and if you had enough to drink with the others even a blank wall probably would have provided amusement.
Forget the racial issue and dig into the $250,000 gift bag. Now that is some sweet swag, if you like flights to Israel, a vaporizer, custom M&M's, and Sex Toys that is. Shaping up to be an unforgettable evening, though in a good way or bad way is still to be seen.
