Support NeoGAF

[Slayven]

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

Long read, but this is my favorite

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."

Can you imagine what is said behind closed doors?

 

[……forgetit]

It isn't veiled at all, that's what they're blatantly doing and I'm pretty okay with it.

 

[jelly]

Wow, he actually said that.

 

[NumberTwo]

It's like they feel as though they're being...marginalized.

 

[Korey]

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."

 

[Jarmel]

However, of the wide cross section of members with whom The Hollywood Reporter spoke on Friday and Saturday, far more were displeased with the move than pleased with it, insisting that the Academy's older members were being unfairly scapegoated.

No shit.

"Notes from the soon-to-be-retired peanut gallery," was the subject line of an email I received from one longtime member of the writers branch whose credits all came in the 1970s. "I'm an obvious candidate," he acknowledged, "which does not bother me too much. 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?"

You haven't done shit since 1986. 1986 hasn't been current for over 25 years.

 

[Aaronology]

Wow, he actually said that.

Exactly. That's how disconnected they are, to even use those words and never have them register as inappropriate.

The backbone of the industry, people.

 

[Syf]

How out of touch can you get lol

 

[EatinOlives]

"Notes from the soon-to-be-retired peanut gallery," was the subject line of an email I received from one longtime member of the writers branch whose credits all came in the 1970s. "I'm an obvious candidate," he acknowledged, "which does not bother me too much. 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?"

Ah, the typical "bu- bu- merit!!" dogwhistle.

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."

Ah, the typical "bu- bu- political correctness!!" dogwhistle.

If this is their idea of a sound rebuttal to diversifying their Oscar nominees, I have no problem kicking their old asses to the curb.

 

[Slayven]

No shit.



You haven't done shit since 1986. 1986 hasn't been current for over 25 years.

What reason is there to give a fuck when you got lifetime membership and can just have an intern or your great grandkid fill it out for you?

 

[Horsemama1956]

All they have to do is nominate some none whites even if there is no chance of them winning. Doesn't seem so hard and people will find some other bullshit to whine about on the internet.

 

[Big Baybee]

Holy shit.

 

[Slayven]

All they have to do is nominate some none whites even if there is no chance of them winning. Doesn't seem so hard and people will find some other bullshit to whine about on the internet.

cause no one cared before the internet

 

[SpaceWolf]

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.

 

[Meowster]

It seems the producer/executive portion of AMPAS seems the most upset about this decision when it makes the most sense for them to be excluded, since they are the ones that set the standard.

 

[NumberTwo]

And all this is coming from the 'progressive bastion' that is Hollywood

 

[metalslimer]

These changes will be great not just for minority nominations but the entire process. The way animated movies have been treated is a joke

 

[davepoobond]

"politically-correct" is just another way of saying "non-white"

 

[Jarmel]

Sam Weisman, 68, of the directors branch. "As a member who has stepped partially away from the industry, it feels like someone like me is being victimized. I'm in the mentoring phase of my life — I teach — so I'm now supposed to not be relevant, even though I'm being as relevant, in working with young artists, as people who have current credits are.

Then you can let someone else vote.

 

[Blader]

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.

Crash also had an extremely aggressive Oscar campaign.

 

[Slayven]

But these changes are about merit, isn't hollywood a meritocracy utopia?

 

[EatinOlives]

These changes will be great not just for minority nominations but the entire process. The way animated movies have been treated is a joke

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/award-se...oters-are-ignorant-about-animation-96680.html

I have seen none of them. I have no interest whatsoever. That ended when I was 6. My son dragged me to a few when he was 6; I would seat him and go outside and make phone calls

The Backbone of the Industry™

 

[Jarmel]

Even without the black actors/directors protest, this should have been done long ago anyway.

 

[Fluvian]

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.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Damn the old guard is fucking pissed lol

Also a huge FUCKING LOL @ someone saying yeah I'm old enough to live through the civil rights act and am sympathetic to minorities more rather than the people causing this ruckus right now, which will be good for a few years but forgotten quickly

Seriously no wonder most of them are out of touch
They think it's a right not a privilege to vote..

 

[Ridley327]

I had re-read Tab Hunter's response a few times before it sank in that it wasn't something out of The Onion. Holy shit.

 

[MMarston]

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/award-se...oters-are-ignorant-about-animation-96680.html



The Backbone of the Industry™

I remember one comment saying that Princess Kaguya was some weird Chinese-crap (the film was Japanese)

 

[Slayven]

I had re-read Tab Hunter's response a few times before it sank in that it wasn't something out of The Onion. Holy shit.

Google Tab Hunter for more fun

 

[Plasticine]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

All they have to do is nominate some none whites even if there is no chance of them winning. Doesn't seem so hard and people will find some other bullshit to whine about on the internet.

Like clockwork..

 

[Christopher]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

Agreed

 

[Jarmel]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

They still want to keep it exclusive. It's also not so much an age bias but rather a retirement bias. Not to mention if you already have an Oscar then you stay. 30 years is a long ass time to have not done something.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I remember one comment saying that Princess Kaguya was some weird Chinese-crap (the film was Japanese)

They all look the same tho..

 

[Guzim]

Google Tab Hunter for more fun

I see that he wrote his IMDB bio.

Dreamy Tab Hunter stands out in film history as one of the hottest teen idols of the 1950s era. With blond, tanned, surfer-boy good looks, he was artificially groomed and nicknamed "The Sigh Guy" by the Hollywood studio system, yet managed to continue his career long after his "golden boy" prime.

 

[harSon]

My favorite is this:

Documentary branch member Arnold Schwartzman, an Oscar winner for 1982's Genocide, was aggrieved on behalf of his fellow members. "I'm quite angry," he said. "I'm all right, I've got my Oscar. But what about all of those people that were elected to the Academy because they are skilled, but who never got an Oscar nomination?" He continued, "I just resent being characterized by some people as a racist. We judge films on the merits. There were some great films with white people that didn't get in that I was upset about. Race had nothing to do with any of it."

How about all minorities who are never let into the old boy's club in the first place?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Tab Hunter sounds mad.

 

[tim.mbp]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

If you spent decades working in the industry you'd be a voter for life though.

 

[mrklaw]

No shit.



You haven't done shit since 1986. 1986 hasn't been current for over 25 years.

isn't there a difference between 'current' and 'relevant'? This is basically saying anyone that last made a movie in 1985 or earlier is no longer relevant. Which I disagree with.

I wonder what the threshold is for being 'active'? Could all these old fogies get together and make some short movie costing peanuts, release it in one theater and then they get voting rights for another 30 years?

 

[EatinOlives]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

It's not about age, it's about being active.

You have to be active within the last 30 years to be able to retain the right to vote. The film medium is constantly evolving, so how does anyone expect to still have an up-to-date critical view of the film industry when you haven't worked in it for three decades? You can be 107 and still be able to vote if you worked.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Goddamn, these tears just taste so refreshing. The salt really adds some much needed flavor.

 

[WanderingWind]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

It's not an age bias. George Miller is almost as old as the oldest member and would be eligible under the proposed regulations.

It's not about age, it's about being active.

You have to be active within the last 30 years to be able to retain the right to vote. The film medium is constantly evolving, so how does anyone expect to still have an up-to-date critical view of the film industry when you haven't worked in it for three decades? You can be 107 and still be able to vote if you worked.

Ten years. After 30 years, they can't kick you out for non-activity. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/academy-unveils-dramatic-changes-promote-858386

 

[freeofgreed]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

Yeah because the bias against old white dudes in Hollywood is definitely as bad as the racial one.... Also this move isn't ageist at all. Older academy members who are still active in the industry still get to vote. It's the ones who haven't done shit in decades who are (and rightfully) being kicked out.

 

[Jarmel]

isn't there a difference between 'current' and 'relevant'? This is basically saying anyone that last made a movie in 1985 or earlier is no longer relevant. Which I disagree with.

I wonder what the threshold is for being 'active'? Could all these old fogies get together and make some short movie costing peanuts, release it in one theater and then they get voting rights for another 30 years?

Voting isn't some god given right. Your movie can be relevant but not you yourself.

 

[Ridley327]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

Is it really an age bias, though? I mean, you've got someone like Michael Caine who is only two years younger than Tab Hunter and is doing at least one film a year, if not more. Ignoring that he's already set for his Oscar wins and nominations in the past, it's not like this would have impacted Caine since he's a working actor and is going to continue to work until he's unable to. How is it fair that guys that became members a while back, retired and haven't done anything in the film industry since then get the same treatment as active members in the film community, like Caine? The emeritus distinction is a more than fair compromise from the Academy.

 

[harSon]

Tab Hunter sounds mad.

You'd think he'd be a bit more accepting considering the lack of openly Gay people within the industry.

 

[Plasticine]

They still want to keep it exclusive. It's also not so much an age bias but rather a retirement bias. Not to mention if you already have an Oscar then you stay. 30 years is a long ass time to have not done something.

There's about 6000 active voting members. They could easily expand that number by a thousand and still maintain the current level of exclusivity relative to the number of people in the industry.

Some members might be 30 years without a credit, but that doesn't mean they aren't active in the industry. They can still teach and play other behind the scenes roles that don't result in a screen credit, but still help shape face of the industry. The movie industry is unique in that fashion. Just because you don't have a credit, doesn't mean you're not working.

 

[Eidan]

Hahah what the fuck is a Tab Hunter?

 

[EatinOlives]

It's not an age bias. George Miller is almost as old as the oldest member and would be eligible under the proposed regulations.


Ten years. After 30 years, they can't kick you out for non-activity. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/academy-unveils-dramatic-changes-promote-858386

The link in the OP says something completely different :/

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.

 

[WanderingWind]

The link in the OP says something completely different :/

Seems like that reporter worded it badly. Looks to be you keep your vote for 10 years, then its reviewed. So people talking about "mentorship" and all should be safe. If truly active without a credit, they should pass a review. If a person passes the review process for 30 years, they get lifetime voting rights. Or if that person is nominated and/or receives an Oscar, they retain rights.

I don't see a single angle on this that isn't excessively fair.

 

[Jarmel]

There's about 6000 active voting members. They could easily expand that number by a thousand and still maintain the current level of exclusivity relative to the number of people in the industry.

Some members might be 30 years without a credit, but that doesn't mean they aren't active in the industry. They can still teach and play other behind the scenes roles that don't result in a screen credit, but still help shape face of the industry. The movie industry is unique in that fashion. Just because you don't have a credit, doesn't mean you're not working.

Honestly this probably isn't going to be affecting many people. 30 years is a very long time not to be working in any industry.

As mentioned earlier, voting isn't some inherent right. The Academy wants the voting to be more reflective of modern society. There are tons of films that are neglected every year, besides the black ones, such as genre films that are probably impacted due to the age and breakdown of the voters.

The link in the OP says something completely different :/

Miller has won an Oscar and been nominated multiple times, he's more than fine.