Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Controversy at the Oscars

Controversy at the Oscars
Thread Tools
Gearhead40
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2015
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2016, 06:30 PM
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfN_u9iDc10

Sounds like a simple solution! The bb thing never even crossed my mind lol
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2016, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gearhead40 View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfN_u9iDc10

Sounds like a simple solution! The bb thing never even crossed my mind lol
The Knicks acquired another name in the late 70's for the lack of diversity on the team.
ESPN.com - Page2 - NBA's summer of discontent
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 23, 2016 at 05:54 PM. )
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2016, 11:37 PM
 
Blacks make up 13.5% of the population and have won 13% of the Oscars in acting since 1970, where's the controversy?* How about #GrammysSoBlack? There they've won nearly 40%. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)



(*Okay, if you want to really throw stones you can point at the technical awards, which have been >95% white. But that's more of an issue of getting blacks more interested in science and cinematography.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 12:53 AM
 
The technical awards are what they give to the most interesting SF and Fantasy movies, to make up for not giving them real awards. I've lost track of how many times they skip over the interesting movies, even digging up something obscure (if they have to) for the main awards.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 06:27 AM
 
This is a well known problem with awards with a jury. The jury will give the award to whatever contestant (movie, book, etc) they remember best during the past year, which is not going to be the best of ten similar items but the eleventh which is really different. This happens everywhere. There is also the "lifetime achievement" effect that is so strong in the Oscars, where they keep rewarding what should have won last year or the year before - which is why Return of the King eventually won.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 09:11 AM
 
The problem is "the Academy," not the actual awards. Who makes up the Academy? Not (for the most part) people with deep and interesting ideas that turn into innovative and thoughtful films. Instead, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is made up of actors and directors who are more and more driven by market than by art. The technical members of the Academy are the ones that see how interesting "interesting" films are, and that's why those films get technical awards.

I think the only film in the past several decades that wasn't a "serious drama" or light comedy that won Best Picture was "Return of the King", which won every Academy award it was nominated for (11 including Best Picture and Best Director, but none for acting...). To me, being able to act credibly in an entirely fantasy setting, and not "wink at the camera" while doing so, is a high level of the acting art. And note that very few comedies win acting awards, not because they aren't well acted, but because a lot of actors aren't up to playing comedic roles "straight," which is essential to the genre.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 09:43 AM
 
I have never watched the Oscars before and I couldn't care less who wins, but to me, this is akin to the large American companies who are trying to "diversify" by employing more ethic minorities instead of the default white male.

In my opinion, you hire whoever is the best candidate and there is no need to diversify for the sake of diversification. If a black candidate is better than a white person, then hire the black candidate and vice versa. It is all about competition.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
I have never watched the Oscars before and I couldn't care less who wins, but to me, this is akin to the large American companies who are trying to "diversify" by employing more ethic minorities instead of the default white male.

In my opinion, you hire whoever is the best candidate and there is no need to diversify for the sake of diversification. If a black candidate is better than a white person, then hire the black candidate and vice versa. It is all about competition.
Racist! Seriously, I was called a racist for saying the exact same thing, just a few months ago. Forced diversity IS racism, just of a different stripe.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 11:01 AM
 
To me, it is very simple: If I have liked the past winners of some award, that award becomes a relevant recommendation to me. If that award has gone to bad candidates recently, I don't much care who wins. When it comes to Oscars, it has gone up and down. 2002 was the absolute rock bottom, but apparently the Academy took some steps to avoid a repeat of that. Recently, it has been hits and misses. I have come to the conclusion that if the winner is a movie that I would absolutely never see if it hadn't won something, I shouldn't. If it is something that interests me anyway, a win means it moves up a notch.

Also: Several decades is a bit long. Gladiator won, and so did Silence of the Lambs. Not the usual Oscar faire, either of them - and we could probably include The Departed in that list as well.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 11:26 AM
 
The meat of it, in this instance, is Will Smith getting salty for not being nominated, when his performance was mediocre, at best (at times one of the worst Southern accents in the history of film). "But, but, I'm Will Smith and I made this film just to get an award!" Get a good whiff, THAT'S entitlement.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
To me, it is very simple: If I have liked the past winners of some award, that award becomes a relevant recommendation to me. If that award has gone to bad candidates recently, I don't much care who wins. When it comes to Oscars, it has gone up and down. 2002 was the absolute rock bottom, but apparently the Academy took some steps to avoid a repeat of that. Recently, it has been hits and misses. I have come to the conclusion that if the winner is a movie that I would absolutely never see if it hadn't won something, I shouldn't. If it is something that interests me anyway, a win means it moves up a notch.

Also: Several decades is a bit long. Gladiator won, and so did Silence of the Lambs. Not the usual Oscar faire, either of them - and we could probably include The Departed in that list as well.
But there was also Million Dollar Baby, A Beautiful Mind, & American Beauty, where they nailed it. Definitely hits and misses.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
I have never watched the Oscars before and I couldn't care less who wins, but to me, this is akin to the large American companies who are trying to "diversify" by employing more ethic minorities instead of the default white male.

In my opinion, you hire whoever is the best candidate and there is no need to diversify for the sake of diversification. If a black candidate is better than a white person, then hire the black candidate and vice versa. It is all about competition.
Here's the thing. There are very few positions for which there is a single, objectively 'best' candidate. If you are a large corporation, there are likely thousands of subjective hiring decisions made every year.

I've hired or been involved in hiring quite a few people over my career. In very few cases was there one clearly 'best' candidate. It always came down to weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.

Some companies, for whatever reason, think having a more diverse workplace is to their benefit. If the fact that a candidate was from a minority background was put in the the 'strengths' column, that could tip the scales in their favour.

Having a policy of identifying and hiring qualified minority candidates does not mean the best person will not get hired.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Here's the thing. There are very few positions for which there is a single, objectively 'best' candidate. If you are a large corporation, there are likely thousands of subjective hiring decisions made every year.

I've hired or been involved in hiring quite a few people over my career. In very few cases was there one clearly 'best' candidate. It always came down to weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.

Some companies, for whatever reason, think having a more diverse workplace is to their benefit. If the fact that a candidate was from a minority background was put in the the 'strengths' column, that could tip the scales in their favour.

Having a policy of identifying and hiring qualified minority candidates does not mean the best person will not get hired.
In a manufacturing environment, the most qualified candidate rarely gets the job. Connections and impact to the production line are the main factor. I know people who passed over for jobs, myself included, not because the person hired was a better candidate, but because they would have the least impact on the production line. One has what I call a "degree in relativity" because like many people, his uncle pulled some string for him. He was a contract employee and not even eligible to apply for the position. No school and had been with us less than three months. BTW, having Chavez for a last name was of no advantage.
45/47
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
But there was also Million Dollar Baby, A Beautiful Mind, & American Beauty, where they nailed it. Definitely hits and misses.
Yes, kinda, yes. The kinda for A Beautiful Mind is because it spawned the trend of biopics that "enhance the truth", and that is a trend that can't die soon enough. I also think that FOTR was a bigger achievement and has held up better, but ABM was certainly better than the other three nominated that year.

But in a wider sense, this is exactly what I mean. All of these were fine movies without going full-on navel gazing.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2016, 09:33 PM
 
As much as I love Tolkien's work, I've read the series a dozen times, I'll never love those films. They took way too many liberties with the story, which in its own way is enhancing the truth, to ever appeal to me.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 05:08 AM
 
I am much more on board with the adaptations in the first movie than with the ones in second and particularly third. The first movie shortens the time so Frodo is younger, removes the sidetrack through the forest and the barrows before Bree, and personalizes the elves and magic a bit. All of these changes are for the better, IMO. The only thing that bugs me in the first movie is some of the personality changes, although the really annoying one (Gimli being a humorous sidekick) doesn't really get going until later.

TAN, but there are three changes that break it for me in the later movies:
  • In the book, the Ents debate whether to go to war, and take the reasoned decision that it is worth the risk. In the movie, they have the same debate and decide not to, except Treebeard makes an executive decision to force them when he "discovers" what Saruman has done. This is silly (that he wouldn't have noticed) and changes the Ents from a proto-democracy to just another nation loyally following their anointed king - and all to give the hobbits a bit more perceived agency.
  • The entire passage where Gollum tricks Frodo into sending Sam back really hurts to see. It is so stupid, and so unnecessary.
  • They cut the coda of cleansing the Shire. I get that they were short on time, but that bit had a real meaning in the story, and they could have handled it quickly if they had to.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 06:57 AM
 
They left out Tom Bombadil.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 08:38 AM
 
Tom Bombadil would have been another 3 hour movie. Which is not a bad thing, but they did have some limits on their resources.

I agree that much of the Jackson presentation was different from the books, but in most cases the changes were to facilitate story telling. Now the whole Ent council thing should have been clearly presented, though it could have been quick. The extended edition had enough hints that it was happening that it wouldn't have been hard to throw another couple of quick scenes in to the effect "this changes everything, the Ents must consider what Saruman has done." Treebeard had been wandering enough that he might have missed the deforestation, so that didn't seem to be too far off to me. And sending Sam away wasn't in keeping with Frodo's development in the story; I think Jackson could have shown Golum's influence on Frodo in a different, and more in-character way.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Yes, kinda, yes. The kinda for A Beautiful Mind is because it spawned the trend of biopics that "enhance the truth", and that is a trend that can't die soon enough.
I watched A Beautiful Mind, and fell in love with it. Then I read the book and realized a few things:
- Almost nothing was true.
- The elements that were sort of true were still shifted, sometimes unnecessarily.
- Nash was 100x more of a jerk than he was portrayed in film, and that's saying something.
- Nash's delusions included aliens. I wanted my freaking aliens.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As much as I love Tolkien's work, I've read the series a dozen times, I'll never love those films. They took way too many liberties with the story, which in its own way is enhancing the truth, to ever appeal to me.
Originally Posted by P View Post
I am much more on board with the adaptations in the first movie than with the ones in second and particularly third. The first movie shortens the time so Frodo is younger, removes the sidetrack through the forest and the barrows before Bree, and personalizes the elves and magic a bit. All of these changes are for the better, IMO. The only thing that bugs me in the first movie is some of the personality changes, although the really annoying one (Gimli being a humorous sidekick) doesn't really get going until later...
I was going to complain about you guys nitpicking, but realized that you're complaints aren't all that dissimilar from the ones I had about Beautiful Mind.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Tom Bombadil would have been another 3 hour movie. Which is not a bad thing, but they did have some limits on their resources.
One thing about Tom: there's no way his songs wouldn't have come across as incredibly cheesy in the movies.

I agree that much of the Jackson presentation was different from the books, but in most cases the changes were to facilitate story telling.
I almost entirely agree with this. I don't see how the books could ever be translated into film, especially just three.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 04:49 PM
 
What annoyed me most was the removal of the Barrow Downs (Tyrn Gorthad), though I do understand that it would have lengthened the movie by an hour, and all the added crap with Arwen (Liv Tyler). If they'd removed that garbage they might have had enough room for Bombadil, which would have made for a more accurate movie.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2016, 06:10 PM
 
If we're speaking of FOTR specifically, the main changes compared to the book were that
  • The time before they leave the Shire is shortened
  • More time is spent introducing characters early on (there is at least one scene with each important character explaining who they are, which is very well done but take a lot of time)
  • The Tom Bombadill/Barrow Downs sequence is cut
  • Less time is spent traveling to Rivendell (there is a long sequence where they party with elves that is completely cut, among other things)
  • Gandalf's capture is displayed chronologically and with more relative time than in the books
  • Arwen replaces Glorfindel
  • The Council is shorter
  • The Warg attack is moved to the next movie and a completely different party

The magic is also a bit more personalized, and some of the battle scenes are longer and more detailed, but all in all, that is the main stuff. Except for replacing Glorfindel, there wasn't more time spent on Arwen in this movie (there are a couple of long scenes with her in TTT, however). Most of the things that were removed are to tighten up the flow of the story before Rivendell, as that is quite leisurely. This is almost flawless, in my view. I wouldn't have had it be such a defined battle on Weathertop, I wouldn't have changed the reasoning behind going into Moria, Arwen personally releasing the river is a bit strange and makes you wonder why she didn't do magic long ago and why she can't join the Fellowship to drown some more bad people, etc, but the time is very well apportioned. As I mentioned, I can't say the same for the later two movies.

The Barrow Downs sequence has almost no connection to the rest of the story, and it makes sense to cut it. It does bring trouble later on because it arguably weakens the scene with Eowyn, Merry and the Witch-king, but for it could have been recovered more nicely than it is, and I don't think anyone would have noticed who have not read the books.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 12:11 AM
 
I know they wanted to make it appeal to a wider audience, but the in-your-face love story between Aragorn and Arwen should have never been in it. (And it would have neatly avoided the cringe-inducing "but daddy I loooove him" and "have someone take a few seconds and put his sword back together" scenes down the road.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The meat of it, in this instance, is Will Smith getting salty for not being nominated, when his performance was mediocre, at best (at times one of the worst Southern accents in the history of film). "But, but, I'm Will Smith and I made this film just to get an award!" Get a good whiff, THAT'S entitlement.
Isn't his character in Concussion from Nigeria..?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 12:10 PM
 
It was supposed to be a Nigerian accent?! Holy cow!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 01:04 PM
 
Damn, the fact you mixed that up is hilarious. How on Earth did you think that was a southern accent? Hahaha what were you thinking oh man what a blunder how embarrassing. You must have been so confused, that's rich.

Best part is that you said
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
at times one of the worst Southern accents in the history of film)
So apparently you thought it was at least a tolerable Southern accent some of the time
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 01:37 PM
 
It did take 2 days for that to pay off, I was starting to think my effort was for naught.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
Isn't his character in Concussion from Nigeria..?
The fact that you even had to point this out strongly suggests CTP is just being argumentative about a movie he hasn't even seen. Or at a minimum wasn't remotely paying attention to if it happened to be playing in his presence.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 02:28 PM
 
Okay, now you're just trolling, obviously it was a bad Southern accent.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Blacks make up 13.5% of the population and have won 13% of the Oscars in acting since 1970, where's the controversy?* How about #GrammysSoBlack? There they've won nearly 40%. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

(*Okay, if you want to really throw stones you can point at the technical awards, which have been >95% white. But that's more of an issue of getting blacks more interested in science and cinematography.)
Blacks have won 13% of the Oscars in "acting" since 1970? In what mathematical universe?

Just so we are all clear this is the list of all Academy Awards categories. The ones in bold are the "acting" categories:

  • Best Picture: since 1928
  • Best Director: since 1928
  • Best Actor in a Leading Role: since 1928
  • Best Actor in a Supporting Role: since 1936
  • Best Actress in a Leading Role: since 1928
  • Best Actress in a Supporting Role: since 1936
  • Best Animated Feature: since 2001
  • Best Animated Short Film: since 1931
  • Best Cinematography: since 1928
  • Best Costume Design: since 1948
  • Best Documentary Feature: since 1943
  • Best Documentary Short Subject: since 1941
  • Best Film Editing: since 1934
  • Best Foreign Language Film: since 1947
  • Best Live Action Short Film: since 1931
  • Best Makeup and Hairstyling: since 1981
  • Best Original Score: since 1934
  • Best Original Song: since 1934
  • Best Production Design: since 1928
  • Best Sound Editing: since 1963
  • Best Sound Mixing: since 1930
  • Best Visual Effects: since 1939
  • Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay): since 1928
  • Best Writing (Original Screenplay): since 1940
Since the 2016 Academy Award winners haven't been announced yet let's go from last year back to 1970. 2015 - 1970 = 45. 45 winners in the 4 "acting" categories is 45 x 4 = 180. Now these are all the black Academy Award winners since 1970. Again the "acting" categories are in bold:

Best Actor:

2001: Denzel Washington - Training Day
2004: Jamie Foxx: Ray
2006: Forrest Whitaker: The Last King of Scotland

Best Actress:

2001: Halle Berry: Monster’s Ball

Best Supporting Actor:

1982: Louis Gossett, Jr. - An Officer and a Gentleman
1989: Denzel Washington - Glory
1996: Cuba Gooding, Jr. - Jerry Maguire
2004: Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby

Best Supporting Actress:

1990: Whoopi Goldberg - Ghost
2006: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
2009: Mo’Nique - Precious
2011: Octavia Spencer - The Help
2013: Lupita Nyong’o - 12 Years a Slave


Best Documentary Feature:

2012: T. J. Martin - Undefeated

Best Documentary Short Subject:

2009: Roger Ross Williams - Music by Prudence

Best Music, Original Score:

1984: Prince - Purple Rain
1986: Herbie Hancock - Round Midnight

Best Music, Original Song:

1971: Isaac Hayes - Theme from “Shaft”
1983: Irene Cara - Flashdance … What a Feeling
1984: Stevie Wonder - I Just Called to Say I Love You
1985: Lionel Richie - “Say You, Say Me”
2005: Three Six Mafia - It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp
2014: Common & John Legend - Glory

Best Picture:

2013: Steve McQueen - “12 Years a Slave”

Best Sound Mixing:

1988: Willie D. Burton - Bird
1989: Russell Williams - Glory
1990: Russell Williams - Dances with Wolves
2006: Willie D. Burton - Dreamgirls

Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay:

2009: Geoffrey Fletcher - Push
2013: John Ridley - Twelve Years a Slave
There have been 13 black winners in the "acting" categories since 1970. Out of 180 awards. 13 / 180 = 0.072 = 7.2% Nearly HALF the percentage of what you claimed!

If you are inclined to be dismissive of the issue thats fine. It's what I expect of you quite frankly. But do at least attempt to be in the ballpark with respect to the facts.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 23, 2016 at 03:19 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 05:42 PM
 
Okay, went back and looked and I was in error (), in the last 25 years it's been 13%. That doesn't matter to you? A quarter century of parity is... get this... what we call normal.

(Your ass is just chapped over not realizing I was making a joke before, and you didn't pick-up on it.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Okay, went back and looked and I was in error (), in the last 25 years it's been 13%. That doesn't matter to you? A quarter century of parity is... get this... what we call normal.
Hold up .... wayment! Is CTP actually admitting he was wrong? It's a miracle!! Somebody call the NY Times!!! I should go buy a Powerball ticket!!!!

OAW

PS: And FTR ... the last 25 years would take us back to 1990. Since then 11 blacks have won Oscars in the "acting" categories out of the 100 awarded. Which would be 11% ... not 13%. But at least you are in the ballpark now.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 06:41 PM
 
In the trailers I knew Smith was doing a Nigerian accent, but then again I've also already seen League of Denial (and everyone else should too) and knew who Smith was basing his character off of.

I think the worst Best Picture in recent memory was Crash, what a heavy-handed, preachy pile of garbage.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2016, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Hold up .... wayment! Is CTP actually admitting he was wrong? It's a miracle!! Somebody call the NY Times!!! I should go buy a Powerball ticket!!!!

OAW

PS: And FTR ... the last 25 years would take us back to 1990. Since then 11 blacks have won Oscars in the "acting" categories out of the 100 awarded. Which would be 11% ... not 13%. But at least you are in the ballpark now.
Then it would have been 35 years, my math broke. Still applies. In recent memory there's been no problem, it's just a lot of crying over over an issue that no longer exists.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 07:38 PM
 
Jamie Foxx says want to win, act better.
Jamie Foxx: black stars – including Will Smith – need to #actbetter to win Oscars | Film | The Guardian
Jamie Foxx has reportedly told fellow actors of colour threatening a boycott of the Oscars over its all-white nominees to #actbetter if they want to win the top prize.

Appearing at the American black film festival awards on Sunday, the Oscar-winner joked that he and Denzel Washington were unimpressed with complaints over the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ failure to nominate a single actor of colour for the second year in a row.

“All these Oscar talks, I don’t even trip about that,” said Foxx, according to US Weekly. “I mean, what’s the big deal? I was sitting at home with my Oscar, like ‘What’s all the hubbub?’”

According to Page Six, Fox added: “Me and Denzel were like, ‘Hashtag what’s the big deal? Hashtag act better.’”

Foxx cited the attitude of Sidney Poitier, who became the first black winner of the best actor Oscar in 1964 for his turn in Lilies of the Field. “I was with Sidney Poitier just a couple weeks ago, and in 1963 all he asked for was an opportunity to act,” Foxx said. “That’s all we have to do: opportunity. If you turn the camera on and say, ‘OK … win an award … and action,’ we’ll all have taken 10 steps back. It’s all about the art. Who cares about anything else?”
45/47
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 09:31 PM
 
There's a lot to what Jaime says. Women have, for years, said that to get ahead in business they had to do more than men in the same positions, and advancement meant doing their jobs substantially better than men in those jobs. It's pretty much about "noticing the person doing the job," but first the job has to get your attention.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2016, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Again. Context is important. Jamie Foxx is a comedian. And it clearly says that he was joking.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 03:38 AM
 
Joking? He was trying to be humorous, but 100% meant what he was saying. Just because a black person hasn't delivered a performance worthy of a nomination, doesn't mean there's a problem with the awards.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 10:23 AM
 
Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation wasn't "Oscar worthy"? Yet he was nominated for a Golden Globe and won two Screen Actors Guild awards? You must have fell and bumped your head.

Aside from that particular example, the issue is WHO makes the determination of whether or not a performance is "Oscar worthy"? It's not as if there is some sort of "objective" process involved. So who makes up the Academy voters?

Older and more dude-heavy than just about any place in America and whiter than all but seven states.
Oscar Voters: 94% White, 76% Men, and an Average of 63 Years Old - The Atlantic

But the issue goes a lot deeper than a lack of diversity in the Academy voting membership. It's rooted in the fundamental lack of diversity in Hollywood itself starting at the top.

But [Spike] Lee stressed in his GMA interview that focusing solely on the awards show is not enough to solve the greater problem of diversity and representation in pop culture. Just talking the Oscars alone is a "mis-direction play," he said.

"We’re chasing a guy down the field when he doesn’t even have the ball," Lee said. "The other guy is high stepping the end zone."

"It goes further than the Academy Awards. It has to go back to the gatekeepers. The people who have the green light vote," he continued, referring to those studio executives who decide which films get made. "We’re not in the room (with) the executives when they have these green light meetings quarterly where they look at the scripts, they look who’s in it and they decide what we’re making and what we’re not making."

The director suggested that film studios implement a policy similar to what the NFL did a few years ago, in which teams are required to interview minority candidates for positions.

"That has increased the number of minority coaches and executives in the NFL and that should be used because [they] can’t go to that old tired realm, ‘Well we can’t find any qualified candidates,'" Lee said. "That is BS."

The issue of diversity is one Hollywood has "from top to bottom," Lee said, noting that his film, Do the Right Thing, was nominated for best picture in 1989, yet it lost the award to Driving Miss Daisy.

"That’s what’s being taught in colleges, schools," Lee said of his film. "No one is watching Driving Miss Daisy now. So it also shows you that the work is what’s important because that’s what’s going to stand for years, not an award."
Spike Lee: Diversity issue 'goes further than the Academy Awards'

OAW
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 11:49 AM
 
@OAW
Should NBA selections be tied to demographic distribution as well?

FTR, i'm not white.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@OAW
Should NBA selections be tied to demographic distribution as well?

FTR, i'm not white.
The issue isn't about some sort of rigid tie between demographic populations and Oscar winners or professional sports players. I think we can all agree that the nominees/winners/draftees should be merit based. But again, it comes down to HOW one determines merit and WHO makes the determination. The thing about professional sports is that the HOW tends to be based upon more objective criteria. And in those areas you find minorities doing quite well. But in those areas like film acting and directing the HOW tends to be based upon more subjective criteria. And this is what makes the WHO so important. Let's not misunderstand the issue. No one is saying that the Academy voters are a bunch of "racists". But they are overwhelmingly old, white men. And human beings tend to have an "affinity for the familiar". So this is why the fundamental issue is the lack of diversity in Hollywood. A film industry that had a more diverse group of people of good will (gender, race, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) working in the executive suites, in front of and behind the camera, in addition to the Academy membership would have the collective experiences of people of varied backgrounds to draw upon when making the very subjective determinations of "Oscar worthiness". I contend that if this were the case then one would see a more diverse list of Oscar nominees/winners as a natural result. And in those cases when one didn't it wouldn't be an issue because no one could say it's yet another example of Hollywood "whitewashing". I hope that clarifies my position for you.

OAW
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 02:03 PM
 
So by your argument, NBA's racially skewed selections is A-OK (even though it disadvantages other demographics) because it is "objective", and Hollowood's skew is bad because it is "subjective". Got it. Now, lets fix it....

I think it might be time for some affirmative action in the NBA (and other pro sports and Hollywood, but lets start with the worst offenders/problem first), i say the NBA should lower their standards for other demographics(such as people of other color, or no color) so that they are better represented, since...they have been 'left behind' for ...how many decades now?

Not to divert the subject too much from the black/white dimension, but i suspect there might be some racial skewing in the selection of waiters&waitresses who work in Asian restaurants.

PS>>For those of you who cant tell.... im being sarcastic here, but making some serious points.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 02:08 PM
 
Oscar Voters: 94% White, 76% Men, and an Average of 63 Years Old - The Atlantic
This goes a long way towards explaining why the cool movies (SF and Fantasy) usually only get technical awards. Especially if the age average has been about the same all along.

Since I rarely emphasize with the movies they do choose, I don't worry about the demographics. When they don't choose the actual best movies, the process is clearly inaccurate. So why be concerned with any other inaccurate results from them?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation wasn't "Oscar worthy"? Yet he was nominated for a Golden Globe and won two Screen Actors Guild awards? You must have fell and bumped your head.
It was good. Oscar-worthy? Nah. GG and SAG were overcompensating.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This goes a long way towards explaining why the cool movies (SF and Fantasy) usually only get technical awards. Especially if the age average has been about the same all along.

Since I rarely emphasize with the movies they do choose, I don't worry about the demographics. When they don't choose the actual best movies, the process is clearly inaccurate. So why be concerned with any other inaccurate results from them?
This!!!

For so long Oscar nominations seemed to be the sole province of On Golden Pond type films. But things seem to be slowly changing with the nominations for sci-fi films like Gravity and The Martian and Avatar. This year we even see a straight up action film get nominated with Mad Max:Fury Road. And odd choice IMO ... but I'm glad to see it regardless because of the change it represents.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 02:29 PM
 
That they'd pick Mad Max makes total sense to me. It's an art movie disguised as a blockbuster.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2016, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That they'd pick Mad Max makes total sense to me. It's an art movie disguised as a blockbuster.
I like that description. It's a "Mad Max" story, that's for sure, but the story isn't as basic and bare-bones as the original Mad Max. It's about redemption, with Max as an agent or facilitator of everybody's character evolution.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2016, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation wasn't "Oscar worthy"? Yet he was nominated for a Golden Globe and won two Screen Actors Guild awards? You must have fell and bumped your head.
I wonder if this omission was down to the controversial distribution as much as anything else.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2016, 10:26 AM
 
I read that and had to look it up. "Controversial distribution" means... they released it on Netflix at the same time as cinemas. Yeah, I can believe that of the Academy.

I think that that oversight is the one that rankles me a bit, because the supporting actor category isn't exactly full of obvious choices. I haven't seen all of the movies, but it feels like Christian Bale gets that nod because he is never bad - it is far from his best work, it is a small role, and he has an award in that category already. Though I'll be happy of Mark Ruffalo wins, he is under-appreciated in my opinion.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
So what do you guys think of the Nobel prize panel/committee?
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Feb 26, 2016 at 01:28 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2016, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I wonder if this omission was down to the controversial distribution as much as anything else.
I'm not sure. But the thought certainly crossed my mind.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:14 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,