The Smiths ( Jada ) gets smacked down- Page 4

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 7:31pm

Hear, hear Namo!

[javero]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:27pm

+1 for Mr Roxy's suggestion of term limits for Academy voters.  Done with Jada so I'm veering slightly off topic.

 

 To me, the most annoying aspect of this latest voting debacle is the utter lack of transparency.  The voting members are unknown and the judging criteria unpublicized, as I understand it.  The result is a process which is as subjective as picking a Miss Universe or high school class officers.  Considering that the USA's leading export is its intellectual property led by movies, those statuettes potentially translate into better offers for actors and screenwriters, as well as smoother paths to distribution for indie filmmakers.  And increasingly, overseas receipts are becoming the life blood of non-tent-pole feature film which tend to be less conventional in terms of subject matter and cast [cite needed].  As is, election into the Oscar canon is NOT a meritocracy.  Need proof, click the link below.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-no-776207

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:38pm

Well, just that they're overwhelmingly male, white and an average age of 63.

 

 

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 6:38am

Javero---the voting members ARE known. They are the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, some 5000+ voters. There are lists of the current membership floating around all the time. The various branches inside the Academy nominate their own, so the Actors Branch nominates actors, the Directors Branch nominates directors, etc. The rules for nominating and voting are public and on their website. No mystery about it. As for terms? These aren't elected officials, they join the academy based on their merit (decided on by the membership committee), and while I agree that there are too many "older white guys" in the Academy, term limits implies that artistic merit has a shelf life and that older people aren't artistic, and that's an ageist notion. They do need younger members however to balance it out.

 

Also, merit is typically earned over time (although not always), and time and experience are benefits that come with age.

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 06:38 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 7:22am

The Academy needs to overhaul their voting process as well.

 

I've read some interesting pieces on the this topic in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter and a lot of people think that Compton was on a majority of ballots, but the preferential voting system meant it didn't make the cut.

 

The major issue that must be addressed however is the membership. Apparently the consensus is that Academy recruitment must be overhauled. Cheryl Boone already did that when she became president, but it will take several years to start seeing a difference in the make up of the Academy body.

 

There are however some really good ideas floating around about how to fix the recruitment problem quickly, and it looks like some of them will be implemented.

 

 

 

From a piece in EW:

A 2012 Los Angeles Times study found that the roughly 6,000-member Academy is nearly 94 percent Caucasian and 77 percent male, with a median age of 62. Invitations to join the elite organization are typically limited to high-ranking professionals who are nominated by at least two peers; once admitted, membership is for life. Since Boone Isaacs was hired in 2013, the organization has added more members than usual, including many women and minorities, and she affirmed her commitment to that mission, vowing in a statement, “In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.” For many, progress can’t come soon enough. “If we keep adding women and minorities at the rate we do, how long will it take? A hundred years?” asks one actress Academy member. “We can’t wait that long.” So how does the Academy fix its broken system?

DIVERSIFY MEMBERSHIP 
Should the Academy add 1,000 new members? Should it admit only people of color for the next five years? That may seem extreme, but there’s no question that young, diverse talent would shift the kinds of stories and performances Oscar celebrates. “I do think [this] has to do with recruitment,” says one Academy governor. “I don’t think everyone is aware of who’s out there making good movies, minority or not.” 

REEXAMINE VOTING
To determine the Best Picture nominees, members select five films in order of preference. That voting is weighted, meaning that first-place votes matter more than third-place ones. Some believe Compton received votes, just not enough in first or second place. Others speculate that voters never watched the N.W.A biopic. “I think the older members didn’t think it was a movie for them,” says one member. Adds another: “I haven’t seen every movie. Who has that kind of time? Especially when you’ve got to watch Making a Murderer.” The Academy might want to determine Best Picture the way it does Best Foreign Language Film: A diverse committee would choose the nominees and then members could only vote if they had seen all the films.

CONSIDER OUSTERS
Should someone be an active member of the Academy if he hasn’t worked in 25 years? Perhaps it’s time to allow only those people currently working, or mentoring young talent, to vote. It might help prevent conventional sensibilities from becoming entrenched. “Change is coming,” says an Academy member. “It’ll probably get more messy before it gets better … but that’s fine.”

 

 

 

Link to full EW article

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 7:27am

I've read some interesting pieces on the this topic in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter and a lot of people think that Compton was on a majority of ballots, but the preferential voting system meant it didn't make the cut.

 

I HATE that voting system for Best Picture. And I hate that they have more than five in the Best Picture category. The top five vote-getters get on the ballot. Period. No gerrymandering, slide-rule math needed. Just honor the ones with the most votes. The current rule is a joke.

[javero]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:45am

Thanks for clearing that up, best12bars.  I always appreciate your encyclopedic knowledge of the inner working of the film industry.  As someone now in the 50+ column, I in no way endorse any practice that could be regarded as ageist.  But, I'm really grappling with the following excerpt.

 

"Perhaps it’s time to allow only those people currently working, or mentoring young talent, to vote. It might help prevent conventional sensibilities from becoming entrenched."

 

Interestingly enough, in my field, software development, the most innovative individuals would be considered kids by Academy standards.  There aren't shackled by conventional sensibilities, past practices, or decades-old technical standards much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues who are industry stalwarts.  There's even a concept known as destructive innovation that fuels most of Silicon Valley.  I wonder what the result would be if a group of ambitious upstarts decided that they could make more future-forward movies and distribute them more efficiently than the current Hollywood standard bearers.  What I'm getting at is, where is the group of technology savvy rouge filmmakers, micro-financiers, distributors, and next-gen digital cinema owners willing to turn the domestic film industry on its head akin to Uber's shake-up of the taxicab industry?  Ironically, Uber isn't even considered a disruptive force but don't tell cab operators that.

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 09:45 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 9:56am

Those in the technical categories need different rules for obvious reasons.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:15am

Interestingly enough, in my field, software development, the most innovative individuals would be considered kids by Academy standards.  There aren't shackled by conventional sensibilities, past practices, or decades-old technical standards much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues who are industry stalwarts.

 

Yes, but you're talking about technical innovation, not artistic merit. They aren't the same thing. Artistic merit may be achieved by traditional methods, or even bygone methods, as well. "The Artist" went back to silent, black-and-white-film, shot at 1.37:1 (Academy Ratio) and picked up the Best Picture prize (deservedly).

 

It's not always about "new." It should always be about "good" however (and often isn't). Again, they aren't the same thing, though.

[javero]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 11:57am

Yes, but you're talking about technical innovation, not artistic merit. They aren't the same thing.

 

I take your point, bestie.  To me it goes back to the old saying that one person's trash is another's treasure and vice versa.  With Netflix and Amazon now dabbling in the original content space, consumers increasingly have options to both tradition studio fare & distributors.  The nascent Internet producers are likely to inspire tons of copycats with Silicon Valley bonafides.  The party line right now is that the upstarts simply want to fill a niche neglected by Hollywood which I believe to be stealth.  They want all the marbles including Oscar awards for Best Picture.  If they don't get a seat at the table, history has shown that they'll take down the incumbents and hold fire sales to celebrate.  They pose a much larger threat to the establishment than Jada Pinkett Smith.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-says-it-will-save-the-mid-level-movie-2015-10

 

ETA: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-hollywood-20160118-story.html

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 11:57 AM

[JM226]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 12:49pm

hi everyone. my good friend Nick created a video recently about hubert's speech. enjoy 

 

https://www.facebook.com/nick.r.burroughs/videos/10153839994768745/

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 12:49 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 1:37pm

Javero, you open up a whole new can of worms that hasn't been flagged yet. Netflix is producing original content when they were operating prior as a facilitator of content from multiple sources (the networks, HBO, HGTV, PBS, the film studios, etc.).

 

When the big movie studios (the content creators) tried to own and operate their own theatres and chains (the content facilitators) until the late 1940s, that was ruled to be in violation of antitrust laws. The case was decided in the US Supreme Court, and it made the studios, owned by their parent-company distributors, sell off the theatres. That essentially killed the "golden age" of the studio system in Hollywood.

 

With Netflix, a facilitator of content, also offering exclusive content through their own facilitator arm, it sounds a whole lot to me like the same thing, only different technology. I imagine this will end up in the Supreme Court soon enough as well.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 1:44pm

Of course the best part about the old studio system was that big-budget popular projects were allowed to run side by side with smaller, riskier projects in the same big theatres. The audiences came out the winners, because they saw a variety of movies, and the studio was a little more comfortable taking risks, knowing their films would reach the same audiences, since they were owned by the theatre chains (for example, MGM's parent company was Loewe's).

 

That changed when the ruling broke up the partnering of studios with theatre chains.

[Petralicious]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 4:23pm

Can someone who is nominated for an actor award like Mark Ruffalo who may boycott the ceremony refuse his nomination? 

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 4:27pm

George C. Scott refused his nomination for "Patton" prior to the awards. He said he didn't believe in actors competing like that. Then he won it anyway, which he also refused. His award was kept at the Academy offices on Wilshire. Probably still there now.

 

EDIT: So to clarify, when he publicly refused the nomination, the Academy didn't remove his name from the final ballot, unlike when William Daniels and Julie Andrews refused their Tony nominations (for 1776 and Victor-Victoria). Their names were removed from the final voting ballots.

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 04:27 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 10:13am

I hate when celebrities I love say stupid and ignorant things (see Barry Humphries) -

 

Charlotte Rampling comments

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 10:13 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 10:20am

Nothing like old British people to get to the root of racial discord!

 

 

Best, I thought Julie Andrews was left on the ballot?  They still read her name as a nominee prior to giving the award.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 1:56pm

My bad, Phyllis. Julie publicly refused the nomination, but they did leave her name on throughout the process.

 

William Daniels' name was taken off the ballot (at his request), and it was removed from their nominees list. He's no longer listed as a nominee (for Best Featured Actor) for "1776."

 

EDIT: I just Googled it, and it seems there wasn't enough time to remove Julie Andrews' name from the ballots before they hit the mail. She declined the nomination (in a speech on stage) the week before they went out.

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 01:56 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 3:55pm

Charlotte Rampling improves the odds that she won't win Best Actress this year.

 

Insert foot in mouth and piss off all minority Academy Members.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 6:31pm

Do you have me blocked, best12?

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 9:48am

"

This lack of diversity is reflected in who votes for the Oscars.

Oscar Voters: 94% White, 76% Men, and an Average of 63 Years Old

Older and more dude-heavy than just about any place in America and whiter than all but seven states

"It comes from a recent Los Angeles Times survey of the 6,028 Academy Award voters, which also found that the population is 76 percent men with an average age of 63. Broadway might be the Great White Way, but it has nothing on the great male whiteness of Hollywood's Academy."

 

Amazing how the Tony awards don't seem to have this problem with African-American's being nominated/winning and I am willing to bet the majority of the voters are white and over 50. The only difference is that there are probably more women who vote for the Tony's than Oscars. There does not seem to be any problem with the Emmy's either so it makes you wonder why is there a problem with the Oscars but not these other awards when the decision makers are pretty much the same age and color.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 10:01am

Will Smith has been nominated twice (Ali, The Pursuit Of Happiness) for Best Actor and he lost to Denzel Washington and Forrest Whittaker. Somehow these academy voters that are old and white men nominated two African-American actors for Best Actor in those two years. 

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 10:15am

Two years out of eighty-eight is not a great record.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 2:44pm

"Two years out of eighty-eight is not a great record."

 

Cmon, it is not that bad. I thought I would check and I discovered that Denzel Washington for example has been nominated 6 times for Academy Award (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor) and has won twice. 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 2:53pm

Congrats!  You fixed racism!