Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/chris-rock-drop-oscars-host-article-1.2500532

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."

There's some comedy gold material here

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.

I think there's a lot to be said that the Oscars are just a symptom of the wider problem. it's not like there's lots of other people snubbed by the Oscars over the years, and African Americans aren't the only ones who get shut out from the show.

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.

 Breotan wrote:
Should Chris Rock walk away from hosting the Academy Awards?

No.




Hit play. It's keyed to start at (almost) the right point. Go forward about 15 seconds.

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.

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"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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.

It's looking like Chris Rock will not pull out of the Oscars.

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.

Chris Rock has a net worth of 70 million dollars. I feel like he'll be able to eat even without this hosting gig. He also has a history of speaking out on racial inequality in Hollywood so it's really not out of left field.

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.

My 2 cents*

 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.

http://www.eonline.com/news/732196/the-fresh-prince-of-bel-air-s-janet-hubert-slams-jada-pinkett-smith-for-calling-an-oscars-boycott

 Ouze wrote:
It's looking like Chris Rock will not pull out of the Oscars.

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.

I had no idea there was such drama behind The Fresh Prince. She seems like a classy lady so I can't imagine why.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


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.

 Polonius wrote:


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....