The Panda

Its WOM is truly on top of the world.

Im talking about people of color in general. And on that regard Elba, Attah, Jordan, Del Torro, Isaac, Jackson and Thompson all were better than some of the the actors nominated in their cats.

Hey now, let's be fair

So it looks like I might narrowly be blessed and escape seeing Robert De Niro have sex with Aubrey Plaza.

The problem isn't that people should be nominated for being a minority. Again, there's two main problems (one is the root and one is a result of the root) 1.In the short term, the problem with this years Oscar nomination was that there were plenty of worthy people of color who did excellent work, and many of them even were in talks to get a nom (Such as Elba, and even Del Torro at some points), and not one of them could. Not even a minority led film (or even a film with a decent sized minority presence) got a BP nom. And it's also practically the second year in a row that happened (excluding Selma from last year, last year wasn't as bad. In practicality, there should be at least one minority actor who should be able to score a nomination, and for other awards (like tech and writing) there should in practicality be a decent amount of woman and minority nominees. But there aren't. This IS a problem, whether intentional or not. It's an institutional problem, maybe not a deliberate one, but still a problem. 2.The institutional problem that the above is a result of is the fact there aren't many minorities or even females in the industry. Whether it's a recruitment issue or maybe even a privilideve issue. This leads to less minority and woman led films, and also less minorities and woman working in the writing, directing, and tech departments. Another part of the institutional problem is that the vast majority of academy members are old, male and white. It's a fact. If there isn't diversity in the voting block, there won't be diversity in the nominations and winners (whether worthy or not). This leads to another problem in that I circles back to the first. If the vast majority of nominees are old, white and male, then the majority of high-caliber films (or Oscar Bait/Awards films) are going to pander to that demographic by making movies that pander to the old white male academy demographic. Look at the nominations over the years and realize that minus one or two outliers per year, the majority of nominees are films that pander to that demographic. Even the "blockbusters" that get nominated like Gravity and the Martian are blockbusters that played better to the old white man crowd than a younger crowd that other box office hits did. Im not saying all of the non-diversity movies were bad, or there can't be old white male movies getting nominated, I'm just pointing out that the majority of nominees and winners are from movies that pander to that demographic. It's systematic in the academy voting block, the producers who choose what kind of movies to greenlight, and industry itself that does a poor job of attracting jobs for non-white males.

Ratatouille was about a rat that cooks, Wall-E was a movie that opened to no dialogue, Up was about an old man trying to get his house to the falls, Inside Out was about people inside people's heads, etc. I think TGD was a fluke not a rule

So far, I'm either seeing Daddy or Granddaddy...

It's okay, he was on my ballot for his masterwork in a masterpiece.

Nicely done Baumer. I may think there's some questionable choices, but it's fun seeing you be so passionate about many of them.

Oh, there'll be plenty of them coming up. God's Not Dead 2... Miracles From Heaven... Risen... And probably more...

Yes.

Id rather not talk about it...

Yeah, I am mixed on those constellation prize awards. I like them because they recognize different genres and mediums, but I don't like that they kind of say only dramas can be the best.

Id say thankfully I've already seen Norm, but then I have to remember I've actually seen Norm...

The argument is that it's ridiculous not a single PoC could get an acting nod or a single PoC film could get a BP nod (even a movie like Sicario that just had the presence of strong PoC) Look more in depth, and even the non-acting nods have very similar problems and situations. Im not saying 40% of the nominations have to be minorities, but this wasn't a case of, "Well, all of the white guys deserved it more! Sorry!" Especially when the EXACT same thing happened last year (which imo was a little more understandable because Selma still got a BP nod, it was more of Selma not reaching enough of the voters on time). It's not that the academy is bluntly being racist. It's that the academy doesn't recognize enough diversity talent (especially since plenty of diversity talent was as good or better than the white talent this year) because it structurally is not diverse. I think having an influx of younger members, and more members of color could be great for the academy's standing, and also make the Oscars a more accurate depiction of the year. But it needs to be a significant addition of new voter talent, not just a slight change.

I like Jurassic World a lot, but I 100% disagree that it's better than Jurassic Park in any form.

In case you didn't get my title reference. All of the movies up for vote (as I haven't seen them) are either rotten, or no reviews (besides Sisters). Vote for what you want me to see next Tuesday!

Well... F Norm of the North Z 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Bengazi

That awkward moment when you saw Norm of the North on Saturday and have absolutely no words to describe it (or even what mustered you to choose to see it)

1.Finding Dory 2.Kung Fu Panda 3 3.Hail, Caesar! 4.Deadpool 5.The BFG 6.Midnight Special 7.The Jungle Book 8.Silence 9.Rogue One 10.The Girl on the TraiN

Yeah, I have no criticism if somebody legitimately wants to see a movie 19 times. Would I personally? No, 6-7 is going to be the cap for me, but that won't be the same for everyone. Im not going to judge how someone else (especially someone who's financial situation I know nothing about. They could easily have the money to do thi) spends their own money, unless they're doing something incredibly bad with it (like donating it to ISIS). Maybe if it was a friend who I knew didn't have the money for it, Id say something. But, he seems fine, so there's really no reason to judge.

I have to say. I don't expect that Id like the movie, but it would be very unfair of me to criticize it unless I saw it. Especially since there's plenty of movies I've gone in expecting to dislike or even hate and ended up really enjoying them. (The Peanuts Movie was the big one this year, I was getting a gut feeling they would butcher Schultz and they payed great homage to him)

I think that signifies how much I enjoyed this movie.