Support NeoGAF

[brawly]

I get what she's saying. The best should be nominated, whatever their ethnicity.

 

[Malyse]

I get what she's saying. The best should be nominated, whatever their ethnicity.

But that statement completely divorced from reality. The oscars are political as all fuck; why do you think movies from the Weinstein Company wins so often? It's not because they happen to have the best performances year after year after year. No, the problem is that it's a bunch of old white men voting for what appeals to them most, not what's best. I'm completely certain that a number of them didn't even bother to watch Straight Outta Compton and Creed. Sly got nominated for being a known quantity. The whole thing is bullshit (like Metacritic) but it's bullshit that greatly effects people's livelihoods (like Metacritic).

 

[A Link to the Past]

I get what she's saying. The best should be nominated, whatever their ethnicity.

Do you feel that the Oscars have ever had a period in their existence where their decisions were likely biased towards white people and against non-white people?

 

[JimmyRustler]

But that statement completely divorced from reality. The oscars are political as all fuck; why do you think movies from the Weinstein Company wins so often? It's not because they happen to have the best performances year after year after year. No, the problem is that it's a bunch of old white men voting for what appeals to them most, not what's best. I'm completely certain that a number of them didn't even bother to watch Straight Outta Compton and Creed. Sly got nominated for being a known quantity. The whole thing is bullshit (like Metacritic) but it's bullshit that greatly effects people's livelihoods (like Metacritic).

As it has been stated in this thread there is no "bunch of old white men" doing the votes here. Each category has their own voters that cannot vote for any other category. So it wasn't the same people that decided Straight Outta Compton to be only nominated for the script and Rocky only for Supporting Actor - which is what you imply with your statement.

 

[A Link to the Past]

As it has been stated in this thread there is no "bunch of old white men" doing the votes here. Each category has their own voters that cannot vote for any other category. So it wasn't the same people that decided Straight Outta Compton to be only nominated for the script and Rocky only for Supporting Actor - which is what you imply with your statement.

Do you truly think that the 94% racial spread is not consistent across the board?

 

[JimmyRustler]

Do you truly think that the 94% racial spread is not consistent across the board?

Well, it is but I think it's very unlikely that the voters from each category are all equally as racist.

 

[Ahasverus]

Racism is a structure where white people is at the top of the hierarchy thus when viewing racism as a structure there can be no racism to white people.

Yeah no. This is generalizing and stupid. Social structures are fragile and sometimes flow in between the cracks. You can't dismiss a whole phenomenon.

I don't know at what extent a race separation is helping the equality argument, while affirmative action IS necessary. It's a difficult dichotomy.

 

[jmood88]

so basically the assumption is that old, white people must be racist because they aren't voting for black people this year? It is impossible that they are voting based on performance alone.

While that might not be reverse racism, it sure sounds like prejudice to me.

We've had almost 100 years of black, Asian, and Latino actors getting shut out time and time again. They may not all be racist but they definitely don't give anyone who's not white a fair chance.

 

[Malyse]

As it has been stated in this thread there is no "bunch of old white men" doing the votes here.

The sad part is that I'm certain you believe that. Riddle me this: who has won the *vast* majority of all the oscars in literally every category (except actress)? It certainly wasn't young minorities...

 

[jmood88]

I get what she's saying. The best should be nominated, whatever their ethnicity.

Which has never actually happened. Most of the academy members don't even bother watching the movies they're sent for free, so how can they accurately determine who is the best?

 

[Malyse]

Do you feel that the Oscars have ever had a period in their existence where their decisions were likely biased towards white people and against non-white people?

What are you implying? This racial thing has only been a problem in the last two years and it's really being overblown. Everyone has been weighting their decisions fairly and for the last two years no minorities were good enough.

I'm glad that at least the Academy is making America great again.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Well, it is but I think it's very unlikely that the voters from each category are all equally as racist.

But in large part there's a lack of proper POC representation in most important categories, right? If there isn't a bias across the board, what explains the consistency of the problem.

What are you implying? This racial thing has only been a problem in the last two years and it's really being overblown. Everyone has been weighting their decisions fairly and for the last two years no minorities were good enough.

I'm glad that at least the Academy is making America great again.

Jeez, I think these threads are getting to me. I was reading the post and I was right prepared to chew you out before I realized that you were doing a thing!

 

[Blader]

so basically the assumption is that old, white people must be racist because they aren't voting for black people this year? It is impossible that they are voting based on performance alone.

While that might not be reverse racism, it sure sounds like prejudice to me.

It's prejudiced against inactive members of the industry. Which, I don't know, seems fine to me? The whole point of the Oscars is to vote for and recognize your peers. If you haven't been active in the industry for over decade, then they're not really your peers anymore, are they?

 

[JimmyRustler]

The sad part is that I'm certain you believe that. Riddle me this: who has won the *vast* majority of all the oscars in literally every category (except actress)? It certainly wasn't young minorities...

And why do you assume that everyone is racist?
Like, I can fully imagine the voters for the director category being largely racist, which is why Coogler didn't get a nomination (just an assumption of me). But the actor voters? Didn't they award several black actors with an Oscar in the past decade? Why are those guys now racist just because for voters for the director award are? I hope you see where I'm going with this.

Also I'm not sure if forcing more black people into the academy would make anything better. If the old white people base their votes on racist prejudice, who's to say that newly included black people won't do the same?

 

[A Link to the Past]

who's to say that newly included black people won't do the same?

Oh darn, good point. Now I wish the Academy wasn't making itself 94% black!

Spoiler

Don't be daft, the problem isn't bias, the problem is that one bias basically controls the awards.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Oh darn, good point. Now I wish the Academy wasn't making itself 94% black!

Spoiler

Don't be daft, the problem isn't bias, the problem is that one bias basically controls the awards.

So you're idea of solving the problem is to conquer one bias with another?

 

[MHWilliams]

So you're idea of solving the problem is to conquer one bias with another?

There's no bias. Work in the industry, stay on the voting membership. As I said in the other thread:

The Grammy's require recent work within 5 years for their voting membership. The Emmy's are 4 years.

The idea is that the people voting for these awards are current with the work being done within their industry.

EDIT: I will note this isn't new either. Gregory Peck did the same thing in the 70s, for the same damn reason.

In a letter sent to all members, academy president Gregory Peck announced that 335 members have been redesignated "associates," and have thus lost the right to vote in the Academy Award balloting.

These transfers presumably derive from what Peck’s letter called "a just determination concerning the voting privileges of members who have been professionally inactive in motion pictures for a number of years."

The transfers take effect at once, but Peck has appointed a review committee to hear grievances from members who wish to challenge the transfers.

The re-evaluations were done by the various branches. Many, Peck says, used a seven-year yardstick: those who had not worked actively in film-making for seven years were transferred to associate memberships. Of the 784 voting members of the acting branch, for example, 30 who hadn’t worked in seven years became associates. Another shifted to member-at-large.

"We are making the academy more truly what it has always been or meant to be," Peck says, "a society of working professionals actively involved in the making of films."

Lifetime membership has always been a bad idea and I still think it's a poor idea in the new rules moving forward.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So you're idea of solving the problem is to conquer one bias with another?

Nope. Nothing I said can be legitimately taken to mean that. You actively have to try to come to such a conclusion.

There's no bias. Work in the industry, stay on the voting membership.

Apparently a meritocracy is now a bad thing

 

[JimmyRustler]

There's no bias. Work in the industry, stay on the voting membership. As I said in the other thread:

The Grammy's require recent work within 5 years for their voting membership. The Emmy's are 4 years.

The idea is that the people voting for these awards are current with the work being done within their industry.

That sounds like an amazing idea.

But would that really change a lot when it comes to black/whites on the board?

Nope. Nothing I said can be legitimately taken to mean that. You actively have to try to come to such a conclusion.

Well, then please explain to me what you wanted to say because that is still how I read your comment.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That sounds like an amazing idea.

But would that really change a lot when it comes to black/whites on the board?

Well, then please explain to me what you wanted to say because that is still how I read your comment.

Well, what I DID say - and it was 100% clear - is that the goal is to eliminate the POWER of bias. Yes, black people will inherently have bias. Hence why the goal isn't to make the Academy 94% black.

If you don't understand, I literally can't make it any clearer for you.

 

[MHWilliams]

That sounds like an amazing idea.

But would that really change a lot when it comes to black/whites on the board?

Well, then please explain to me what you wanted to say because that is still how I read your comment.

A lot? No clue.

The idea is two-fold. First, these rules clear out many of the older actors, from a time when minorities did not have many chances to join the Academy.

The second, enacted with this plan, is the Academy is going to double the number of minority and women members by 2020. Part of this is by bypassing the normal sponsorship requirement (you could join if you had a sponsorship or if you were nominated for an Oscar, followed by voting) with a new outreach program targeting minority members.

Before, part of the problem wasn't that there weren't talented women and minority who could be sponsored. It was that those candidates were rarely brought up.

As part of the 2003 tightening of membership rules, Davis urged that a wider circle of potential invitees be considered. In 2009, he suggested to the sound branch committee that it had overlooked India's Resul Pookutty, who won an Oscar that year for sound mixing on "Slumdog Millionaire." Davis admired the technician's work and was moved by his emotional acceptance speech on Oscar night. (The committee extended the invitation a year later.)

"When I got the letter from them saying they would like to invite me into the academy, I was literally screaming in the studio," said Pookutty, who flew from Mumbai to Los Angeles to attend the new member luncheon. "It means a great deal. More than the pride of it, I feel that my whole fraternity in India has been recognized and honored."

Sherak and other academy officials said they're eager for more applications from women and minorities, and more involvement from those who are already members.

"I'm hoping your story runs and 7,000 phone calls break the lines here," Sherak said. "We've been trying to reach out to the constituency and we're looking for help. You want to be on a committee? Tell us what committee. If you are sitting waiting for us to find your name in our make-believe book and we are going to call you, we are not going to do that. Come to us, we'll get you in. We want you in. That would help us a lot."

That story was from 2012. The existing voting body was not doing enough to fix the problem and like any diversity initiative, it requires asking "Who do we normally ignore?" Talented production staff on documentary, animation, and international films rarely get the chance for inclusion into the rank, unless they get sponsored. That started to change in 2013, with additions like Choi Min-sik, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Łukasz Żal, or Im Kwon-taek.

For example, Justin Lin was invited to membership in 2015. He's been making hit films since 2006, but no one was willing to sponsor him. Those are the kinds of holes the Academy has.

 

[TDLink]

The big snubs this year imo:

Creed for Best Picture
Coogler for Best Director
Del Toro for Best Actor (or Supporting Actor depending on how you want to classify it)

That's pretty much it in my book. I don't get the hype around Beasts of No Nation. I honestly didn't think it was that good. And I loved Creed, like really loved it, but I think Coogler Is the Main reason. I thought Jordan was good but not great.

 

[JimmyRustler]

A lot? No clue.

The idea is two-fold. First, these rules clear out many of the older actors, from a time when minorities did not have many chances to join the Academy.

The second, enacted with this plan, is the Academy is going to double the number of minority and women members by 2020. Part of this is by bypassing the normal sponsorship requirement (you could join if you had a sponsorship or if you were nominated for an Oscar, followed by voting) with a new outreach program targeting minority members.

Before, part of the problem wasn't that there weren't talented women and minority who could be sponsored. It was that those candidates were rarely brought up.



That story was from 2012. The existing voting body was not doing enough to fix the problem and like any diversity initiative, it requires asking "Who do we normally ignore?" Talented production staff on documentary, animation, and international films rarely get the chance for inclusion into the rank, unless they get sponsored. That started to change in 2013, with additions like Choi Min-sik, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Łukasz Żal, or Im Kwon-taek.

For example, Justin Lin was invited to membership in 2015. He's been making hit films since 2006, but no one was willing to sponsor him. Those are the kinds of holes the Academy has.

Thanks for the info. This is very interesting and would legitimately be a great way to conquer this problematic.

 

[Malyse]

Jeez, I think these threads are getting to me. I was reading the post and I was right prepared to chew you out before I realized that you were doing a thing!

I intentionally tacked on the "make America great again" to make it obvious :3