88TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS Discussion Topic (LIVE! Today's discussion begins on pg 33)

[filmlover]

31 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Again, do you really think that every single one of the best 20 performances of the year was all white people? That doesn't represent the people that are in movies or watch movies, or our country. That's ridiculous that all 20 just happen to be white, like only the best performances and stories are about white folks. Also, Jordan and Jackson were fucking far beyond Cranston or Redmayne. Those are the most actor-ly, give me an Oscah performances I've ever fucking seen. This whole "no POC deserved it" thing is just objectively bullshit and intelligence insulting. LOL @ movies involving POC being on the weaker side this year, by the way. Elba? Del Toro? Attah? Isaac? Jordan? Coogler? Jada Pinket Smith? Tessa Thompson? Jason Mitchell? Samuel L Jackson? Tangerine, Creed, both of which are universally loved? Give me a break. If anything, this year was STRONGER than usually for artists of color. 

I mentioned this in the Classic Conversation thread, but even if someone like Jason Mitchell had gotten in, the PC police still would've come out in full force with "oh look, they nominated a black guy for playing a rapper who died of AIDS. How typical, Academy!" So in a way, no one wins.

[Cmasterclay]

4 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I mentioned this in the Classic Conversation thread, but even if someone like Jason Mitchell had gotten in, the PC police still would've come out in full force with "oh look, they nominated a black guy for playing a rapper who died of AIDS. How typical, Academy!" So in a way, no one wins.

What? No one in the fucking world would have said that. You're literally inventing arguments because your insane anti-PC (or anti diversity) agenda doesn't have any basis in coherent fact.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Cmasterclay

[MovieMan89]

14 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Again, do you really think that every single one of the best 20 performances of the year was all white people? That doesn't represent the people that are in movies or watch movies, or our country. That's ridiculous that all 20 just happen to be white, like only the best performances and stories are about white folks. Also, Jordan and Jackson were fucking far beyond Cranston or Redmayne. Those are the most actor-ly, give me an Oscah performances I've ever fucking seen. This whole "no POC deserved it" thing is just objectively bullshit and intelligence insulting. LOL @ movies involving POC being on the weaker side this year, by the way. Elba? Del Toro? Attah? Isaac? Jordan? Coogler? Jada Pinket Smith? Tessa Thompson? Jason Mitchell? Samuel L Jackson? Tangerine, Creed, both of which are universally loved? Give me a break. If anything, this year was STRONGER than usually for artists of color. 

Just from your list I can tell you are having to really reach to provide all these supposed deserved replacements for people of color nominations. I mean Attah, Coogler, Mitchell, Thompson, Jada Pinkett for Magic freaking Mike?!? C'mon now man. You're basically suggesting they set aside a specific percentage of the noms for people of color regardless of if there are actually that many award worthy ones. B. Jordan, Smith, Elba, Del Toro, and Isaac are the only ones that should be in the conversation at all. As I already said, Beasts was bound to be ignored at every turn due to the Netflix politics. Smith probably would have gotten in if he had toned it down just a notch and not veered into over the top/trying too hard territory, like he almost always does in his Oscar baiting roles. Besides, Carell was better than all 5 noms, and you don't see him there either despite being white as can be. Oscar politics are about more than color. 

 

The Rocky franchise has been totally ignored at awards beyond the first. Creed would have had to be on the level of Million Dollar Baby or Raging Bull to get any more attention than Sly's nom. And sorry, but it was merely just another good boxing flick at the end of the day. We've seen it a hundred times before, including with the prior film in the franchise. If you want to be mad about a B. Jordan snub, Fruitvale Station would be the one to be upset about. Del Toro was in too crowded of a field. Isaac was in too weird/niche of a movie to get an acting nom from them for that. Even Vikander couldn't manage it for that. Jackson has been snubbed by them his whole career. Maybe it's a racism thing, but I'm more inclined to think they just don't like him. There are plenty of actors who the Academy consistently like to ignore for whatever reason. 

 

I was aboard the #oscarssowhite issue last year, but sorry I'm not this year. Yes, I really do believe it was that weak of a year for people of color, and the stronger roles that were there unfortunately happened in a lot of genre films that the Oscars tend to ignore regardless. Now you could argue there aren't enough good roles written for people of color in the first place, but that's a whole other issue beyond the Oscars being racist. That expands to the industry in general. This year there wasn't a whole lot to choose from for award worthiness in that demographic. And no, people of color should not just be nominated for the sake of being nominated. It should be for an award worthy performance. Also why is skin color such a big deal anyways? Are we supposed to ignore the wide array of ethnic backgrounds the nominees this year do come from just because their skin is light? 

[filmlover]

7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

What? No one in the fucking world would have said that. You're literally inventing arguments because your insane anti-PC (or anti diversity) agenda doesn't have any basis in coherent fact.

Uh, excuse me? I have never, EVER said anything about anti-diversity. Actually, if you read the Classic Conversation thread from earlier today you would see I'm very pro diversity (and think that it's a problem that the industry itself needs to work on by offering roles to a wider range of actors). 

 

What I was pointing out is that there will be complaints that the Academy continues to only recognize African American performers for roles that are race-typical while Matt Damon got nominated for a role that say, Will Smith, would've never even been considered when he could've done just as good of a job. So in the end, the "war" still isn't being won. It has to do with the "progressive" issue. So dude, don't even try painting me as a racist, especially when I find it a crime that Michael B. Jordan didn't get nominated for a wonderful performance in a great movie while Eddie Redmayne got nominated for a good performance in a crappy movie.

[Goffe]

59 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Again, do you really think that every single one of the best 20 performances of the year was all white people? That doesn't represent the people that are in movies or watch movies, or our country. That's ridiculous that all 20 just happen to be white, like only the best performances and stories are about white folks. Also, Jordan and Jackson were fucking far beyond Cranston or Redmayne. Those are the most actor-ly, give me an Oscah performances I've ever fucking seen. This whole "no POC deserved it" thing is just objectively bullshit and intelligence insulting. LOL @ movies involving POC being on the weaker side this year, by the way. Elba? Del Toro? Attah? Isaac? Jordan? Coogler? Jada Pinket Smith? Tessa Thompson? Jason Mitchell? Samuel L Jackson? Tangerine, Creed, both of which are universally loved? Give me a break. If anything, this year was STRONGER than usually for artists of color. 

You're treating it like it's objective science. It's not. It's not about your or my opinion either. The Oscars represents a collective opinion of six thousand individuals.

 

I didn't see Danish Girl yet, but Redmayne performance totally looks like a "give me an Oscar" kind of performance, and I don't say that with a negative connotation, why should we be surprised or outraged that he was nominated instead of a POC? Redmayne was totally up to Oscar alley. 

 

And most of the actors that you listed weren't even in the conversation to begin with, I mean, half of them I didn't know they were Oscar material until I read some #Oscarsowhite articles.

 

I do think some of them should have gotten a nominee (Del Toro and maybe Isaac or Elba), but I didn't get too upset because neither of them gave world shattering performances to justify any kind of strong reaction

[MovieMan89]

I really couldn't agree less with some of you thinking B. Jordan was so award worthy in Creed. I'd also be willing to bet if he were white, no one would have made a big deal he didn't get nominated for that performance. It was still Sly's movie, and more importantly Sly's franchise. That's why he (deservedly) is getting all the praise. 

[Dementeleus]

Due respect to Stallone, and of course he's essentially the Godfather of that franchise, but CREED is not his movie in any shape or form (not Stallone's, and not Rocky's).

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

I really couldn't agree less with some of you thinking B. Jordan was so award worthy in Creed. I'd also be willing to bet if he were white, no one would have made a big deal he didn't get nominated for that performance. It was still Sly's movie, and more importantly Sly's franchise. That's why he (deservedly) is getting all the praise. 

He still deserved a nomination a billion times more than Eddie Redmayne did for The Danish Girl. I have never in my life seen a movie that so obviously screamed in every scene  "We made this only to win Oscars!" What a waste of a remarkable story.

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

He still deserved a nomination a billion times more than Eddie Redmayne did for The Danish Girl. I have never in my life seen a movie that so obviously screamed in every scene  "We made this only to win Oscars!" What a waste of a remarkable story.

Not saying you're wrong, but I still don't think B. Jordan should have been his replacement. And what do you expect when Redmayne just won for the exact same kind of performance? They like him, they like that kind of performance. 

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

Due respect to Stallone, and of course he's essentially the Godfather of that franchise, but CREED is not his movie in any shape or form (not Stallone's, and not Rocky's).

Take him out of the equation and it makes maybe 40m and gets medicore reviews. It is still very much his movie. 

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Not saying you're wrong, but I still don't think B. Jordan should have been his replacement. And what do you expect when Redmayne just won for the exact same kind of performance? They like him, they like that kind of performance. 

Lol he only got nominated because he is a young winner with a promising future with the perfect role for an afterglow nomination. He was a LOT better in The Theory of Everything.

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Lol he only got nominated because he is a young winner with a promising future with the perfect role for an afterglow nomination. He was a LOT better in The Theory of Everything.

Meh. He basically watched My Left Foot and did his best to copy that, which was still nowhere near as good as DDL. 

[Dementeleus]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Take him out of the equation and it makes maybe 40m and gets medicore reviews. It is still very much his movie. 

 

You might be right about the box-office. I think the reviews would still be stellar. The story is Creed's, through and through.

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Meh. He basically watched My Left Foot and did his best to copy that, which was still nowhere near as good as DDL. 

And yet, still much better than The Danish Girl, which asks him to dress up like a woman and wave his hands around like a princess at Disney World without ever digging into the character's psyche.

[Cmasterclay]

27 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Uh, excuse me? I have never, EVER said anything about anti-diversity. Actually, if you read the Classic Conversation thread from earlier today you would see I'm very pro diversity (and think that it's a problem that the industry itself needs to work on by offering roles to a wider range of actors). 

 

What I was pointing out is that there will be complaints that the Academy continues to only recognize African American performers for roles that are race-typical while Matt Damon got nominated for a role that say, Will Smith, would've never even been considered when he could've done just as good of a job. So in the end, the "war" still isn't being won. It has to do with the "progressive" issue. So dude, don't even try painting me as a racist, especially when I find it a crime that Michael B. Jordan didn't get nominated for a wonderful performance in a great movie while Eddie Redmayne got nominated for a good performance in a crappy movie.

I was more upset about your use of PC police than your opinion, seemed like the kind of attempt we see constantly on these boards to discredit any liberal or progressive view as just being a bunch of whiny PC millenials. That was more my point. I apologize I misconstrued your argument- didn't see your posts in the other thread. 

 

37 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Just from your list I can tell you are having to really reach to provide all these supposed deserved replacements for people of color nominations. I mean Attah, Coogler, Mitchell, Thompson, Jada Pinkett for Magic freaking Mike?!? C'mon now man. You're basically suggesting they set aside a specific percentage of the noms for people of color regardless of if there are actually that many award worthy ones. B. Jordan, Smith, Elba, Del Toro, and Isaac are the only ones that should be in the conversation at all. As I already said, Beasts was bound to be ignored at every turn due to the Netflix politics. Smith probably would have gotten in if he had toned it down just a notch and not veered into over the top/trying too hard territory, like he almost always does in his Oscar baiting roles. Besides, Carell was better than all 5 noms, and you don't see him there either despite being white as can be. Oscar politics are about more than color. 

 

The Rocky franchise has been totally ignored at awards beyond the first. Creed would have had to be on the level of Million Dollar Baby or Raging Bull to get any more attention than Sly's nom. And sorry, but it was merely just another good boxing flick at the end of the day. We've seen it a hundred times before, including with the prior film in the franchise. If you want to be mad about a B. Jordan snub, Fruitvale Station would be the one to be upset about. Del Toro was in too crowded of a field. Isaac was in too weird/niche of a movie to get an acting nom from them for that. Even Vikander couldn't manage it for that. Jackson has been snubbed by them his whole career. Maybe it's a racism thing, but I'm more inclined to think they just don't like him. There are plenty of actors who the Academy consistently like to ignore for whatever reason. 

 

I was aboard the #oscarssowhite issue last year, but sorry I'm not this year. Yes, I really do believe it was that weak of a year for people of color, and the stronger roles that were there unfortunately happened in a lot of genre films that the Oscars tend to ignore regardless. Now you could argue there aren't enough good roles written for people of color in the first place, but that's a whole other issue beyond the Oscars being racist. That expands to the industry in general. This year there wasn't a whole lot to choose from for award worthiness in that demographic. And no, people of color should not just be nominated for the sake of being nominated. It should be for an award worthy performance. Also why is skin color such a big deal anyways? Are we supposed to ignore the wide array of ethnic backgrounds the nominees this year do come from just because their skin is light? 

Again, most of the performances I listed are very well received in movies that received Oscar attention in other categories (Ex Machina got a screenplay nom, Sicario got a bunch of noms, Elba got SAG and Globe, Smith got Globe, H8ful Eight got a bunch of other awards, so it's not like the academy didn't pay attention to these movies). This WAS a good year for POC in movies. Also, POC are continously ignored year after year after year. Are you saying that they all should have been ignored, over all these years, outside of one movie? Movies starring non white leads DESERVE more attention, not because of "pandering to diversity" but because many of them are just fucking great. So this baloney about non-white films and actors never "deserving" it is just so laughable. There's tons of black actors and Latino actors and Asian actors doing startling, great work. Are you really saying that every year, no more than one or two is one of the best actors?

 

What wide array of ethnic backgrounds? They're all white Europeans outside of Innaritu! Alicia Vikander has a good tan, I guess. 

[The Panda]

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.

[MovieMan89]

28 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I was more upset about your use of PC police than your opinion, seemed like the kind of attempt we see constantly on these boards to discredit any liberal or progressive view as just being a bunch of whiny PC millenials. That was more my point. I apologize I misconstrued your argument- didn't see your posts in the other thread. 

 

Again, most of the performances I listed are very well received in movies that received Oscar attention in other categories (Ex Machina got a screenplay nom, Sicario got a bunch of noms, Elba got SAG and Globe, Smith got Globe, H8ful Eight got a bunch of other awards, so it's not like the academy didn't pay attention to these movies). This WAS a good year for POC in movies. Also, POC are continously ignored year after year after year. Are you saying that they all should have been ignored, over all these years, outside of one movie? Movies starring non white leads DESERVE more attention, not because of "pandering to diversity" but because many of them are just fucking great. So this baloney about non-white films and actors never "deserving" it is just so laughable. There's tons of black actors and Latino actors and Asian actors doing startling, great work. Are you really saying that every year, no more than one or two is one of the best actors?

 

What wide array of ethnic backgrounds? They're all white Europeans outside of Innaritu! Alicia Vikander has a good tan, I guess. 

Please don't twist my words, I said nothing about non-white films and actors never deserving recognition. I'm saying  there were very few that did this year, and the ones that did could be argued were sunk by other issues (i.e. Netflix, niche role, etc). 

 

And for the record, Europe is a very diverse continent, stop trying to cast them all under the umbrella of "white." Ethnicity has nothing to do with skin color. Like trying to say all Africans are the same. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by MovieMan89

[filmlover]

Copying/pasting comments from earlier, but I honestly think the whole "diversity" issue this year isn't entirely because there are no black nominees (although this being two years in a row of such doesn't help). A lot of it has to do with the fact that, quite frankly, the Best Picture line-up reads like a list of movies about Straight White Male Problems. Only two (Brooklyn and Room), maybe three (Mad Max, but even that's heavily fueled with testosterone), don't fit that bill.
 

Look at Carol, for instance. A movie about a lesbian romance that they showered recognition upon in almost all departments...except for Best Picture, when they had the choice to have up to 10 nominees. So, something is certainly off.

[MovieMan89]

Campaigning is part of the problem too. 12YAS had a great awards campaign and look what happened. Beasts of No Nation, Concussion, Creed (aside from Stallone), and SOC were given next to no awards push. You have to play the game. Something likes Beasts of the Southern Wild was a major exception to the rule. 

[filmlover]

7 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Campaigning is part of the problem too. 12YAS had a great awards campaign and look what happened. Beasts of No Nation, Concussion, Creed (aside from Stallone), and SOC were given next to no awards push. You have to play the game. Something likes Beasts of the Southern Wild was a major exception to the rule. 

Concussion/Smith never stood a chance, really. The reviews were too heavily leaning on the mixed side, box office wasn't high enough, and the movie was never really considered a contender for anything other than Smith even before it screened at AFI in mid-November.