|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by stvn1974
(Post 12703548)
I am for equality and shit but if keeping black people from being nominated in the future ensures that Will Smith never gets an Oscar I am OK with it.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by inri222
(Post 12703405)
A white actress in her 60's said that, I'm shocked. :sarcasm:
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Academy Board Endorses Changes to Increase Diversity in Oscar Nominees and Itself
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/bu...ing-rules.html |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Well, I've been hearing for years and years that there was too much "deadwood" in The Academy, and that's who they always blamed for any perceived voting "scandal". At least it seems they're addressing that point.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by Decker
(Post 12703357)
Charlotte Rampling says call for Oscars diversity is 'racist against whites'
First-time Oscar nominee Charlotte Rampling says that the conversation surrounding the lack of diversity at this year's Academy Awards is "racist against whites." Speaking to French radio station Europe 1 on Friday morning, Rampling, 69, added, "We can never know whether it's truly the case, but maybe the black actors didn't deserve to make it to the final list." Asked whether the Academy should introduce quotas, the 45 Years actress responded, "Why classify people? We live in a time now where everyone is more or less accepted." Rampling added there is always someone who will tell you you're "too" something ("Him, he's too black," "Him, he's too white"), so why should the Academy introduce measures that would classify people just for the sake of having "lots of minorities everywhere?" When her interviewer explained that those in the black community feel like a minority within the film industry, Rampling ended the conversation, offering a "no comment." Director Spike Lee prominently spoke out against the lack of diversity present in the acting categories at this year's ceremony on Monday. "We cannot support it and mean no disrespect to my friends, host Chris Rock and producer Reggie Hudlin, president Isaacs and the Academy," Lee wrote. "But, how is it possible for the second consecutive year all 20 contenders under the acting category are white? And let's not even get into the other branches. Forty white actors in two years and no flava at all. We can't act?! WTF!!" While Lee won't be attending this year's ceremony, he insisted earlier this week that he is not calling for a boycott: "I have never used the word boycott," Lee said. "I'm not going, my wife's not going. Everyone else can do what they want to do." Rampling's representative did not immediately respond to EW's request for comment. |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
The nominees are just white on the outside... :(
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
I think the whole boycott stuff is silly, as is the complaints about the current batch of nominees. That said, the make up of the Academy members themselves and general casting of leads and race in movies these days is a worthwhile discussion. Seems like one of those things where good points are brought up but in a less then ideal way.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by stvn1974
(Post 12703548)
I am for equality and shit but if keeping black people from being nominated in the future ensures that Will Smith never gets an Oscar I am OK with it.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Have they said anything about stopping the gender split in the acting awards? In today's world, there's no reason that men and women shouldn't be able to compete directly against each other in an acting category.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by windom
(Post 12703796)
Have they said anything about stopping the gender split in the acting awards? In today's world, there's no reason that men and women shouldn't be able to compete directly against each in an acting category.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by Brack
(Post 12703803)
Then people will all be pissed off when there's only men nominated one year for Best Acting Person, or whatever you'd call it.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by windom
(Post 12703796)
Have they said anything about stopping the gender split in the acting awards? In today's world, there's no reason that men and women shouldn't be able to compete directly against each in an acting category.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Changes are coming:
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has approved a sweeping series of substantive changes designed to make the Academy’s membership, its governing bodies, and its voting members significantly more diverse. The Board’s goal is to commit to doubling the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020. “The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” said Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs. “These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.” Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade. In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award. We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members. In other words, if a current member has not been active in the last 10 years they can still qualify by meeting the other criteria. Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status. Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting. This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars. |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by AaronHernandez
(Post 12703829)
I am sure the ratings will be through the roof when best acting nominee Is Meryl Streep,Kate,Cate and 17 dudes and the red carpet is a huge sausagefest.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Why not both?
Category for the genders and then a general category for them all? |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by Solid Snake
(Post 12703881)
Why not both?
Category for the genders and then a general category for them all? |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Well then it'd be a four way between the winners. Both supporting and both lead. And go from there?
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by Solid Snake
(Post 12703893)
Well then it'd be a four way between the winners. Both supporting and both lead. And go from there?
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Nepotism is a big problem in Hollywood.
For example, Will and Jaden SMith. :) But seriously, I do think there should be more people of color in movies. But aside form that, how many people of color can compete with legends like John Williams and Ennio Morricone, you know? Change doesn't happen overnight. I think the gender gap is still a big problem. We need more chicks in movies. |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by Ranger
(Post 12704016)
I think the gender gap is still a big problem. We need more chicks in movies. |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was formed by the major Hollywood studios in the late 1920s to promote the industry and its products. This was true of even the documentary, short and cartoon categories because back then the studios all produced abundant documentaries, shorts and cartoons. After the war and after the Paramount Consent Decree (divesting the studios from ownership of theaters), the nominating process began opening up to indies and foreign films, with studio participation in the categories I cited gradually dwindling over the years to zero. But in the major categories, it was still all about promoting amply-budgeted studio products, e.g. OLIVER!, PATTON, THE STING, etc. In more recent years, as major studio products, i.e. special-effects heavy sci-fi movies and superhero movies, became less and less Oscar-worthy, indie and foreign films crept more and more into the major categories and the Weinsteins made it their life's work to win Oscars and everyone expected the major categories to be more diverse. So the question becomes: what is the purpose of the Academy in an era when the major studios' roles have shifted so drastically?
Having said all that, I do think it's time for the Academy to get rid of its deadwood and bring in new, younger voting members. The fact that tons of old farts who toiled in the studios in their golden age and have done nothing in the past 30-40 years continue to maintain outsized influence on the nominating and voting process is reason enough to institute changes. |
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
The problem they have now is not only don't they reward commercially succesful films they also really don't reward arthouse or foreign films either so what your left with is a loft of middle of the road "prestige" Oscar Bait films which play into both Liberal Orthadoxicy and also Old Guy wish fulfillment that no one really likes even if they respect and think the films are well made enough.It is why some of these Oscar noms are stale and out of touch with both the mainstream and Indy culture. It's kind of similiar to where Oscar was in the mid and late 60's when you clearly had a generational divide.
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by EinCB
(Post 12703840)
|
Re: 2016 Oscar Nominations
Originally Posted by mhg83
(Post 12704162)
Changes as in having double the amount of nominations A.K.A. Pity Nominations.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.