Posted: 1/24/16 at 4:13pm
I'mm convinced that Dave's synapses have quit working. No use trying to help him see the light.
Posted: 1/24/16 at 4:36pm
I have no interest in helping him see the light. I'm just reminding him that we can see through him.
I came across a paragraph in an Atlantic article today that just nails this (and Dave19) perfectly:
In her research and her book, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success", [psychologist Carol] Dweck details the ways a growth mindset (the belief that traits like intelligence and talent can be developed through sustained effort over time) leads to greater success than a fixed mindset (the belief that individual qualities are set for life). Those in a fixed mindset, she argues, often fail to see feedback as an opportunity for learning, and are more likely to view criticism as a personal attack. Conversely, those in a growth mindset tend to be more open to learning from their mistakes, taking risks, and pursuing self-improvement. Dweck’s belief, now widely accepted, is that mindset can be changed, and that a person can move from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset. -- Kari Leibowitz, "The Norwegian Town Where the Sun Doesn't Rise," The Atlantic, Jul. 1, 2015
Updated On: 1/24/16 at 04:36 PM
Posted: 1/24/16 at 4:56pm
So Dave, you claim that the Academy voters were not racist in their nominations, and that they simply voted for the best performances. Now how did you get inside each and every voter's mind to know that none of them are racist?
Posted: 1/24/16 at 5:23pm
Dave19 said: "I will also answer yours. Why it matters to me? Because I have seen all the films and performances and I completely agree that the best performances were nominated. Any other outcome than this would have been unfair.
You've seen EVERY eligible film released in 2015? All 305?
And you agree with EVERY SINGLE nomination?
You peddle a lot of bull on this board, but goddamn.
Updated On: 1/24/16 at 05:23 PM
Posted: 1/24/16 at 7:45pm
Jane2 said: "So Dave, you claim that the Academy voters were not racist in their nominations, and that they simply voted for the best performances. Now how did you get inside each and every voter's mind to know that none of them are racist?"
Did you get inside each and every mind to know that they are?
The same people complain that the Disney film Frozen is racist too.
Just because you would like to have seen a certain race in something and you feel disappointed doesn't mean others are racist.
Posted: 1/24/16 at 7:50pm
You dance around the actual issue: Society-wide institutional racism. You can keep repeated "NUH-UH" all you want, but how about a comment on how many eligible films you've seen. Will you Palin out on this one too? "Um, err, ALL of em, Katie! I saw all of 'em!"
Posted: 1/24/16 at 8:29pm
"Did you get inside each and every mind to know that they are?"
No, but I am not making such claims, Dave.
YOU are claiming no racism exists and that the nominations were made purely on merit. A conclusion which is humanly impossible to make, Dave.
I am claiming that racism exists and you can't make the general statement you made.
I maintained this same stance in that black playwright vs. "Jane" thread. You cannot make the statement that Jane was a racist. You're not in her head. Now, you cannot state that the entire Academy was not racist.
Bottom line - you just don't know what's in someone's heart and mind, so don't claim that you do.
Updated On: 1/24/16 at 08:29 PM
Posted: 1/24/16 at 9:20pm
"Basically, read a book and stop trying to Britsplain race to Americans."
Priceless and spot on!
Posted: 1/25/16 at 6:14am
Jane2 said: "I am claiming that racism exists and you can't make the general statement you made."
And I claim that not every situation that happens to not include a black person is racism.
Updated On: 1/25/16 at 06:14 AM
Posted: 1/25/16 at 10:06am
I wouldn't confuse the Motion Picture Academy with the People's Choice Awards, the Critics Choice, or any other critics awards. These aren't popular opinions or outsiders' opinions. It's not even just an industry award, it's an elitist group of peers that are in theory the cream of the crop of their industry. It isn't reflective of a national demographic, it isn't "democratic," and it isn't fair, balanced, and unbiased.
That is also the reason the industry holds this award above all others in its own highest esteem. Because it is a self-congratulatory pat on the back. The award is given to them by "their own," not someone who looks at the industry from an outside perspective, be it professional (as with critics) or "just plain folks."
That said, even though the Academy Award was not created to show you what you feel is the best, it was created as a promotional tool to publicize "excellence" in the art of filmmaking. That's basically like saying, "This isn't about what you think, this is about what WE think, but we want you to like what we think is the best! So what do you think?"
Kinda muddled in its intentions.
I've always had a love-hate relationship with the Oscars. My grandfather was an original member, as an early executive at Warner Bros. I was close friends with a voting member when I lived in Los Angeles, and I went to the Academy for screenings (before screeners) and witnessed the entire voting process from a firsthand perspective. I've watched friends of my parents win awards when I was growing up, and later I watched my own friends win the award.
But ultimately it's just an opinion. A collective opinion of the moment. It isn't a "fact" that anyone was the "best." It's only a fact who won the award. And there will always be a tug of war over whether the voting was fair or corrupt. That's been ongoing since the first ceremony. So nothing has changed in 88 years.
I'm glad for the rule change. It keeps the awards among "active" members in the industry (for the most part, unless you've already worked for 30 years in the business and maintained Academy membership). I'm also glad they will "actively" seek diverse members, although that's a little vague as to how that ideology will be put into practice.
Now I just wish they would get rid of that stupid tallying process for Best Picture, and knock the nominees back down to five, so it really is competitive again. But like you, I will never be fully satisfied with their fixes or changes. And I think they know the public feels this way. And like the creation of the awards themselves, I think they somewhat care, and somewhat don't care about how you feel, one way or the other.
Updated On: 1/25/16 at 10:06 AM
Posted: 1/25/16 at 2:57pm
"
I'm also glad they will "actively" seek diverse members, although that's a little vague as to how that ideology will be put into practice.
Now I just wish they would get rid of that stupid tallying process for Best Picture, and knock the nominees back down to five, so it really is competitive again. "
Ok, they add diversity which is a good thing but African-Americans for example would still be a minority in the voting bloc. You seemed to have excellent knowledge about this subject so tell me if this would really change who gets nominated from year to year.
I agree with you about Best Picture nominations, when they expanded it from 5 to 10 the nomination of a film lost its value to me.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 2:57pm
“If you are trying to have a career, as a black or Hispanic actor in a state – California – where white people are now the minority, and you are being judged by an Academy where the vast majority are white, male, middle-aged and old … well, perhaps that is the wrong yardstick.” -- Ian McKellen
Not surprised we had to get to a gay British actor to find somebody with a deeper understanding of discrimination than "It's racist to whites!".
Updated On: 1/25/16 at 02:57 PM
Posted: 1/25/16 at 3:40pm
Ok, they add diversity which is a good thing but African-Americans for example would still be a minority in the voting bloc. You seemed to have excellent knowledge about this subject so tell me if this would really change who gets nominated from year to year.
I agree with you about Best Picture nominations, when they expanded it from 5 to 10 the nomination of a film lost its value to me.
The reason they expanded the nominees to 10 was to encourage diversity among the pictures that were selected. Movies like The Dark Knight and Dreamgirls and others were cited by name as potentially getting on the list along with the independent films (that few people see) for the elite "screener set" that has become the Academy voters in recent years.
In other words, they tried to manipulate the outcome by decreasing the odds. Guess what? It didn't work. They just get more of the same now. Instead of five nominees that are almost always actor-performance-driven, "little films" with "important" subjects, they now have eight or nine of the same thing.
So what makes them think that by increasing the number of minority voters, they will suddenly have more minority nominees? Again, they're trying to manipulate the votes. I think the problem is two-fold. First of all, there aren't enough minority projects being considered as "Oscar-worthy" material. And when there ARE worthy projects, they often get sabotaged by their own minority voices as falling short of their true potential and ultimately disappointing. As if every minority film or subject matter must fit the "full agenda" of the interested party (is there even such a thing?) or they don't go for it. I've seen wonderful films like "Eve's Bayou" go unnoticed or outwardly dismissed even by minorities.
And the other big problem is the lack of diversity within the Academy members and the "institutionalized racism" that goes along with that.
But "rigging the deck" as it were doesn't necessarily ensure the expected outcome ... especially since we're talking about opinions here. Artistic opinions. Not facts, not a measurable achievement by yards or speed or height.
Just collective opinions.
EDIT: And I am by no means suggesting not to make this change in the Academy membership. I'm only saying, don't anticipate an expected outcome as a result. It's time to diversify regardless of who gets the prizes.
Updated On: 1/25/16 at 03:40 PM
Posted: 1/25/16 at 4:03pm
best12bars said: In other words, they tried to manipulate the outcome by decreasing the odds. Guess what? It didn't work. They just get more of the same now. Instead of five nominees that are almost always actor-performance-driven, "little films" with "important" subjects, they now have eight or nine of the same thing.
The Martian? Mad Max: Fury Road? Avatar? These are not "little films." I think it absolutely did work, I just don't think it was something that was needed, except to boost ratings. The same people who nominate the films (i.e. the entire Academy) are also voting for the winner, so any movie that wouldn't have been one of the five nominees in the old system isn't going to win anyway.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 4:07pm
I stand by my "almost always" comment about little, actor-driven "important" films. A few mega-hits sneak in, but very few. This is a result of the "screener era" that began in the late 1980s and was booming by the year 2000. It changed the viewing behavior of the Academy and also served to disconnect them from the general movie-going audiences.
And as far as it being about boosting ratings? Even before TV it was about that. The award was created as a "positive promotional tool" by the industry itself.
Updated On: 1/28/16 at 04:07 PM
Posted: 1/25/16 at 4:15pm
best12bars said: "I stand by my "almost always" comment about little, actor-driven "important" films. A few mega-hits sneak in, but very few. This is a result of the "screener era" that began in the late 1980s and was booming by the year 2000. It changed the viewing behavior of the Academy.
But do we want more mega-hits to be nominated? Most of them aren't very good. I think we have just enough mega-hits sneaking in. Maybe even too many.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 4:29pm
That would be your opinion. Everyone has one. What isn't an opinion is whether or not a film is popular. That's a fact.
Why it's popular? Again, that's an opinion.
You seem skewed to think that popular films automatically aren't good. Depends on your opinion of "good."
Posted: 1/25/16 at 5:13pm
Not at all. But being popular doesn't make a movie great or award-worthy, and they're very often popular for reasons that have nothing to do with artistic quality. Do you really want a Best Picture roster that includes Jurassic World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Minions, Furious 7, or The Hunger Games: Whatever? We have the People's Choice Awards for that.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 5:18pm
I think the real "bottom line" here is that we are talking about an industry of passionate people, all fighting for their own stories, their own causes, their own perspectives, and their own self identities. It's why many of them became artists to begin with. They fell in love with the medium of film and wanted to "live" in that world.
But not all artists share the same creative agendas (let alone political, religious, or personal).
The reason most nominees are white is because most of the Academy is white, because most of Hollywood is white. The reason most of the Best Picture nominees are actor-driven films (rather than story or action or spectacle-driven) is because most of the Academy members (the majority) are in the Actors Branch.
Maybe intentionally and aggressively stacking the deck will help with diversity ... as long as everyone's "diversity" is considered. Not just black people. Not just gays. Not just women. EVERYONE's agenda.
Good luck with that.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 5:23pm
To partially answer your question hork, I think it's a total joke when a film lands a Best Picture nomination and only manages to score one other acting nomination. What exactly is "best" about it if it fails to be nominated in any other category.
The award is for Best Picture, not Best Movie with Good Acting, or Best Little Quirky Movie on an Important Subject That I Like. It's for overall picture, which includes screenplay, direction, art direction, sound, visual effects, music, editing, costumes, makeup, etc. ... not just acting.
Updated On: 1/25/16 at 05:23 PM
Posted: 1/26/16 at 12:05am
There are 6,261 members of the Academy, and 1,138 in the actors branch. That's nowhere near a majority. Stop making up facts to support your own dubious theories based on your own perceptions (like how most Best Picture nominees are "actor-driven," whatever that means). And saying you don't think Extremely Lame and Incredibly Cloying (the only movie that fits that description you gave) should have been nominated doesn't really answer my question.
Updated On: 1/26/16 at 12:05 AM
Posted: 1/26/16 at 1:06am
I don't believe anyone is suggesting actors or other artists be nominated based on their race. They're suggesting that the Academy be more diverse. That doesn't mean that Will Smith wouldn't vote for Cate Blanchett or that Cate wouldn't vote for Idris Elba. I think Academy president Cheryl Isaacs is doing a fine job of trying to move things forward.
Posted: 1/26/16 at 8:47am
Wilmingtom said: "I don't believe anyone is suggesting actors or other artists be nominated based on their race. "
I think some extremely dumb people in the media are actually suggesting this is happening.
Posted: 1/26/16 at 10:07am
Go argue with them wherever they're doing that. NOT that I trust your interpretation of what they're saying by any means.
Updated On: 1/26/16 at 10:07 AM
Posted: 1/26/16 at 11:20am
hork, are you always this hostile as well as inaccurate?
"Stop making up facts to support your own dubious theories based on your own perceptions."
They aren't made-up facts, pal. You don't have to agree with my opinion based on the facts, but you don't need to be an ass about it, either.
In 2015, they added 322 members, 271 last year, 276 in 2013, far more than in previous recent years, pushing them up over 6,000 in 2015, when in 2012, they were just above 5,000. That's a huge jump in just 4 years.
There are 17 branches in the Academy, and the Actors Branch is by far the largest. It's not a "made up" fact.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
