Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jada Pinkett Smith & Wendy Williams


CaveGirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else enjoying a bit this newest controversy?

 

First of all, if one is going to boycott something it might be best to be a person who has so much cachet that they will really be missed.

 

As far as I can see, Jada could easily be replaced in any part she's ever had by about a million other actresses.

 

Now that is not to say that I can't see why some might suggest that the Academy is not very diversified, I'm only saying make sure you 're so important and fabulous that your absence anywhere really would matter. In Jada's case, I hightly doubt it.

 

Secondly the controversy is becoming interesting with remarks from Wendy Williams, wondering why it only took this year's voting where hubby Will was not mentioned, to bring Jada out in her protestations.

 

And of course that other lady actress from Will's old school [which I know nothing about since I've never seen it] is being pretty funny also with her remarks.

So what is your take on the whole debacle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just say at the start that the awards don't mean much to me at this point in time, but not because of this latest controversy. It's because it reminds me of a high school popularity contest.

 

However, I do feel bad for Chris Rock. He signed on to host this year not knowing who the nominees would be. Now he's stuck because if he hosts he'll be considered by some as a sell out but if he backs out it looks like he doesn't honor his commitments. It wouldn't be unprecedented if he does drop out--Eddie Murphy used the firing of Brent Ratner as producer to back out a few years ago.

 

You are right about Pinkett-Smith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course that other lady actress from Will's old school [which I know nothing about since I've never seen it] is being pretty funny also with her remarks.

So what is your take on the whole debacle?

 

Are you talking about Janet Hubert, who played Aunt Viv on "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"? She was replaced by Daphne Maxwell-Reid after the first three seasons, and she's always blamed Will Smith for it. 

 

 

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/732353/the-fresh-prince-feud-a-history-of-original-aunt-viv-janet-hubert-s-25-year-old-beef-with-will-smith

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that Rock was picked as host precisely because the black-nominee-shutout was a foreseen possibility. Months before award season, savvy prognosticators can fairly accurately guess at the potential nominees. They asked Rock back as host in case there was another all white year, like the previous one, partially to alleviate accusations of racism. Of course, no one is always right, even the "experts", so no one anticipated that a bio of gangsta rappers (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), yet another pseudo-sequel to ROCKY (CREED), or a Netflix original (BEASTS OF NO NATION) would garner such critical and commercial praise. Why all of these films weren't nominated for more, I can't say. The lack of best picture nods for CREED and COMPTON, and Idris Elba in supporting for BEASTS, really surprised me. As for Will Smith and CONCUSSION, that just looked like desperate Oscar-bait from the trailers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Whoopy here makes a very valid point about all this, CG...

 

 

 

Of course if there are less movie roles with non-white actors in a given year the odds are higher that non-white actors will NOT be nominated.   Therefore the root of the problem (if there really is a problem),  is that non-white actors are not being cast for roles, especially 'major' roles (roles more likely to receive a nomination) at the same rate as white actors.

 

But the real root of the problem is that people tend to "\support\feel closer to\wish to see\" those that look like themselves.   This bias has been well documented.    The best illustration of this I have seen is the selection of members for an orchestra.   Typically the conductor could SEE the gender\race of each potential applicant.    Outcome measures implied that conductors were selecting members that 'looked' like them (mostly white males).     The process was changed where the conductor would listen to each applicant but NOT be able to see them and NOT know what gender \ race they were.     The outcomes changed dramatically;  a lot less white guys and more women and non-whites.       Most orchestra how use this 'can't see' method and orchestras are more representative of the overall musician population.    

 

Of course one can't do this 'can't see' type method with Oscar nominations.   So short of a quota or weighting system,  there is nothing that can be done about inherent bias in Oscar voting.

 

Note that with the conductors the vast majority really believed they didn't have an inherent bias BUT once they saw the revised 'can't see them' outcomes the honest ones  had to accept that they did.    Some conductors actually quit because they insisted they were NOT bias and therefore should be allowed to SEE the applicants.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Janet Hubert, who played Aunt Viv on "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"? She was replaced by Daphne Maxwell-Reid after the first three seasons, and she's always blamed Will Smith for it. 

 

 

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/732353/the-fresh-prince-feud-a-history-of-original-aunt-viv-janet-hubert-s-25-year-old-beef-with-will-smith

Yes, that's who it is. I was cracking up at all the vitriole she was leveling at Jada with the hyphenated name!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This matter would be of very grave concern to me if I knew who that person is and if I cared of: Oscars and if I had recent lobotomy.

 

 

Eeh! I know you're just holdin' a grudge 'cause no Ukrainian flick has ever been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, now aren't ya Sans! ;)

 

(...yeah, I had to do a little research on this one before I posted this joke...I don't have everything in the world stored within this crazy noggin of mine, ya know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This matter would be of very grave concern to me if I knew who that person is and if I cared of: Oscars and if I had recent lobotomy.

As a movie fan, I still care little about who received an Oscar and for what as that never necessitates my desire to see any new films. I make that decision myself based on my own criteria.

 

That award ceremony is about the need of some people in society, namely Hollywoodites, to be praised and told how great they are ad infinitum.

 

I think anyone who has normal self-esteem would not need that, hence would just be happy that they are lucky enough to make millions per movie and stop the whining.

 

Look at all the great actors who never got an Academy Award and are still icons. And then look at all those who did, and are totally forgotten proving again that awards really mean nothing, pretty much just like Ricky Gervais said at the Golden Globes. But actors are mostly too nescient to absorb such words of wisdom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eeh! I know you're just holdin' a grudge 'cause no Ukrainian flick has ever been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, now aren't ya Sans! ;)

 

(...yeah, I had to do a little research on this one before I posted this joke...I don't have everything in the world stored within this crazy noggin of mine, ya know)

I'm mad that Groucho received so few awards and look what he brought to society, Dargo.

 

Okay, maybe don't look at that, but still...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a movie fan, I still care little about who received an Oscar and for what as that never necessitates my desire to see any new films. I make that decision myself based on my own criteria.

 

That award ceremony is about the need of some people in society, namely Hollywoodites, to be praised and told how great they are ad infinitum.

 

I think anyone who has normal self-esteem would not need that, hence would just be happy that they are lucky enough to make millions per movie and stop the whining.

 

Look at all the great actors who never got an Academy Award and are still icons. And then look at all those who did, and are totally forgotten proving again that awards really mean nothing, pretty much just like Ricky Gervais said at the Golden Globes. But actors are mostly too nescient to absorb such words of wisdom.

 

The need of most award ceremonies isn't about the need of some people to be praised and told how great they are;  the need is marketing with a direct tie to making money.    Movie awards were created by the studios as a way to market product.   This was especially true of movies 'back in the day' when a movie was only available during a very limited release period.     e.g. movies with nominees (actor, screenplay, director, etc..)  would be re-released with the associated promotional campaign.     

 

The same concept applies to music awards and the music producers and record labels.

 

This marketing is less important today since movies are now widely available beyond brick and mortar theaters but it still applies.    

 

(note that marketing also explains why independent actors rarely won awards verses actors already under fixed studio contracts). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The need of most award ceremonies isn't about the need of some people to be praised and told how great they are;  the need is marketing with a direct tie to making money.    Movie awards were created by the studios as a way to market product.   This was especially true of movies 'back in the day' when a movie was only available during a very limited release period.     e.g. movies with nominees (actor, screenplay, director, etc..)  would be re-released with the associated promotional campaign.     

 

The same concept applies to music awards and the music producers and record labels.

 

This marketing is less important today since movies are now widely available beyond brick and mortar theaters but it still applies.    

 

(note that marketing also explains why independent actors rarely won awards verses actors already under fixed studio contracts). 

Of course you are right when you look at the bottom line economically, James and I so concur.

 

That's why smaller films that might not have the big money push behind them, so often get overlooked.

 

But the current controversy still shows that whether unwittingly or not, many actors get perturbed when they see their own personal performances [or hubbies] supposedly snubbed like JPS.

 

I'm surprised that Kanye West has not shown up before to streak onstage and just grab an award and say that Beyonce deserves it, since the mentality of some of the competitors is of that ilk.

 

Great post though!

 

P.S. I'm still mad that Rudy Vallee did not win an AA for his performance in "The Palm Beach Story" or "The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer" as he was a scream in both!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I'm still mad that Rudy Vallee did not win an AA for his performance in "The Palm Beach Story" or "The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer" as he was a scream in both!

 

You forgot "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

African Americans comprise 13 percent of the American population so 13% of the Oscar nominees should be black, right?   No. Because the movie business, like  the recording business and art and literature are businesses based on rare, indefinable talents combined with what is popular with the public at any given point in time and whether or not the powers that be, (book editors, music promoters, casting directors) decided to give them a chance.  It's not factory work or Walmart where people should be rated and raised according to performance, it's what the public happens to like and rewards with their purchasing power. 

 

 The Academy's idea of great acting has always included things like popularity of the star, box office clout, and  the over all success of the movie their role was in. Sometimes they just want to call attention to a new young star or give a "body of work," nod to someone older. But I agree it's primarily about marketing. 

 

The "Best Actress," in America might be teaching drama at the local state college, but she isn't good looking enough for Hollywood.  The Oscars have never been fair, it's not a fair business.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

African Americans comprise 13 percent of the American population so 13% of the Oscar nominees should be black, right?   No. Because the movie business, like  the recording business and art and literature are businesses based on rare, indefinable talents combined with what is popular with the public at any given point in time and whether or not the powers that be, (book editors, music promoters, casting directors) decided to give them a chance.  It's not factory work or Walmart where people should be rated and raised according to performance, it's what the public happens to like and rewards with their purchasing power. 

 

 The Academy's idea of great acting has always included things like popularity of the star, box office clout, and  the over all success of the movie their role was in. Sometimes they just want to call attention to a new young star or give a "body of work," nod to someone older. But I agree it's primarily about marketing. 

 

The "Best Actress," in America might be teaching drama at the local state college, but she isn't good looking enough for Hollywood.  The Oscars have never been fair, it's not a fair business.

AndreaDoria, I so so agree with your assessment!

 

Your point that the greatest actress in America, has never even been given a chance to be in a Hollywood film is so true.

 

I remember seeing Jack Lemmon one time say that he was walking around NY, patting himself on the back about his success on stage and was taken down a peg by a fellow actor telling him that there were thirty other actors in NY who could have done the part as well, but were never given the chance.

 

It was someone named Marvin, uh...got to look this up as I forget his name.

 

Jack said that really made him think and realize that the breaks for one actor eliminate the opportunity for another to shine.

 

Life is not fair, and your post states that quite eloquently, AD! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just say at the start that the awards don't mean much to me at this point in time, but not because of this latest controversy. It's because it reminds me of a high school popularity contest.

 

However, I do feel bad for Chris Rock. He signed on to host this year not knowing who the nominees would be. Now he's stuck because if he hosts he'll be considered by some as a sell out but if he backs out it looks like he doesn't honor his commitments. It wouldn't be unprecedented if he does drop out--Eddie Murphy used the firing of Brent Ratner as producer to back out a few years ago.

 

You are right about Pinkett-Smith.

Couldn't disagree more. That is perfect for him as a comedian because he has lots of material he can turn into jokes and funny lines. No such thing as bad publicity.

 

Last time he hosted he was afraid to insult the big stars. Thanks to this, he won't have to because those boycotting aren't so big.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't disagree more. That is perfect for him as a comedian because he has lots of material he can turn into jokes and funny lines. No such thing as bad publicity.

 

Last time he hosted he was afraid to insult the big stars. Thanks to this, he won't have to because those boycotting aren't so big.

I agree about the wealth of material...most writes itself!

 

But I don't recall him being too shy about knocking stars. I remember one bit where he was talking about all the great stars of yesteryear, and now they nominate Jude Law. "Who the hell is Jude Law?," he said, Jude Law sitting ten feet away. A grumpy Sean Penn came out to present and called out Chris for the joke, making Penn look like more of a grouch than usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't disagree more. That is perfect for him as a comedian because he has lots of material he can turn into jokes and funny lines. No such thing as bad publicity.

 

Last time he hosted he was afraid to insult the big stars. Thanks to this, he won't have to because those boycotting aren't so big.

 

He DID go after the big stars and the industry -- remember the "Who is Jude Law" line? -- which is probably why he hasn't hosted the Oscars since 2005.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about the wealth of material...most writes itself!

 

But I don't recall him being too shy about knocking stars. I remember one bit where he was talking about all the great stars of yesteryear, and now they nominate Jude Law. "Who the hell is Jude Law?," he said, Jude Law sitting ten feet away. A grumpy Sean Penn came out to present and called out Chris for the joke, making Penn look like more of a grouch than usual.

Speaking of Sean Penn, has anyone here seen his interview with Charley Rose and what do they think?

And who should Sean cast as El Chappo in his upcoming film?

 

Too bad Paul Sorvino is no longer available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone else enjoying a bit this newest controversy?

 

First of all, if one is going to boycott something it might be best to be a person who has so much cachet that they will really be missed.

 

As far as I can see, Jada could easily be replaced in any part she's ever had by about a million other actresses.

 

Now that is not to say that I can't see why some might suggest that the Academy is not very diversified, I'm only saying make sure you 're so important and fabulous that your absence anywhere really would matter. In Jada's case, I hightly doubt it.

 

Secondly the controversy is becoming interesting with remarks from Wendy Williams, wondering why it only took this year's voting where hubby Will was not mentioned, to bring Jada out in her protestations.

 

And of course that other lady actress from Will's old school [which I know nothing about since I've never seen it] is being pretty funny also with her remarks.

So what is your take on the whole debacle?

I no longer follow the Oscars, but haven't there been a number of black Oscar nominees in the past ten years, even though there have been none in the past two years? Ebb and flow is a fact of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer follow the Oscars, but haven't there been a number of black Oscar nominees in the past ten years, even though there have been none in the past two years? Ebb and flow is a fact of life.

 

Yes, but apparently more ebb than flow now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer follow the Oscars, but haven't there been a number of black Oscar nominees in the past ten years, even though there have been none in the past two years? Ebb and flow is a fact of life.

In the past 10 years, there have been 19 black nominees in the acting categories.

 

In that same time, there have been only 2 Latino nominees, and 1 Asian.

 

So there's that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...