• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Academy's New Voting Rules Raise Questions, Concerns and Anger Among Members

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MHWilliams

Member
Slayven said:
Do you just have binders full of research on shit just in case someone happens to be talking about a subject?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I save bookmark folders on different shit if I feel it's probably going to come up again and again.

Me at home:
Primeval%20duncans%20wall%206%20copy.JPG


In this case though, I already knew about Gyllenhaal situation, so it was easier to find the other stuff.

It's nowhere near your mental stash of comic panels though.
 
A

Ampersands

Member
Yeah, all these members' comments only further prove the point of the initial campaign. Now we don't even have to assume that they're out of touch because they've shown it themselves.

I'll try playing the devil's advocate though (why not). The film industry seems like a really tough one to break in and stay relevant. I doubt any actors/actresses have an easy time getting in. So they think, "It took me a lot of effort to get in. Why do others get an easier time because of diversity?"

Now the obvious flaw with that line of thinking is that the initial opportunity to even get into the industry is disallowed to POC because of ingrained racism. If you're born into privilege, you don't really recognize it because that's the way it's always been for you. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to recognize the benefits of your privilege.
 
S

Slayven

Member
MHWilliams said:
Yeah, I save bookmark folders on different shit if I feel it's probably going to come up again and again.

Me at home:
Primeval%20duncans%20wall%206%20copy.JPG


In this case though, I already knew about Gyllenhaal situation, so it was easier to find the other stuff.

It's nowhere near your mental stash of comic panels though.
Click to expand...

You do good work
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
MHWilliams said:
Hey, if you're really all about ageism in Hollywood, you should know that it is a thing and it tends to effect women far more than men.

Helen Mirren



That situation mentioned above?


Anne Hathaway


Dakota Johnson



That's a real problem.

The argument some are trying to bring up here? Nah.
Click to expand...

Yeah, age is definitely an issue. People discard women at really early ages for the most ridiculous of reasons. The tiniest signs of age on someone's face and "OMG SHE AGED TERRIBLY". Preemptively combat the reaction by getting work done and it's "HAHA THESE HOLLYWOOD ACTRESSES SO FULL OF THEMSELVES TRYING TO LOOK YOUNG FOREVER".

Ageism in Hollywood is very real, for the actresses trying to get work after 30. For some out-of-touch fools at the Academy who haven't done shit in 10 years? lolno.
 
B

Bishop89

Member
Can't remember if I read it here, but is it true all the judges are white males and 60+ years old?

They should replace judges like every 5 years.
 
L

lednerg

Member
Under the new rules, members who have not worked across a span of three decades after gaining membership will lose the right to cast Oscar ballots unless they've been nominated for an Oscar themselves.​
That policy should've been in place a long time ago. There's no good reason why someone who hasn't won an Oscar and hasn't worked since the Reagan administration should get to vote on nominees.
 
D

diaspora

Member
Tab Hunter, 84, a member of the actors branch, concurred, calling the announcement "bullshit." He elaborated, "Obviously, it's a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, 'politically-correct' voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first."
Click to expand...
fkBWexk.gif
 
M

MHWilliams

Member
Bishop89 said:
Can't remember if I read it here, but is it true all the judges are white males and 60+ years old?

They should replace judges like every 5 years.
Click to expand...

Mostly.

Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.

Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
Click to expand...
 
C

Currygan

at last, for christ's sake
"if I'd had it my way, these negroes and palookas and Injuns would taste the whip!" could be heard during a restroom break
 
F

Fudgepuppy

Banned
These rules could've been instituted under any other type of circumstances and people wouldn't have cried foul. Just reflects poorly on the people complaining.

I'm happy about the rules changing, as it means more fresh blood to diversify the type of movies getting nominated and not just the sappy Oscar-baits.
 
E

ElBoxyBrown

Banned
This year more than any other year is where it was obvious the academy was reaching when it came to the awards. You won't nominate Samuel Jackson who carried the movie for performance in Hateful Eight but you'll nominate Jennifer Jason Leigh? We're not stupid.
 
B

B-B-Bomba!

Member
Instead of trying to force this body to come out with results which are (for immediately pressing reasons) more appropriate ...

Why not try simply giving less of a fuck about said results?

The Oscars seem to represent the annual coronation of American royalty. I say ditch that shit (from your heart, I mean - let them crack on with it) and give that space over to the fates and fortunes of your fellow 99 percenters.
 
T

TheFlow

Banned
Fluvian said:
The chunk of the academy that needs to fuck right off are the guys who vote for best animated feature. Every fucking year those cunts pick the wrong candidates, give the oscar to a meh disney film while ignoring something like the tale of princess Kaguya, which is a goddamn cinematic masterpiece, because their kids didn't like it (no joke, that's seriously their reasoning a lot of the time with animated films). I don't believe all the older white voters should be kicked out, just the ones who are clearly out of touch, and I don't believe they should be replaced by people who just happen to be black or whatever, they should be replaced by more in touch film lovers. Not people who see it as a business, but people who see films as an art, regardless of the colour of their skin.
Click to expand...
Slow clap
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
The rule change makes sense imo. But applying it retro-actively isn't fair, if they want/feel they need a short-term solution, increasing the voting pool would have been sufficient. The people disenfranchised by this will also be implicitly labelled as the problem (racist), which may or may not be the case.
 
T

The Beard

Member
I think getting some of those geezers out of there (half of them probably don't even bother watching the movies they vote on), is a good thing. But, if the voters were younger and diverse what minority would they have nominated? Coogler is the only legit contender that got snubbed IMO. Would people have been satisfied with 1 nominee?

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not going to magically get more minorities into leading and supporting roles in Oscar worthy films.
 
M

MHWilliams

Member
B-B-Bomba! said:
Why not try simply giving less of a fuck about said results?
Click to expand...

Because Oscar wins and nominations have tangible results of an actor or actresses career?

Martin Landau recalled that after he won the Oscar, Golden Globe and other honors in 1995 as the lead actor in Ed Wood, it had an immediate positive impact. "It affected [my career] immeasurably," said Landau. "It helped me get better roles and more roles and better money."

That lasted "for a period of time," recalled Landau, "and then I went back to just being a normal actor."

Robert Forster said after he was nominated for Jackie Brown in 1998, it sent his career soaring — for a time. "Winning or even being nominated gives your career buoyancy," said Forster. "You know what the stock market looks like. It goes up, and then it goes down. It's like that in a career. Added Forster: "You get buoyancy, and you're up there for a while. You get work on account of that. People get a feeling for you. Suddenly you are known for something that carries you for a long time."
Click to expand...
"It changed things," said Davison. "I could suddenly go up to [director] Robert Altman at a party and say, 'I would read the phone book for you' " and then get a call from my agent the next week saying, 'Hey, we got this interview for you with Robert Altman.' "

"That's how I got [the movie] Short Cuts," added Davison, which earned him another Golden Globe nomination in 1994. "That carried me for a good five, 10 years of getting good parts where I got to play with the big boys."

It was life-changing at the time, added Davison: "I got paid better, and I got better parts. Independent films came along. I could buy a house and raise a family."
Click to expand...

Lauren Shaw, a 20-something New Zealand actress [and stunt player] who appeared as a CIA analyst in the 2012 movie Zero Dark Thirty, which was nominated for five Oscars and won one [for sound editing], said being part of that project boosted her career enough that she was able to get work to make the move to Hollywood on a full-time basis.
Click to expand...

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-oscar-worth-it-might-depend-your-gender-1558336
According to Sweeney’s report, the average salary increase after winning an Oscar for men is close to $3.9 million; but for women, it’s less than half a million.
Click to expand...

It's not just an award, it's an award with prestige in Hollywood and that means better opportunities for actors.
 
S

starchild excalibur

Member
The comments section of that article is... yeesh. I'm wondering if it's their normal demographic or if someone posted this article on Stormfront.

It's amusing to me to read some of the quotes in the article by people who seem upset that they suddenly need to be active to be relevant. This should always have been the case and it speaks a lot to why the demographic thus far has been so old. If you're no longer directly contributing to the very industry you're presiding over, why should your opinions be held to a higher regard than others?
 
A

AcademicSaucer

Member
SpaceWolf said:
This gif was literally the first thing that leapt into my mind after reading that comment.

Suddenly Crash winning Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain back in 2005 is making a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

Munich should have won that year.


OT: As I see it, the Oscars are not the problem/cause , they are the result of the state of the whole industry.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
MHWilliams said:
It's not retroactive? It's a change for the upcoming year, so voting for the 2016 awards. The people won't be labelled as anything expect as people who have not contributed to the film industry in 30 years.
Click to expand...

That is the definition of retro-active? They had no fore-warning of the change and a Movie can't be created -> produced in a year's time-frame. The rule change was clearly to alter the make-up of those who can vote, and being in response to the criticism of being racist, those who get pushed out be said response are clearly whoever made the rule feels are responsible for the incorrect/behind-the-times culture. As I mentioned, I believe for the long-run it was the right call, but having something you worked hard for (even if it was in the past) being yanked away from you isn't fair.
 
M

MHWilliams

Member
Yoda said:
The rule change makes sense imo. But applying it retro-actively isn't fair, if they want/feel they need a short-term solution, increasing the voting pool would have been sufficient. The people disenfranchised by this will also be implicitly labelled as the problem (racist), which may or may not be the case.
Click to expand...

It's not retroactive? It's a change for the upcoming year, so voting for the 2016 awards. The people won't be labelled as anything expect as people who have not contributed to the film industry in 30 years.

People seem perplexed. 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.
Click to expand...

"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."
Click to expand...

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

SeanC

Member
The salty reactions are hilarious to me. It just strengthens the point.

Seriously, if you haven't worked in three decades, then go away. You have nothing to contribute. Three decades is fair.

This doesn't change the issues that face the industry, but it doesn't hurt it either. It has the asshats that have been hanging on to their laurels and not doing anything in the industry that they're supposed to be involved with right where it needs to put them: on a shelf. I don't care if you're a teacher now - that's you now and for the past 30 years at least. Go vote in a teacher's awards. Or the nun can go pray to Jesus. Maybe he'll give her an award.

Now guarantee 10 slots for best Pic and director, open up membership acceptance (get rid of sponsorship or, at the very least, give the ability for a sponsor to submit more than one applicant a year) and overhaul the board to allow more diversity in gender, age and race.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Even inside the movie industry, intense speculation surrounds the academy's composition and how that influences who gets nominated for and wins Oscars. The organization does not publish a membership list.
Click to expand...

A Los Angeles Times study found that academy voters are markedly less diverse than the moviegoing public, and even more monolithic than many in the film industry may suspect. Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.

Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
Click to expand...

An old boy's club should not have as much power in the industry as they do. One of those things needs to change.
 
D

danm999

Member
How can you be the backbone of something you haven't participated in since the end of the Cold War?

The level of self aggrandisement is off the charts.
 
K

KissVibes

Banned
I have news for you: older people who lived through the struggles for civil rights are way more sensitive to minority issues than young people who don’t understand what it was all about in the first place. It’s f—ing knee-jerk liberalism without taking into consideration what is fair.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure.

Or you got sour grapes about the entire thing, dinosaur.
 
N

Not

Banned
Oh damn, I was looking for this thread but couldn't find it when I posted the link in the other Academy thread.

My faves:

Not said:
Delicious, delicious salt:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academys-new-voting-rules-raise-858388

Old white rich dude said:
But I have voted, often, for Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Samuel L. Jackson and other people of color. And such a procedure does raise the question of the nature of the Academy: is its membership based on merit and accomplishment or in-tune-ness with all that is currently popular?
Click to expand...

"I've voted for black people! Isn't that enough? Besides, giving roles to people besides white actors is just what's popular right now."

[QUOTE="Longtime Member," aka old white rich dude]
And by the way, there are a lot of Academy board members who aren't 'active'... I have news for you: older people who lived through the struggles for civil rights are way more sensitive to minority issues than young people who don’t understand what it was all about in the first place.
Click to expand...

This person thinks the struggle for civil rights is something he "lived through." In other words, it's over and his generation singlehandedly took care of it.

Tab Hunter said:
Obviously, it's a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, 'politically-correct' voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. Good fucking riddance, Tab.[/QUOTE]
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
Amibguous Cad said:
Perhaps a wikipedia article will suffice rather than my own words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Or, you know, the poll tax analogy. The purpose of which would be abundantly obvious to the posters in this thread if they understood that the point of analogies in honest debate isn’t to attach positive or negative affect to something but to explore logical similarities.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you won't answer and explain whether you consider forced retirement to be discrimination against the elderly?
 
T

theignoramus

Member
That civil rights quote though, lol. That kind of comment often goes hand in hand with disparaging comments about minorities of today and how they want a free hand out.
 
A

akira28

Member
holy shit. Tab Hunter.
qfqMdz2.jpg

Polyester! that's where I remember that name from hahaha wow.

Don't kick out tab hunter, guys. come on. I'm with tab now.

not every old head is going to be an anchor to old ignorance.
 
K

Korey

Member
This isn't ageist at all.

They want to keep their voting body current and relevant.

This is like people in their 60s complaining that they're no longer allowed to vote for their high school's prom king. You're no longer relevant in your high school and have no reason to be voting in something you're no longer a part of. You're probably also out of touch and have less of an idea about who's who or who did what. However, if you're a previous homecoming queen or have been regularly on the prom committee even after you graduated, we'll still give you a vote.

Falling out of relevance and aging happen at the same time, but they're not related to each other. The new rules make it clear that age has nothing to do with it. It's all about your level of participation and relevance in the industry, and it will naturally cut off people that don't meet those requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Academy Invites Record 774 New Members
8
3K
Trojita replied
  • Locked
LA Times: Academy (AMPAS) board will weigh new voting rules to encourage diversity
9
479
Meowster replied
  • Locked
Film Academy Invites a Record 683 New Members: 46% Female and 41% People of Color
29
2K
Toothless replied
  • Locked
Oscar Voter Reveals Her Brutally Honest Ballot: 'La La Land' "Not Memorable"
4 5 6 7 8
379
27K
Walter White Walker replied
  • Locked
Spain shatters two-party rule, Europe watches as it turns into an ungovernable mess
4 5 6 7 8
386
77K
Azazzel replied
Top Bottom