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

Academy Members React to Diversity Push


JakeHolman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Longtime members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) are speaking out after the organizations’ Board of Governors voted unanimously Thursday to approve a dramatic overhaul of its voting rules and organizational structure in an effort to increase diversity at the Oscars and across the broader film industry.

 

Read more at Breitbart:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/01/24/academy-members-react-to-diversity-push-its-f-ing-knee-jerk-liberalism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a quotas mentality winning out over standards of excellence...

 

and some people hafta wonder what conservatives are so upset about.

 

and all these longtime academy members who are now so upset and taking umbrage at this sillyness...

 

 

for decades they have helped feed it!

 

:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(Chris) Rock would remain as host of the ceremony. Academy Awards producer Reginald Hudlin told Entertainment Tonight at Saturday’s NAACP Image Awards lunch that Rock’s opening monologue will address the #OscarsSoWhite conversation in a big way. Rock reportedly reworked his entire set of jokes."

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/chris-rock-oscars-diversity-1201687097/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna force people to vote for "minority" movies, huh?

 

Like I could think any less of the Oscars than I already do.

 

Whatever - I like what I like, and I'll keep doing that regardless of what the Academy pushes.

I think alotta people will watch just for the laughs.

 

if political correctness makes hollywood celebs look more stupid than they already are.

 

then why showcase your idiocy to the world?

 

I doan care. I just want some good TV entertainment for a change.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alotta people will watch just for the laughs.

 

if political correctness makes hollywood celebs look more stupid than they already are.

 

then why showcase your idiocy to the world?

 

I doan care. I just want some good TV entertainment for a change.

 

I don't see why you would think the movies about minorities are equivalent to "idiocy".

 

I just think it's wrong to force people to vote for a movie or a performance if they think there was something else they liked better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view Beasts of No Nation deserved to be named one of the top films of the year and Indris Elba deserved a nomination as Best Supporting Actor.

However, I do not chalk up the Academy overlooking them due to the minority/diversity issue.  If you have seen the film you will know that it does not pull any punches and films that are the slightest bit distasteful are usually overlooked by Academy voters.

For the same reason, Tom Hardy's brilliant performance as both of the Kray twins in this year's Legend was overlooked by BAFTA voters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why you would think the movies about minorities are equivalent to "idiocy".

 

I just think it's wrong to force people to vote for a movie or a performance if they think there was something else they liked better.

 

The real issue here is the movies each voters see prior to making their nomination selections.   Most voters do NOT see every movie released in a given year.    Therefore one can't 'think there was something else they liked better' compared to films, actors,  directors, they have NOT seen at all.        What movies a member will see in a given year is often related to personal factors like their age, race, cultural background, education,  etc...  

 

Diversity of membership will result in diversity of the movies seen by the membership in the aggregate.    This is why I support the plans by the academy.   But of course each member should make their nomination selections based on what they view as the 'best' films, performances direction, etc.. from the select number of films they see that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view Beasts of No Nation deserved to be named one of the top films of the year and Indris Elba deserved a nomination as Best Supporting Actor.

However, I do not chalk up the Academy overlooking them due to the minority/diversity issue.  If you have seen the film you will know that it does not pull any punches and films that are the slightest bit distasteful are usually overlooked by Academy voters.

For the same reason, Tom Hardy's brilliant performance as both of the Kray twins in this year's Legend was overlooked by BAFTA voters.

 

What percentage of Academy members with voting rights have even seen the film?   One can't judge the films they seen against the films they have NOT seen and almost no one see every films released in a year. 

 

Note that this type of bias occurs with coaches polls for sports rankings.   e.g. top 25 best college basketball teams.  e.g.  Honest east coast coaches admit they haven't seen many of the west coast teams play but of course they have seen all the teams in their own conference and other east coast teams.   BUT west coast games are on too late for them to see and they don't have the time to watch films of games.    So of course their selection of top 25 teams tend to favors east coast teams.    This doesn't make them west coast racist,  but instead just demonstrates that circumstances lead to bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does that make a difference?

 

You keep pointing to films being unseen as the main problem. It's not like these people have to go to the theater and pay to see every obscure release. Any film that has an awards chance ships out a screener so they can watch them at home. If the Academy voter doesn't watch it, it's their fault. Films like BEASTS OF NO NATION that Bogie mentioned are readily available, for free, and in their own home.

 

If your assertion is that white people only want to watch white people movies, regardless of ease of access (something that I don't agree with), then forget what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diversity of membership will result in diversity of the movies seen by the membership in the aggregate.    This is why I support the plans by the academy.   But of course each member should make their nomination selections based on what they view as the 'best' films, performances direction, etc.. from the select number of films they see that year.

 

Well, if you could fill the membership with black people, movies about black people would probably receive more nominations.

 

But black people are what - 11 percent of the pop? So, there could be some problem getting it done.

 

While some movies about the black experience are quite good, I'm not sure all white people have much of an appetite for very many of them. People tend to relate best to their own.

 

It's really simple economics at work here - people like what they like and most white people like to see white people up on the screen while most black people like to see black people up on the screen.

 

People should not vote for something they haven't seen - that would be thoroughly dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you could fill the membership with black people, movies about black people would probably receive more nominations.

 

But black people are what - 11 percent of the pop? So, there could be some problem getting it done.

 

While some movies about the black experience are quite good, I'm not sure all white people have much of an appetite for very many of them. People tend to relate best to their own.

 

It's really simple economics at work here - people like what they like and most white people like to see white people up on the screen while most black people like to see black people up on the screen.

 

People should not vote for something they haven't seen - that would be thoroughly dishonest.

 

It is nice to see that someone does understand what I was getting at.     Most people to tend to see movies associated with something they can relate to and their various background.    That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.   (and note I said 'tend to' and not 'only').

 

But as you say,  diversity of membership may not result in much of a different outcome as it relates to what films, actors, directors, etc..  are nominated.    There a multiple factors involved other then race so even if the proportion of Academy voters "matched' that of the general population the end result might not change.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep pointing to films being unseen as the main problem. It's not like these people have to go to the theater and pay to see every obscure release. Any film that has an awards chance ships out a screener so they can watch them at home. If the Academy voter doesn't watch it, it's their fault. Films like BEASTS OF NO NATION that Bogie mentioned are readily available, for free, and in their own home.

 

If your assertion is that white people only want to watch white people movies, regardless of ease of access (something that I don't agree with), then forget what I said.

 

My focus has been on the nomination process not films that have 'an awards chance' (which I assume means films associated with the nominations for all of the various awards).

 

My assertion is that the vast majority of ALL people tend to only watch movies they can relate to.   Diversity of membership would therefore result in diversity of films viewed which increases the odds of diversity of the nominations.   See my college basketball example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What percentage of Academy members with voting rights have even seen the film?   One can't judge the films they seen against the films they have NOT seen and almost no one see every films released in a year. 

 

Note that this type of bias occurs with coaches polls for sports rankings.   e.g. top 25 best college basketball teams.  e.g.  Honest east coast coaches admit they haven't seen many of the west coast teams play but of course they have seen all the teams in their own conference and other east coast teams.   BUT west coast games are on too late for them to see and they don't have the time to watch films of games.    So of course their selection of top 25 teams tend to favors east coast teams.    This doesn't make them west coast racist,  but instead just demonstrates that circumstances lead to bias.

But it could also be that they haven't been impressed by some of the teams they HAVE seen, so it could be an advantage NOT to have been seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My focus has been on the nomination process not films that have 'an awards chance' (which I assume means films associated with the nominations for all of the various awards).

 

My assertion is that the vast majority of ALL people tend to only watch movies they can relate to.   Diversity of membership would therefore result in diversity of films viewed which increases the odds of diversity of the nominations.   See my college basketball example.

I get what you're saying. It comes down to always expecting the worst from your fellow man, and you won't be disappointed. I know you're right, most people are ignorant, narrow minded fools, and no amount of rule changing will fix that. So why bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying. It comes down to always expecting the worst from your fellow man, and you won't be disappointed. I know you're right, most people are ignorant, narrow minded fools, and no amount of rule changing will fix that. So why bother.

 

I assume you're cracking wise.   We all have a degree of inherent bias.  It is just part of our DNA.  It doesn't make one ignorant, narrow minded a racist or a bigot.  Just a human being.     While nothing can fix that diversity in the membership can minimize the impact of inherent bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you're cracking wise. We all have a degree of inherent bias. It is just part of our DNA. It doesn't make one ignorant, narrow minded a racist or a bigot. Just a human being. While nothing can fix that diversity in the membership can minimize the impact of inherent bias.

Deciding to only watch films that you directly relate to is the very definition of narrow mindedness, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deciding to only watch films that you directly relate to is the very definition of narrow mindedness, actually.

 

Then count me in as narrow-minded. I may watch many different types of movies - but that's because I have a big appetite. However, I would not likely nominate a film that I hadn't enjoyed as much as I had another. I'd nominate the other, in all probability.

 

More than likely I'll not enjoy watching a whole lot of movies featuring principally minority peoples. Here and there, maybe - but mostly I like "white" culture movies best. Probably because I'm "white" and therefore relate to those much more easily.

 

Birds of a feather syndrome is entirely natural - it exists everywhere on the planet, with all people. That's why cities invariably develop their chinatowns, greektowns, little Italy's and like that. People are most comfortable when surrounded by others who are similar to themselves.

 

But back to the topic specifically - if minority peoples want to see nominations for their movies increase, they're gonna have to bring a whole lot more people into the game. Or convince white people - who are the majority presently - to artificially change their natural inclinations. I believe the second one is what is being attempted with the recent discussions taking place.

  • Like 1
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...