You’re not wrong but this is the most recent example that stings the most. What he did prior doesn’t excuse it and I don’t buy the practical explanations at all...I just don’t, sorry. Especially when Terrio tripped all over himself trying to explain it.

The problem is not with the award bodies. Let's remember that the academy does not hold a joint meeting where they decide who to nominate. It's an anonymous poll where they choose who they HONESTLY think the best candidates are. There's no way to really "decide" collectively on who the nominees are or who should or shouldn't be nominated. Hopefully, and I do believe that, it's not based on color or ethnicity but on quality of work. I know the stats are not in their favor for such leeway but there's something else to consider.

The problem is not the "evil" academy who is basically composed of some of the most liberal people in the business. It's the opportunities that minorities don't get on the studio level. Simple maths and probability tells you that if 95% of Hollywood movies are directed by men, it will be hard for women to be nominated. There's only a 5% chance of that so iwith only five nominees, it's logical men would be nominated more often and there's nothing the academy can do about it without their choices being disingenuous for the sake of inclusivity.

There needs to be a systemic change in Hollywood before people start being unnecessarily angry at awards bodies. People are directing their anger at the wrong place and just nominating women or minorities for the sake of it won't fix the problem at all. I'm sure minority directors/actors would prefer more work than a gold, essentially meaningless, statue. We can talk about more parity in nominations but after we get to a point where women finally get to direct a significant % of studio movies and minorities are more prominent in lead roles.

LelekPL wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2020, 9:15 am

The problem is not with the award bodies. Let's remember that the academy does not hold a joint meeting where they decide who to nominate. It's an anonymous poll where they choose who they HONESTLY think the best candidates are. There's no way to really "decide" collectively on who the nominees are or who should or shouldn't be nominated. Hopefully, and I do believe that, it's not based on color or ethnicity but on quality of work. I know the stats are not in their favor for such leeway but there's something else to consider.

The problem is not the "evil" academy who is basically composed of some of the most liberal people in the business. It's the opportunities that minorities don't get on the studio level. Simple maths and probability tells you that if 95% of Hollywood movies are directed by men, it will be hard for women to be nominated. There's only a 5% chance of that so iwith only five nominees, it's logical men would be nominated more often and there's nothing the academy can do about it without their choices being disingenuous for the sake of inclusivity.

There needs to be a systemic change in Hollywood before people start being unnecessarily angry at awards bodies. People are directing their anger at the wrong place and just nominating women or minorities for the sake of it won't fix the problem at all. I'm sure these minority directors would prefer more work than a gold, essentially meaningless, statue.

Well said. When Stephen King essentially said the same thing, Duvernay went off on him and essentially said he was ignorant. She's becoming obnoxious. King has been clear that you should base awards on quality AND at the same time, Hollywood should make an effort to give more opportunities to minority voices and their stories. Duvernay can't seem to comprehend you can advocate for both things.

Ozymandias wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2020, 9:24 am

LelekPL wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2020, 9:15 am

The problem is not with the award bodies. Let's remember that the academy does not hold a joint meeting where they decide who to nominate. It's an anonymous poll where they choose who they HONESTLY think the best candidates are. There's no way to really "decide" collectively on who the nominees are or who should or shouldn't be nominated. Hopefully, and I do believe that, it's not based on color or ethnicity but on quality of work. I know the stats are not in their favor for such leeway but there's something else to consider.

The problem is not the "evil" academy who is basically composed of some of the most liberal people in the business. It's the opportunities that minorities don't get on the studio level. Simple maths and probability tells you that if 95% of Hollywood movies are directed by men, it will be hard for women to be nominated. There's only a 5% chance of that so iwith only five nominees, it's logical men would be nominated more often and there's nothing the academy can do about it without their choices being disingenuous for the sake of inclusivity.

There needs to be a systemic change in Hollywood before people start being unnecessarily angry at awards bodies. People are directing their anger at the wrong place and just nominating women or minorities for the sake of it won't fix the problem at all. I'm sure these minority directors would prefer more work than a gold, essentially meaningless, statue.

Well said. When Stephen King essentially said the same thing, Duvernay went off on him and essentially said he was ignorant. She's becoming obnoxious. King has been clear that you should base awards on quality AND at the same time, Hollywood should make an effort to give more opportunities to minority voices and their stories. Duvernay can't seem to comprehend you can advocate for both things.

I don’t give King a pass here though because he’s an insider. While he’s probably completely powerless, he and others still need to work to change the problems in the industry. There are problems. That said, King voting for minorities instead of white men won’t do anything to fix the problems.

The American Cinema Editors Guild gave out their awards tonight, and Jojo Rabbit won for best edited comedy film while Parasite won for best edited drama film.

This is the first time that the winners at Toronto, Venice and Cannes are all in the race for Oscar.

Maybe there are issues of race and gender, who knows. It's difficult to tell when to begin with these Award shows tend to appease whatever the mainstream narrative is, and that really seems to start with the festivals where a small random group of people initiate the kind of conversation that follows the films. And it's fairly difficult to get around to see all the films produced in a year, so most people only tend to make time for the films that are being talked about the most. When you actually get around to seeing the films that have the most exciting language and dialogue around them, like Parasite for example, which is being marketed as something unusual, unique, and different, you find yourself sort of underwhelmed. It seems like such a safe standard commercial choice. Surely, Korea has something more interesting to offer. Or when you consider a film like The Lighthouse, where the experience of the acting performance is so tangible in that you actually see the actors doing things to each other and grinding against each other. How do you not give more weight to that?

1917 won the Producers Guild Award tonight. Should be interesting to see what wins Best Ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

I try not to get upset by the Oscars anymore and remind my self in the long run it's meaningless. But, if "1917" wins over "Parasite" or "OUATIH"...

radewart wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2020, 11:46 am

I try not to get upset by the Oscars anymore and remind my self in the long run it's meaningless. But, if "1917" wins over "Parasite" or "OUATIH"...

imo, it's better than both of those and I really liked those films but I had more issues with them, whereas almost everything clicked with 1917.