85%
78%
7%
Dave J. on 02-21-2012 04:57 PM
They forgot overwelmingly 'old'! When "The King's Speech" won over "The Social Network" does say that half of the voters still lived in the turn of the century!
King S. on 02-22-2012 05:16 AM
The King's Speech isn't really a big deal. Regardless of which one is more relevent, both King's Speech and The Social Network were both crtically acclaimed and commercially succesful films and both deserved the oscar. Personally, I would have loved to see Toy Story 3 get it, but I have no problem with King's Speech winning.
On the other hand, the age factor does explain some much more major problems, such as Extremely Loud and Incredibely Close getting a nomination over much more deserving films and the way the academy keeps looking down on certain generes like fantasy, science fiction, animation and superhero.
Raimondi la Volpe33 on 02-21-2012 08:54 PM
this doesn't surprise me who still watches the oscars since titanic won
Robert M on 02-22-2012 12:42 AM
Wha? No way! It's not like a majority of them are Jewish either... otherwise, something like A Serious Man would have TOTALLY gotten nominated.
notoriousprod on 02-22-2012 06:46 AM
So are they straight up white or are they Irish American? Dutch American? English American? Australian American? Canadian American? Jewish American? Italian American? Swiss American? Scottish American? French American? Ukrainian American? It's so hard to tell by skin pigment alone these days. Also, are they gay white males? What is their average age? Also, who should these voters most reflect? The movie going audience? The movie industry in general? There are so many things we could do to "FIX" this clearly heinous situation, but where do we start? Why don't we just continue to write articles bitching about the injustice until these awful white men die? We can wait it out. Death to the white nation! Power to the oppressed! and where are all the Asians?!!! Why don't you get your damn heads out of the math books for a second and speak up ASIANS?!!! Where is your outrage?!! Kill Whitey!!!
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 11:20 AM
I know you're being facetious, but this is a pretty good example of how some people have clearly lost their damn minds.
Two21 on 02-22-2012 12:05 PM
How about we just enjoy films on their merit rather than having a select group of snobs tell us which ones they think are best? Anyone? Bueller?
Roger W on 02-22-2012 02:29 PM
I like the point made that only white people are being chosen for awards. Take a look at some of the most famous black actors and their recent resumes. Will Smith hasn't done a movie since 2008, Denzel Washington did Safe House and Unstoppable, and Samuel L Jackson has done little more than brief cameos in Marvel flicks. No amount of diversity on the voting staff is going to change anything when actors aren't doing Academy quality work.
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
The Grey, Chronicle, Albert Nobbs
One hub, one place for reviews, list, pics!
Check out the trailer for this L.A. noir!
See the trailer for Affleck's latest.
Janson J. on 02-21-2012 01:20 PM
I think the idea that adding minority voters to the Academy will increase opportunities for them in Hollywood is ass-backwards. I actually support the notion that Academy members should be the most experienced professionals in the industry. The problem is that the STUDIOS need to add more minorities at all levels of production, so that in ten years, you'll see more experienced minority professionals eligable. And this is not a thing about 'quotas'. Please. Consider Viola Davis. Oscar-nominated for "Doubt", and she says she was waiting around for the phone to ring for months when she accepted the role in "The Help". Nobody's talking about hiring untalented or unqualified people, rather we need to talk about the presumption that less minorities are talented or qualified. Look at those writing numbers - 98% white. Does anyone truly believe that white writers are so much better, especially considering the week-in week-out parade of incompetance we see when screenwriters get hired for projects? NEPOTISM is the problem, not affirmative action. We should demand the diversification of the creative roles across the sphere of entertainment. Why do you think they call it THE MAN?
Another note - Erik Estrada? I'm all for more Puerto Rican and Chicano votes, but, what? This guy? Ponch?
Doc.Bamf on 02-21-2012 02:16 PM
It's not about whether or not it is 'ass-backwards'. The main purpose is to provide the sense that 'something' is being done so that people can feel at ease, or at the very least, minimize their guilt. But, to go beyond that, I think that you overlook the reality that at nearly every significant level of our social structure white IS the norm. You want to promote change? Simply adding different people (at any level) isn't going to do it. Especially if it means going against the norm.
Janson, I think it's cool to want equality across the board. But, doing so simply because of 'ethics' creates more problems than it solves. I think the real question anyone should be asking is: Ethics aside, what do the people who are in power gain from sharing it?
I say ethics aside because we have become a goal oriented society in which change is more likely to occur when it benefits people in power. Sure ethics are often used as a guise, but rarely (if ever) is change purely because of ethics. Other reasons may be used, but ultimately there is a benefit for the people in power at the core. Any reason that people in power believe in. 'Aversion to conflict' can even be considered a reason. But, for now, the reality is for every Viola Davis or Angela Bassett, there are ten Katherine Heigel's or Jennifer Love Hewitt's. Although arguing talent would be pretty straightforward, what I'm really trying to get at is how bankable are white actresses compared to black actresses in a majority white institution? Or, can black directors bring in the same money and prestige that their white counterparts do on a regular basis? You can point out the unfairness of the system all you like, but the bottom line is that if you look at the top 100 movies of all time monetarily, I would be willing to bet that less than 5 have leading actors/actresses who are not white and probably the same goes for leading women to leading men percentage. So, it's not just the industry, it is the public. If changing public view was as simple as throwing in diversity for 'ethical' good measure, truly diverse casts of popular movies would be much more commonplace than they are now (ie Fast and Furious franchise, Ocean's Eleven franchise, or like that one movie with Elodie Yung).
Trying to get back to my main point, I understand why the academy would want to 'say' it needs to diversify the manner by which it recognizes excellence in the industry, but it is totally ignoring how the system works (a combination of industry and public, not just industry). I appreciate Woodard's notion of inciting change from within, but let's be honest again, how much of a difference does that really make?
I guess it really is about white writers being 'better', as in monetarily-wise, not talent-wise.
Janson, I'm happy and lucky to be a white male. Basically, how would you convince me that diversity is better and do so without bringing ethics into the picture?
Ethics suck, I'm a capitalist.
Janson J. on 02-21-2012 03:46 PM
You're a fool. It probably isn't your fault. You show absolutely no education whatsoever. Since you're a 'capitalist', you should be aware of the work of Adam Smith, right? If you had even a glancing familiarity with his writing, you would understand the ethical imperative that capitalism entails. Capitalism is based on ethics, or else it's simply racketeering and exploitation. You probably aren't even aware that the first corporations in the world traded in slaves and opium. Adam Smith believed in the free market, but he also feared corporate control of government. If I thought you had the slightest inkling of what you were talking about, I'd accuse you of flatout dishonesty. Chances are you're were either educated by dishonest textbooks, or you failed to understand them, or you just didn't read them at all. Being such a militant capitalist, maybe you should find the time to read what Adam Smith considered his finest book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". You will not find a shortage of ethical importance there.
I don't want to call anyone names, so I'll just state the facts behind actual ideology. 'Fascism' is the belief that "might makes right", that strength (whether financial, social, or military) gives a nation the right to exert its will onto the weak without consideration of the latter's interest. The 'weaker' American colonies rebelled against the authoritarian British crown with the dictum "We the People". Unfortunately, it would take many more decades for women and ethnic minorities to be included under this heading, but we've been moving in a more inclusive direction and THAT'S A GOOD THING. That's progress even. The very essence of democracy is in the existential belief that individuals (not 'states') have the ultimate power to decide the fate of thier affairs.
Or else, you could choose to support the fascist ideology of Nazi Germany, for example, which believed in such a fantasy that one race had inherent rights to rule over the rest. If that's what you want to believe because of your contemporary social privilege, that's fine. Just be honest about it. It's not capitalism, because pure capitalism would allow the 'free' exchange of film products from all who are capable of creating them. But the Powers have monopolized and used various market manipulations to control the medium and the transmission (theaters, television, cable, and they're hoping to demolish 'net neutrality' for the same reason) of these products with the lobbied help of the FCC, who recently auctioned the 'public airwaves' without public support or coordination.
This is not the capitalism Adam Smith would have supported. It is a corporate mafia, a plutocratic oligarchy. And, in terms of who benefits, it is clear institutionalized racism. "Ethics aside" - what a tool! You've shown zero understanding for the nature of social evolution, political philosophy, much less Constitutional comprehension. You don't want to share it? I'll be like Patrick Henry and suggest we take it.
Doc.Bamf on 02-21-2012 04:25 PM
Hey, now. I never said I was a 'pure' capitalist as what Smith described.
But, if capitalism was truly centered around ethics, then most of Marx's arguments have no legitimacy since he often brings up the injustices of one class upon another.
Either way, it draws attention away from my original point which was how do you convince someone who cares about money, and only money, that diversity is important?
Focus on that question.
I never said anything was 'right' or 'wrong'. I asked for you to justify diversity without bringing ethics into the picture because that method clearly does not work. That is unless, you do believe that the existential belief that "individuals (not states) have the ultimate power to decide the fate of their affairs" is the same as its realization.
Janson J. on 02-21-2012 04:36 PM
Well, let me be as clear as I possibly can: People who care about money - only money - should fucking HANG!
Putting a price tag on human beings is what got us in this racial predicament in the first place.
The fact that you think it's possible (much less desirable) to remove ethics from the social theory equation shows your lack of education starkly. Existentialism is not synonymous with selfishness. Ethics is the root of all social responsibility, and removing social responsibility is the first step to tyranny. Perhaps Thomas Paine is the founding father you should read first. You'll find him much less forgiving than I am.
Dave J. on 02-21-2012 06:03 PM
Doc.Bamf Everything you're saying is irrevelent now as opposed to the 40's 50's and 60's because the times have changed as soon as we started to win our first diversed President Of The United States of America and that person is Obama! If you choose to think in this kind of way "Ethics suck, I'm a capitalist" then you're not going to go very far since the country in itself is made up of alot of diversity! If being "unethical" defines you, than you're going to allow yourself to be exposed to the working public and the reputation in itself cannot be restored! To be ethic means that you have a conscience, otherwise we'd be stuck with Hitler's ideology and that would mean total chaos!
Jansens right, you're a fool, and every movie actor and director you idolize would say the same thing!
Matanuki on 02-21-2012 06:23 PM
I'm not sure which is funnier, Janson. This guy's attempt at an intellectual question, or you bothering to engage the conversation.
Doc.Bamf on 02-21-2012 06:42 PM
I'm still not sure you are getting my point. Saying that someone who only cares about money should hang does not provide an answer as to how you can convince profit-focused individuals on the importance of diversity. Do you really think that the current people in power are strong proponents of diversity? Are you telling me that the film industry truly cares about diversity as much as they care about profits? If you think this is so, then I stand corrected and the lack of diversity in film is a consequence of trying too hard to diversify.
Keep in mind that I am still talking about how things are (as in now) and your focus is on how they should be. I pointed out a potential reason why there are so few films with minority leads or directors (ie profit). To say that I'm a fool because I point that observation out or point out that the 'movers' in the industry don't truly care about diversity...I'm still not sure I understand that. Are you saying that the film industry truly DOES care about diversity? Or that there are more minority leads/directors in the top 100 grossing films of all time than I am finding?
Me trying to present a scenario minus ethics is no more crazy than you presenting a scenario in which ethics reign supreme. My point being, if you want to address diversity issues in Hollywood, you cannot just simply tell someone it needs to happen because 'it is the right thing to do'. But, then again, maybe I'm wrong and if we send an email to the producers, directors, and actors guild and let them know that under-representation in film is not the right thing to do, they will change it.
But, what if we could convince them that it would be in their best financial interest to diversify? Is it possible things would change at a much faster pace than simply "moving in the right direction"?
So, seriously, Janson if you met the CEO of whatever film company you prefer, what would you say to them to convince them that diversity is necessary in film?
I'm not sure the 'YOU MUST HANG' would work too well. Seriously, though. How would you convince them?
Janson J. on 02-21-2012 06:49 PM
I feel I should walk back some of the incendiary tone of my comment. It's difficult to describe to you, Doc, exactly how absurd the notion of divorcing ethics from social policy is if you don't understand social history. I don't want you to think I'm accusing you of anything other than confusion on this point. Ethics has been a broad plank of Western social theory since the Greeks. (Confucianism is the Eastern equivilent) Even in today's business and corporate culture, people are obliged to obey defined ethical standards, and those who violate them are prosecuted. The very concepts of law and justice rest on ethical considerations. Those people who do not recognize these ethical imperatives, or these social responsibilities, are by definition 'sociopaths'. Someone like Marx thought that capitalism breeds and promotes such sociopathology, but I am neither a Marxist nor a communist. But I do believe that capitalism needs to be regulated based on social interests - using the power of the law to curb capital corruption and promote accountability to consumers. So, because of this, I can't answer your question, but Gordon Gekko might.
As for the marketability of minority filmmakers, until Kathryn Bigalow won the Oscar, who would have claimed that action fans would have bought tickets to a film directed by a woman? How many "Drive" fans know the ethnicity of the screenwriter? How many fans disappointed by "Hulk" claimed that a Chinese director was their main complaint? Who refused to see "Tears of the Sun" or "From Hell" because these were made by black directors? Who has the #1 film in the country right now? Denzel? Who is the star being claimed to save franchises like "Fast Five", "Journey 2" and this summer's "GI Joe"? The black Samoan Rock. Who has the highest box office average of any other actor? Samuel L Jackson. Unfortunately, black leading actresses still have a way to go, but the point is that we're heading in the right direction, which is one of greater inclusion, not less. And even if you claim 'majority rule', it's worth remembering that white people will not be a majority much longer, and I think that reality, and the fear it inspires, might be why some white people are getting so much more buck in expressing their superiority right now.
NTROST on 02-22-2012 02:23 AM
@Janson J. you said: "Even if you claim 'majority rule', it's worth remembering that white people will not be a majority much longer, and I think that reality, and the fear it inspires, might be why some white people are getting so much more buck in expressing their superiority right now."
Wow dude, hang on there...first off, I laugh at people who say this "whites are no longer going to be the majority real soon" because one, history has shown the Census is more inaccurate then it is accurate. This is the same Census that stated Russia won't have a surplus in white population when in fact they will by 2015 (every other study & far more accurate ones such as the CDC has proven it.) The Census is even wrong in it's China, Africa, interracial marriage (which has been over-sensationalized beyond belief but I digress) & several other predicted statistics just to name a few. Secondly, Whites will ONLY be a minority if you group ALL other ethnic races together. Whites will still be the largest racial group individually by 2050. Again though, the Census has to be actually accurate & things have to stay in certain directions & paths in order for this demographic change to happen. But again, it's all speculation & if the laws become more strict on illegals (which they should) in this country & the anchor baby law is canned (which it may end up being in the very near future with what's being reported) then you can expect those so-called predictions to change quicker then a hick-up.
P.S. I'm not trying to start anything here. I'm just stating that don't act so certain about something that is purely full-fledge speculation then actual fact. Anyone who takes the Census as being full-on accurate & taking it as the truth or the be-all-end-all is greatly ill-advised & ignorantly butt blind.
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 10:44 AM
@NTROST - This is pretty much the type of hysterical defensiveness I was referring to. What does the US Census data have anything to do with Russia's Caucasian surplus? I would post a link to the data, but I assume you're a big boy who knows how to google. These statistics (and statistics are a science) are never 100% correct, but they can ballpark in the upper 90s. I'll take your dogmatic rejection of the interracial data released last week (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/16/interracial-marriage-hits-record-high-driven-by-latino-population-growth/ - I used a Fox link so you don't think it's liberal media spin!) as an indicator of your overall resistance to the reality of the sociological situation. Due to your total lack of data to back up your argument, rather than sheer distrust, I won't bother refuting everything you've said.
NTROST on 02-22-2012 12:47 PM
@Janson J. - Hysterical defensiveness? Oh, my God! Are you just flat out ignorant or just purely stubborn in your hysterical B.S. First off man, get over your self-indulgence & narcissistic attitude because you come across like a total d***. Secondly, the Census is a global thing you fool as it's not just done in the U.S. Thirdly, the Census is a science? No, it's not! It's damn questionaire taken by everyone in the public. This just proves how misguided you are in what you are talking about. There is no science to it as people B.S. on the thing all the time. Now to your link, something you need to realize which it seems common sense is not your thing is one, Latino is NOT an ethnic it's a cultural. Latino's can be white, black or mixed. The largest Latino population in America is actually white-hispanic. A white-hispanic marrying a non-white hispanic ISN'T an interracial marriage but of course, the media will spin things & tools like you will believe them. Secondly, using a Fox media link doesn't prove jack because it's the misleading media. Here's a little fact for you: Interracial marriage is a around 8% (give or take as other studies have it around 6%) but what you fail to realize (which isn't surprising from the likes of you) is...it has only gone up 2% in the last two decades. Yeah...2% is nothing as it's just a blip on the radar but people like you who are brainless sheep believe everything that the media feeds you & tells you. Yes, interracial mixing is booming (sarcasm)...The media (all media) spins things to create stories & reactions. What the media fails to bring forth is of the interracial marriages in the past year or so only 9% involved whites. That's only a slight increase in the past decade. Asian interracial mixing has declined & hispanics hasn't changed either. The only one that has increased was blacks by 2%. The media are also the reason for the political correctness crap that is self-destructing this country in so many ways. Lastly, I don't need to give you a link to prove my points (your ignorance is your bliss) since you are a big boy in which I'm sure you could google the info it if you wanted too. Hell, I even gave you a clue on where to go. Dude, get over yourself really. Stop acting high & mighty because I'm finding you just a pawn that believes anything the media tells you.
P.S. The Rock (who I am a fan of) didn't save the Journey franchise. I will give him credit for the Fast & Furious franchise & G.I. Joe is still a wait-and-see situation. But the first Journey film is technically a better film in it's quality & so forth. Now in terms of money, the first installment grossed worldwide $231 million while the second installment has only grossed $189 million. Both films passed their break even mark but the first installment has earned more in extra returning revenue with $140 million while the second installment has only added $31 million & from the looks of it...it won't match the first installment in extra returning revenue & sadly, the studio raised the budget from $45 million to $79 million & in the end, they are getting less back. So sorry, Rock didn't save it. If anything, his film weaken the franchise not just in film quality but in B.O. return.
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 01:02 PM
Ladies and gentlemen...behold the face of true hysterical defensiveness. Your response is evidence enough, and I rest my case. (The Census is global - hilarious! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Census and while you're at it, figure out why it is a science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics)
NTROST on 02-22-2012 02:40 PM
@Janson J. - Wikipedia? Really? LOL! Now we are relying on Wikipedia as a realible source? LMAO! The same site that stated Sinbad was dead...lol. The same site that has been reported countless amount of times as one of the least dependable sites for ACTUAL facts. You do know, anyone in the public can go in & edit on wikipedia pages? You probably do not since you are that short-sighted to think wikipedia is realible. You are just plain stupid! Dude, you are pathetic. It's true what they say, you can't argue with someone who is flat out ignorantly butt blind & too dense to realize it such as yourself. Hysterical defensiveness? The only thing hysterical is your narrow-minded ignorance. You are a tool.
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 03:37 PM
Look, Andrew. When you pull up your britches and stop punching your nuts over my comments and start providing any source whatsoever to counter my points, any display of competant research ability, then you get back to me. I don't give a shit what you heard about Wikipedia on the playground. Be a man, and read, and you'll discover that the pages I sent are very well annotated with numerable reference links that you can feel free to verify. You have absolutely no idea what the editorial process is at Wikipedia, where they have a full time staff doing fact-checking. These fictional aberrations that users post are regularly filtered out within hours or days. But that requires reading and comparative study and the feeble brain begins to hurt because you're too busy expending your precious neural energy on how your noble white culture is becoming ever more irrelevent. You're probably too stupid to know that Aryans were from Northern India rather than the blonde, blue-eyed Nordics you imagine. How the needle punctures your petty balloons! My advice: Build a bunker and wait for FEMA to come get your guns. Like a cockroach.
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 06:15 PM
Awwww. NTROST was nice enough to write me personally. I have to share it, mainly cause it's funny, but also because it's a wonderful display of desperate shrieking and "inapprehensive" vocabulary. He just can't help himself. Much punching of nut. I suspect he may even have won a beauty pagaent once and such.
"Yawn...Do you spew B.S. for a living? You do it very well. Why am I going to go look for links for a moronic half-wit such as yourself who can't even grasp the most competent basics of facts. You can't even apprehend the context of what you are reading from your so-called "sources"...it's just so damn funny. Oh yes...Wikipedia is factual site (sarcasm.) By the way, every website has somewhat a editorial process but that don't mean jacks***. You even seem to be showing your true colors as a full-fledge bigot as it appears since now, you seem to be going on a anti-white rant & going off course & such (Calling Jesse Jackson...lol.) Yet again, you are a bonafide tool. I also love your fictious theories & abberrations on how I presumably think & whatever such nonsense you are ranting about. You are a pawn without question.
P.S. I already proved your Rock assumption wrong & imprudent & now as well as your Denzel conjecture. Yeah, Denzel's film...wait...it's actually a two man film with Denzel Washington AND Ryan Reynolds who are both top billed. So, it's really NOT just Denzel's film by any means. By the way, the film wasn't even number #1 in its 1st week. Not dissing or taking anything away from Denzel, Ryan or anything but my point though is I just can't stand your inaccurate, misguided & injudiciously inapprehensive B.S. on film let alone on demographics, cultural & such. By the way, the white cultural isn't becoming irrelevent by any means but I'm not going to get into all that so I will digress but for the bigot you are...you can keep thinking that in your ignorantly blissful world of yours. Simply put...just STFU! already. There should just be an editorial process simply for you to make you irrelevent. Now, please you ignorant child...go back into your little hole you came from."
How can I argue with such lucid reason?
Dave J. on 02-23-2012 04:50 PM
Ntrost, weren't you the guy that believed Martin Luther King JR was a Communist and a traitor to the US! Just wondering NTrost, do you still believe this to be true!
Doc.Bamf on 02-21-2012 07:22 PM
I'm really not for the 'majority rule'. I see a problem and the way people are currently handling it and it doesn't seem to be working. 'Ethics' as an argument doesn't seem to be working. If someone is really committed to change, you find another way to accomplish it, especially if the one you are trying doesn't seem to be working.
Your examples regarding the marketability of minority filmmakers are good ones, but there AREN'T ENOUGH. More examples are needed and not being provided because minorities are denied making it that far in the process.
I find it hard to believe that you really think I would sit here and have an argument about ethics if I really didn't think they were important. My concluding comment on my first post was to reiterate the perspective of a film CEO or 'industry mover'. But, at least we managed to get to the point of my initial post: How do you convince someone (be it a corporation, an industry, or someone who posts in a forum) who cares solely about money that diversity is important?
An answer to that question provides a different way to attack the problem of lack of diversity in venues such as the film industry.
Janson J. on 02-22-2012 11:16 AM
'Ethics' as an argument doesn't seem to be working.
You need to elaborate on this before I can answer your question. Obviously, just the fact that you ask the question shows an ethical breakdown in society over the last decade or two. It's a similar question to asking "How can you convince me not to rob a bank - legality aside" or "How can you convince me not to drown babies - morality aside". The problem is that we're seeing a much more socially irresponsible form of hypercapitalism, really a State Monopoly Capitalism where the government (through lobbying and unlimited campaign "speech") has shifted to protecting multi and transnational corporate iterests over the rights of citizens. How do I convince them that media consolidation into fewer, familial or fraternal, hands is unethical? The fact is they probably know and simply don't care. As far as I can see, few people are willing to hold them to account, and I see a growing trend that is increasingly deferential to Power (might makes right), and unfortunately, largely because of such degraded education standards as No Child Left Behind, many students educated in public schools over the last decade do not understand why such authoritarian attitudes run counter to the momentum of American civil rights from the Bill of Rights to the 14th and 19th Amendments. The financial incentive for studios to deny minority employment is illusory. Every other global market - Asia, Latin America, Middle East - eat up American films with no regard for whether or not these films include people who look like them on the screen. America is the only audience that is apparently unwilling to watch films from people who don't look like them. That's the Dogma anyway, as we've seen an increasing amount of success with films that feature multi-cultural and multi-ethnic casts and settings. Nicholas Cage might have the complexion for the collection, but Denzel's kicking his ass right now. So ask yourself, or ask these studio executives, exactly why it is that Nic Cage has such an easier time getting his films made (something like 3 a year) and on screens than Denzel? Movies like "Walk Hard" and "I'm Still Here" showed full frontal male nudity. Maybe "Shame"'s problem was having a black director. These inconsistancies become ridiculous after awile.