• 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.
E

EatinOlives

Member
WanderingWind said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, that other article definitely seems to have misunderstood the rules. Yeah the rules really don't seem that harsh and definitely not discriminatory based on age. A decade is still a very long time to be absent from your full-time career for you to still have a voice in the single most important and influential platform of critique in said industry.
 
C

Corpekata

Banned
Was he volunteering to be the face of the obscure old white people that have barely worked for decades?

Looking at his IMDB I'm kind of amazed he even warranted membership in his heyday.
 
N

Nightbird

Member
What exactly are the new rules?
I heard about the requirement of being active in the industry in a set time span, but what else is new?
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
And people will STILL try to deny there's societal installed "white supremacy" after that quote.

When the Civil War ended, we never removed white supremacists from power. They remained and made sure to recruit and install people that agreed with them before they died or retired. Anyone 61 or older has a life that overlapped with people that fought in the Civil War. It's not as long ago as people think.
 
P

Plasticine

Member
Jarmel said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true. The number of people who will be affected by this rule is very small, especially if there's other measures beyond credited work. But that begs the question, why do it? If the number of voters thrown out of the pool by the proposed rules will have negligible affect on the overall voting body, why implement it? It's a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the understandable blood-lust to see the old fucks dragged off to the glue factory. It's not a very good solution, beyond the optics, which is what I suspect they want.
 
L

Lebron

Member
Nipo said:
About time. Maybe we can actually have and Asian nominated for best actor or actress.
Click to expand...

Let's not get crazy now.

But really, yeah. Hollywood has needed this shack up for a while now. Let the old ones go down kicking and screaming as is always the case when stuff like this is enforced.

And they wonder why we have to enforce changes like this and have the nerve to moan and complain about it? Because your simple ass would never change shit if we didn't.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Rainbowgun said:
What exactly are the new rules?
Click to expand...

1) New members have voting status for 10 years.
2) After 10 years, new members voting status will be renewed if member has been active within the industry during that 10 years.
3) After three renewals, voting status is lifetime.
4) If you're nominated for an Oscar, voting status is lifetime
5) Current members will have the above standards retroactively applied.

So I believe, starting next year, any old-timer in the academy who hasn't done shit in the last 10 years gets their vote yanked.

They're also expanding the governor's board so as to invite more people into the academy.
 
C

Corpekata

Banned
If there a list of people in the Academy somewhere, or at least younger ones?

I imagine Tab Hunter is in because of Damn Yankees, one of the few noteworthy things he was in, so it'd be interesting to see if other actors of similar careers that are not white and see if they are members.
 
W

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
EatinOlives said:
Oh, that other article definitely seems to have misunderstood the rules. Yeah the rules really don't seem that harsh and definitely not discriminatory based on age. A decade is still a very long time to be absent from your full-time career for you to still have a voice in the single most important and influential platform of critique in said industry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, absolutely. I am very sensitive toward outrage overcoming common sense, but this seems to be a very clear case of outrage generating common sense. Of course somebody should be active in the industry they get to pass judgement on.

As long as proper critics retain votership, I don't see how anybody besides the people who know deep down they haven't done anything worthy of a vote in a decade should be worried. Ebert would remain (RIP), the guy who wrote some schlocky B-movies in the 70s and had a personal hookup and has been riding it out ever since wouldn't.

This is good for minorities, fans of genre films, people who are sick of "Oscar bait" flicks (it's going to be harder to pander to a crowd that continues to change) and young industry heads who maybe want their voices heard one day.

Bobby Roberts said:
snip
Click to expand...

You just have to be nominated for an Oscar. You don't have to have win it, even. Super lenient.
 
J

Jarmel

Banned
Bobby Roberts said:
1) New members have voting status for 10 years.
2) After 10 years, new members voting status will be renewed if member has been active within the industry during that 10 years.
3) After three renewals, voting status is lifetime.
4) If you actually win an Oscar, voting status is lifetime
5) Current members will have the above standards retroactively applied.

So I believe, starting next year, any old-timer in the academy who hasn't done shit in the last 10 years gets their vote yanked.

They're also expanding the governor's board so as to invite more people into the academy.
Click to expand...

The bolded doesn't really make sense in that all this does is serve as a temporary bandaid instead of a more permanent fix.
 
B

besada

Banned
Eidan said:
Hahah what the fuck is a Tab Hunter?
Click to expand...
XQEjE6B.jpg
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Jarmel said:
The bolded doesn't really make sense in that all this does is serve as a temporary bandaid instead of a more permanent fix.
Click to expand...

30 years active in the industry isn't all that temporary, I don't think. I'd imagine a fair number of current voters wouldn't have made the 2nd cutoff, much less the third, had those rules been implemented back in the 70s, for example.
 
N

Nightbird

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
1) New members have voting status for 10 years.
2) After 10 years, new members voting status will be renewed if member has been active within the industry during that 10 years.
3) After three renewals, voting status is lifetime.
4) If you're nominated for an Oscar, voting status is lifetime
5) Current members will have the above standards retroactively applied.

So I believe, starting next year, any old-timer in the academy who hasn't done shit in the last 10 years gets their vote yanked.

They're also expanding the governor's board so as to invite more people into the academy.
Click to expand...

OH, that's good!

So that means that things will be freshed up starting 2017 for at least the the next 30 years right?
That's a great move, and will definitely help.
 
R

Ridley327

Member
Mimosa97 said:
Do members get to vote for every category ?
Click to expand...

Voting, yes, though there are a couple of categories (the shorts, basically) that do have some special prerequisites in place in order for someone to vote on them. It's the nominations that are handled on a per branch basis (actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, etc.).
 
A

Apathy

Member
Wait, is it that tab hunter? The gay actor? The one that had a hard time in old Hollywood because of discrimination is now for discrimination? Come on.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
Well, yeah. The rules basically means that they cannot control the Academy for years as they have been anymore. They're angry to see their privilege go away.

What's especially humorous is the guy who complained that this would pave way for "politically correct young people" and it's like, well yeah, that's inevitably going to happen. Things should eventually be taken over by the next generation, even if they don't think the same way as you do, and you have to accept that. And you gotta love how he suggests that they should have put it to a vote. Yeah, I'm sure an organization that thrives on nepotism was going to vote against their interests.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Apathy said:
Wait, is it that tab hunter? The gay actor? The one that had a hard time in old Hollywood because of discrimination is now for discrimination? Come on.
Click to expand...

That is what is weird as fuck, I googled the guy and a bunch of articles came up about how he was damn near blackballed for being gay. Not even out gay, but rumored to be gay.
 
M

Messofanego

Banned
Apathy said:
Wait, is it that tab hunter? The gay actor? The one that had a hard time in old Hollywood because of discrimination is now for discrimination? Come on.
Click to expand...
The bullied become bullies because they saw that as the only thing that worked so empty similar tactics. Cycle of abuse.
 
H

hypernima

Banned
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...

I mean look at this dude name. it exudes potential racism.

I mean bolded is even a problem in academia too, younger people can not get jobs because we have so many old fogies tenured who refuse to leave.
 
B

besada

Banned
I keep wanting to refer to him as Aryan Poster Boy, Tab Hunter, which is probably unfair, but look at him in his prime. Hitler would have popped a nut.

I think you're mostly seeing the hurt emotional response of people who have been connected to the institution for decades, and have grown to think of it as their home.

That doesn't really excuse being a public petulant ass about it, but I can understand where some of the anger is coming from. If you'd been promised a lifetime position to influence the culture, hang out with beautiful, rich people, get a boatload of free movies every year, and a swag bag worth thousands of dollars, I bet you'd be a little pissed off to wake up and find it gone, too.
 
B

braves01

Banned
besada said:
I keep wanting to refer to him as Aryan Poster Boy, Tab Hunter, which is probably unfair, but look at him in his prime. Hitler would have popped a nut.

I think you're mostly seeing the hurt emotional response of people who have been connected to the institution for decades, and have grown to think of it as their home.

That doesn't really excuse being a public petulant ass about it, but I can understand where some of the anger is coming from. If you'd been promised a lifetime position to influence the culture, hang out with beautiful, rich people, get a boatload of free movies every year, and a swag bag worth thousands of dollars, I bet you'd be a little pissed off to wake up and find it gone, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, disenfranchising people does not seem like the best way to promote diversity. Either broaden the base to make it more diverse, or introduce some new categories for the time being to ensure some recognition of minority performances.
 
S

Slayven

Member
besada said:
I keep wanting to refer to him as Aryan Poster Boy, Tab Hunter, which is probably unfair, but look at him in his prime. Hitler would have popped a nut.

I think you're mostly seeing the hurt emotional response of people who have been connected to the institution for decades, and have grown to think of it as their home.

That doesn't really excuse being a public petulant ass about it, but I can understand where some of the anger is coming from. If you'd been promised a lifetime position to influence the culture, hang out with beautiful, rich people, get a boatload of free movies every year, and a swag bag worth thousands of dollars, I bet you'd be a little pissed off to wake up and find it gone, too.
Click to expand...

If his name was Steve Rogers, I would not have been shocked
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
besada said:
If you'd been promised a lifetime position to influence the culture, hang out with beautiful, rich people, get a boatload of free movies every year, and a swag bag worth thousands of dollars, I bet you'd be a little pissed off to wake up and find it gone, too.
Click to expand...

Well, the only thing they're actually losing is the vote. They're still getting invites to the parties, they're still getting screener access, and the swag bag will be waiting at the door when they enter.
 
R

Ridley327

Member
braves01 said:
Yeah, disenfranchising people does not seem like the best way to promote diversity. Either broaden the base to make it more diverse, or introduce some new categories for the time being to ensure some recognition of minority performances.
Click to expand...

How would new categories centered around minorities help at all? We've been seeing how damn hard a time animated films, foreign films and documentaries have on getting any representation outside of the categories that were created just for them. Doing that would exacerbate the problem of the lack of equal footing.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
I like the new rules that requires members to be actually active in actually acting, producing, directing, writing instead of being a "lifer" who has not acted, directed, produced anything in over 3 decades.

Let's say Clint Eastwood, he's old but he is still heavily active in directing movies, so he should be allowed to vote IMO

but if it's a guy that I never heard of who has not done anything in over 20 years but still wants to hand on to the committee? nope, not you sorry

*edit, anyone named Tab, Trigg, or Track should not be allowed to be on the board
 
B

besada

Banned
Bobby Roberts said:
Well, the only thing they're actually losing is the vote. They're still getting invites to the parties, they're still getting screener access, and the swag bag will be waiting at the door when they enter.
Click to expand...
Really? Then fuck them. I figured that since most of them hadn't actually done anything, the only reason they still got to come was the membership.
 
M

Messofanego

Banned
braves01 said:
Yeah, disenfranchising people does not seem like the best way to promote diversity. Either broaden the base to make it more diverse, or introduce some new categories for the time being to ensure some recognition of minority performances.
Click to expand...

Never inconvenience rich old white men. Never. Even though they're only losing the right to vote for films that they're totally out of touch with, but still.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Amibguous Cad said:
I'm not a fan of fighting racism with ageism.
Click to expand...

Wat. You can be old and a voter. They are pushing out people that got voting priviledges once and haven't been involved in industry for years.

Under current rules someone in charge in an industry position during the era where black actors and talent were openly banned from certain networks still have voting rights, even if they no longer held the job.
 
M

Mimosa97

Member
Ridley327 said:
Voting, yes, though there are a couple of categories (the shorts, basically) that do have some special prerequisites in place in order for someone to vote on them. It's the nominations that are handled on a per branch basis (actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, etc.).
Click to expand...

I think it should be the same for the whole process but it's still better than nothing.
 
M

Mimosa97

Member
Amibguous Cad said:
I'm not a fan of fighting racism with ageism.
Click to expand...

When I see how baby boomers are screwing every western country ATM I'm totally okay with ageism.

Doesn't mean I don't feel like we as a society have a duty to care for our elderly. I just want them to step down and enjoy their hard earned retirement.
 
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
486
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