|
Post by papersilly on Jan 19, 2016 18:42:52 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
ETA: I am surprised that Will Smith wasn't nominated though. I heard great things about his performance. Straight Outta Compton, I', not so sure about that one.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 18:45:43 GMT
I think it is a systemic problem. It is show BUSINESS. The driving force behind the model is revenue. Because of this, many films take the safe path and go for established formulas or ethnicity. There are many sequels because while they earn less than the original film the probability is high that they will turn a profit. We are a diverse country, perhaps one day Hollywood will find a way to maximize its profits by making more diverse films. Although ironically when it comes to an Academy award, often the most profitable or marketable movies are overlooked. The Academy seems to enjoy recognizing movies that are "different" - which as it's made up of insiders, I can appreciate. But there have been many nominated films that just suck from an actual viewing pleasure. It was all about recognizing someone doing something different or edgy and forgetting about being entertaining which is why they weren't commercially successful.
|
|
oldcrow
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,828
Location: Ontario,Canada
Jun 26, 2014 12:25:29 GMT
|
Post by oldcrow on Jan 19, 2016 18:49:05 GMT
lack of diversity. No actors of color were nominated. What it comes down to for me is this: if the Oscars are meant to showcase "the best", then "diversity" should not come into play. Like all art, the nominations are subjective, but the past years where African American have won both best actor and best actress in the same year and other years had minority wins of top awards shows that racism is not at play. That being the case, in any given year, if the nominators pick "the best" and it happens to not include minorities, "thems the breaks." To me, forcing minorities to be nominated for the sake of "diversity" cheapens the awards. Instead of the "best", we're right back to the "let's make everyone feel good" mantra that has cheapened many other awards. What say you? I'm with you.
|
|
|
Post by disneypal on Jan 19, 2016 18:58:16 GMT
What it comes down to for me is this: if the Oscars are meant to showcase "the best", then "diversity" should not come into play. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Spongemom Scrappants on Jan 19, 2016 19:07:39 GMT
It's an awards show for people who act. This should not be a political venue. Yes, but the current modus operandi in America seems to be to politicize everything.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 19, 2016 19:08:13 GMT
I think it is a systemic problem. It is show BUSINESS. The driving force behind the model is revenue. Because of this, many films take the safe path and go for established formulas or ethnicity. There are many sequels because while they earn less than the original film the probability is high that they will turn a profit. We are a diverse country, perhaps one day Hollywood will find a way to maximize its profits by making more diverse films. Although ironically when it comes to an Academy award, often the most profitable or marketable movies are overlooked. The Academy seems to enjoy recognizing movies that are "different" - which as it's made up of insiders, I can appreciate. But there have been many nominated films that just suck from an actual viewing pleasure. It was all about recognizing someone doing something different or edgy and forgetting about being entertaining which is why they weren't commercially successful. I'm the opposite. I actually like Oscar movies and back when I saw more movies, those are the movies my husband and I preferred to the latest comic book movie or remake. I also like more mainstream fare (I did love Star Wars and Inside Out), but would much rather see The Big Short or Spotlight versus Jurassic Park or Avengers. For comparison, these are the movies nominated for Best Picture: The Big Short Bridge of Spies Brooklyn Mad Max: Fury Road The Martian The Revenant Room Spotlight And these are the top ten grossing movies of 2015 (American Sniper was released in 2014): 1 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens 2 Jurassic World 3 The Avengers: Age of Ultron 4 Inside Out 5 Furious 7 6 American Sniper 7 Minions 8 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 9 The Martian 10 Cinderella 11 Spectre 12 Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation 13 Pitch Perfect 2 14 Ant-Man 15 Home 16 Hotel Transylvania 2 17 Fifty Shades of Grey 18 The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water 19 Straight Outta Compton 20 San Andreas
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Jan 19, 2016 19:26:57 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
Best not to post about topics you don't understand.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 9:15:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 19:28:19 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
Did you really just say that? Gross.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 19:28:31 GMT
ETA I should tag pudgygroundhog as this is response to her post I don't disagree, but think it depends on the movie. I haven't seen all the nominees this year, so looking at last year - I've included my netflix ratings) Nominations: 12 Years a Slave (5 stars - awesome, awesome movie) American Hustle (4 stars according to netflix but I don't remember it that well) Captain Phillips (4 stars - good movie) Dallas Buyers Club (4 star - good movie Gravity (2 star ) Her (didn't see) Nebraska (1 star - absolutely bone numbingly boring - I actually am not sure we finished the movie it was so bad) Philomena (4 star - why the Oscars exist - wonderful movie I probably never would have heard about) The Wolf of Wall Street (2 stars - awful if LDC wasn't involved don't think it would have been nominated) I always follow the nominations to find the diamonds I might not have seen without the big Hollywood advertising push (this year I added several to my queue) But there are always a few head scratchers where I have no clue why they nominated them other than being "different" (Nebraska). I don't disagree that Hollywood's obsession with the teenage boy demographic that buy a ton of tickets means that the top grossing films are often crap.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jan 19, 2016 19:35:57 GMT
I think it would be prudent to also mention the bias against women in Hollywood...after all, it wasn't until 2010 that a female director won the Oscar.
Here's some more interesting facts:
The issue isn't solely about race...but it most definitely about fair representation in a white male dominated industry.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jan 19, 2016 19:43:48 GMT
ETA I should tag pudgygroundhog as this is response to her post I don't disagree, but think it depends on the movie. I haven't seen all the nominees this year, so looking at last year - I've included my netflix ratings) Nominations: 12 Years a Slave (5 stars - awesome, awesome movie) American Hustle (4 stars according to netflix but I don't remember it that well) Captain Phillips (4 stars - good movie) Dallas Buyers Club (4 star - good movie Gravity (2 star ) Her (didn't see) Nebraska (1 star - absolutely bone numbingly boring - I actually am not sure we finished the movie it was so bad) Philomena (4 star - why the Oscars exist - wonderful movie I probably never would have heard about) The Wolf of Wall Street (2 stars - awful if LDC wasn't involved don't think it would have been nominated) I always follow the nominations to find the diamonds I might not have seen without the big Hollywood advertising push (this year I added several to my queue) But there are always a few head scratchers where I have no clue why they nominated them other than being "different" (Nebraska). I don't disagree that Hollywood's obsession with the teenage boy demographic that buy a ton of tickets means that the top grossing films are often crap. Okay - that's funny because I really liked Nebraska - but I'm also from Nebraska and it made me homesick. But I get that a movie like that is not for everybody. Definitely many of the Oscar nominations can be outside the mainstream and I think in general Oscars reward movies that either push the boundaries, are unique, or are about serious matters. I think subject matter can be a big turn off to many people (understandably so - people often look for escape when they see a movie, not to have to sit through depressing movies about slavery or the AIDs epidemic). Out of the nominees last year I saw: American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Nebraska, and Philomena and enjoyed them all (my favorite was Philomena). No desire to see the Wolf of Wall Street and missed 12 Years a Slave and Captain Phillips (I rarely watch movies at home, so if I missed it in the theater, it's not very likely I'll see it).
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jan 19, 2016 19:47:16 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
ETA: I am surprised that Will Smith wasn't nominated though. I heard great things about his performance. Straight Outta Compton, I', not so sure about that one. Now you really are being silly. Seems to me the reason BET and IMAGE exist is BECAUSE of the lack of diversity in the entertainment industry. It's an answer to the white male controlled industry.
|
|
|
Post by jbelle on Jan 19, 2016 19:51:00 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
ETA: I am surprised that Will Smith wasn't nominated though. I heard great things about his performance. Straight Outta Compton, I', not so sure about that one. They are just as bad and politically bias.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 19:55:57 GMT
Okay - that's funny because I really liked Nebraska - but I'm also from Nebraska and it made me homesick. But I get that a movie like that is not for everybody. Definitely many of the Oscar nominations can be outside the mainstream and I think in general Oscars reward movies that either push the boundaries, are unique, or are about serious matters. I think subject matter can be a big turn off to many people (understandably so - people often look for escape when they see a movie, not to have to sit through depressing movies about slavery or the AIDs epidemic). Out of the nominees last year I saw: American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Nebraska, and Philomena and enjoyed them all (my favorite was Philomena). No desire to see the Wolf of Wall Street and missed 12 Years a Slave and Captain Phillips (I rarely watch movies at home, so if I missed it in the theater, it's not very likely I'll see it). I agree completely - and it's why the discussion of diversity is interesting. The Academy is the Academy as there is a very specific process of admittance and requires that you have a substantial status WITHIN the industry. It lends itself to people who are looking outside the mainstream and definitely rewards "movies that either push the boundaries, are unique or about serious matters" as you said. Now I wholly admit that it will also lend itself to other biases when you have an industry that ISN'T well diversified. But I do think the idea that the Oscars becomes a popularity contest based on the demographics of the overall nation is misguided. I watched @mizindependence clip above and wondered how many woman director's there WERE in the first 50 or so years of the Oscar's existence. And now as ONLY directors vote for directors - it's going to take a substantial amount of time before there are sufficient female directors to balance the male dominated field (if ever). I personally don't see that as a reason to change how a Best Director is determined - there are a whole host of different award shows that use a different criteria (including the Golden Globes and People's Choice Awards) for those that aren't interested in the insider's prospective.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on Jan 19, 2016 20:01:01 GMT
I disagree with Lauren. Maybe Jada's motives are self serving but she is right. Stop seeking validation for your art and start creating places and spaces where people who look like you get the validation, respect they deserve etc. Black people are incredibly talented it wouldn't be hard. Honestly I had never seen it in that light. Totally sparked something in me of course in a total different direction. As papersilly so eloquently pointed out black people are damned if they wah wah wah and damned if they don't whine and instead post a bit of a call to action. If the academy president acknowledges that the board needs more diversity who are we to disagree. One of the actors in Master of None upon winning "Critics Choice" thanked white straight men because they've been dominating Hollywood for so long thus making people think what's really in fact mainstream somehow new and exciting. Close your eyes and ask yourself if you'd like to be a white actress or a black actress.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jan 19, 2016 20:05:44 GMT
I agree with you Lauren. However, I o think the way the Oscars are run needs a complete overhaul. I've heard/read too many stories about actors only getting awards because "he/she has paid their dues and are "owed" an Oscar". I think it should be completely merit based, and past histories shouldn't even factor in. I agree with both of you. Sadly this is the case in many awards, voted or judged events
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 20:13:13 GMT
Close your eyes and ask yourself if you'd like to be a white actress or a black actress. Can I be Halle Berry?
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jan 19, 2016 20:19:34 GMT
What it comes down to for me is this: if the Oscars are meant to showcase "the best", then "diversity" should not come into play. I agree. We separate by gender and role. So why don't we have best performance in a movie? Because only 11% of protagonist in movies are women. The awards usually go to the protagonist not the antagonist. If you really wanted to showcase the best the awards should be defined differently.
|
|
LeaP
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,939
Location: Los Angeles, CA where 405 meets 101
Jun 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT
|
Post by LeaP on Jan 19, 2016 21:05:36 GMT
I think it is a systemic problem. It is show BUSINESS. The driving force behind the model is revenue. Because of this, many films take the safe path and go for established formulas or ethnicity. There are many sequels because while they earn less than the original film the probability is high that they will turn a profit. We are a diverse country, perhaps one day Hollywood will find a way to maximize its profits by making more diverse films. Although ironically when it comes to an Academy award, often the most profitable or marketable movies are overlooked. The Academy seems to enjoy recognizing movies that are "different" - which as it's made up of insiders, I can appreciate. But there have been many nominated films that just suck from an actual viewing pleasure. It was all about recognizing someone doing something different or edgy and forgetting about being entertaining which is why they weren't commercially successful. Or some misfires like Ordinary People winning over Raging Bull.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Jan 19, 2016 21:23:11 GMT
Close your eyes and ask yourself if you'd like to be a white actress or a black actress. Can I be Halle Berry? Without the side of crazy? She's got bad taste in men. However, my husband would be in heaven. She is his dream girl.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 21:29:58 GMT
Just for added food for thought. One of the comments made by Janet Hubert in her rebuttal to Jada's call for a boycott was about Will Smith working with black directors. I did a quick search on imdb for Overbrook Entertainment's (Will's production company) films - I looked at 15 films and could find exactly ONE that used a black director - and incidentally exactly ONE that used a female director (the same film Secret Life of Bees). I'm guessing that is more due to the overwhelming number of experienced/talented directors who also happen to be white men than in Will Smith being racist of sexist.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jan 19, 2016 21:41:08 GMT
Just for added food for thought. One of the comments made by Janet Hubert in her rebuttal to Jada's call for a boycott was about Will Smith working with black directors. I did a quick search on imdb for Overbrook Entertainment's (Will's production company) films - I looked at 15 films and could find exactly ONE that used a black director - and incidentally exactly ONE that used a female director (the same film Secret Life of Bees). I'm guessing that is more due to the overwhelming number of experienced/talented directors who also happen to be white men than in Will Smith being racist of sexist. Experience comes from opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jan 19, 2016 22:08:31 GMT
Just for added food for thought. One of the comments made by Janet Hubert in her rebuttal to Jada's call for a boycott was about Will Smith working with black directors. I did a quick search on imdb for Overbrook Entertainment's (Will's production company) films - I looked at 15 films and could find exactly ONE that used a black director - and incidentally exactly ONE that used a female director (the same film Secret Life of Bees). I'm guessing that is more due to the overwhelming number of experienced/talented directors who also happen to be white men than in Will Smith being racist of sexist. Experience comes from opportunity. Just a thought, but couldn't Will Smith give them the opportunity? Seems a little ironic, no?
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 7,996
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Jan 19, 2016 22:20:13 GMT
Poor Chris Rock. He just wants to host the show. Now what's he supposed to do?
He already has been put in the hotseat for his "Good Hair" documentary. Man oh man.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jan 19, 2016 22:36:09 GMT
wah wah....I don't see anyone boycotting the BET or IMAGE awards.
ETA: I am surprised that Will Smith wasn't nominated though. I heard great things about his performance. Straight Outta Compton, I', not so sure about that one. They are just as bad and politically bias. while I understand the pile-on from my comment, this was my point. other awards are just as political and biased. the Golden Globes (Hollywood foreign press) are partial to independent films. BET and IMAGE awards skew towards films from and of people of color. BAFTA, and on and on. where is the outcry when some of those skewed decisions are made? if you're going to call into question the methodology behind certain decisions, call out everyone doing it and effect the change and diversity (not just in race but also in content) everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 9:15:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 22:48:40 GMT
Isn't it about time that the oscar's were done with? How many awards do these people need?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jan 19, 2016 22:52:18 GMT
Just for added food for thought. One of the comments made by Janet Hubert in her rebuttal to Jada's call for a boycott was about Will Smith working with black directors. I did a quick search on imdb for Overbrook Entertainment's (Will's production company) films - I looked at 15 films and could find exactly ONE that used a black director - and incidentally exactly ONE that used a female director (the same film Secret Life of Bees). I'm guessing that is more due to the overwhelming number of experienced/talented directors who also happen to be white men than in Will Smith being racist of sexist. Experience comes from opportunity. Of course and I imagine we can all assume Will Smith isn't choosing white directors as he's a racist. Is it a complete lack of black directors to give the opportunity to? The white directors were just more talented/better suited for those projects? A concern about risking tens of millions of dollars on an unknown?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jan 19, 2016 22:59:17 GMT
Poor Chris Rock. He just wants to host the show. Now what's he supposed to do? He already has been put in the hotseat for his "Good Hair" documentary. Man oh man. I heard a commentary this morning that said of all the people who could have been hosting, they felt like he would be really good at turning the politics into humor and possibly diffuse the issue some. I don't know what the commentator's background was, but he was pretty confident. Not sure HOW that Chris Rock does that, but it will be interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by nyxish on Jan 19, 2016 22:59:36 GMT
i think diversity is an issue in hollywood, and there is a lack of 'equal representation' of actors who are not white in leading roles that could go to a man or woman of any race. Yes, i think that is an issue that should be given more attention.
If the Oscars are about choosing the best performances in a given year, i don't think that is the place to be arguing for more diversity.
However: it is perhaps the place where you get the largest audience to hear a voice of dissent or protest. i...guess i can hope that this will be one step in a trickle down to changing the way Hollywood casts leading roles? But i wouldn't assume this will be a quick change.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 9:15:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 22:59:46 GMT
When you are part of the majority it is hard to hear sometimes what the minority is saying without taking it as a personal affront to your own position. From what I have understood about Spike and Jada over the years, they are most definitely not people who believe in getting something in life just because it improves diversity. They both seem to me to be hard working people who believe in the integrity of their own efforts and work. For them to make a comment on the lack of diversity doesn't mean they want handouts to balance the equation. I think peabay and others have summed it up perfectly.
|
|