|
Neil Patrick Harris making the single "lol we're so white joke" last year seemed obligatory rather than cathartic. So I'm glad Chris Rock will be hosting, because he might go farther in calling the Academy out. But it probably still won't convince me to tune in to see what happens.
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
I'm only familiar with Eddie Redmayne from Pillars of the Earth; I haven't seen Les Mis, Theory of Everything, Jupiter, or Danish. I get the impression that none of those movies were amazing. I don't blame him for taking Oscar-baity roles. He's a conventionally handsome actor with a very "period drama" look to him. Of course, that doesn't explain Jupiter Ascending. That being said, when I see other men bash Eddie Redmayne, I think that's the closest I'll get to understanding why women hate on young actresses like Jennifer Lawrence or Anne Hathaway for doing little to earn that malice. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wouldn't be for making a rule about the nominees, but I'd certainly love to take a look at the voters and try to get some youth and diversity in there. I doubt formally boycotting the Oscars will directly effect any change, but I'm all for it just for the "gently caress It; Just gently caress It" angle. I'm sick of the entertainment industry getting all the credit for the most toothless gestures of diversity and none of the blame for its systemic racism. Almost nobody gets fired for being racist.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
gently caress Argo and gently caress Ben Affleck. A movie where Hollywood gets to be the hero? I wonder if that gels well with the Academy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Argo was also a symptom of Hollywood's racism. Would it have been considered a prestige thriller had Affleck cast a Hispanic or latino actor as the lead role instead of himself? Okay, that's a trick question; Affleck was never going to cast anyone but himself as the main hero. (now cue the people trying to argue that Tony Mendez isn't latino...)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Crash has aged the worst by far. Actually, it sucked at its time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
I think Mad Max might win because having a "geek favorite" win Best Picture might be the third option they go for to win some goodwill after the whole "The Oscars are racist" thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
It's okay to add to it. Hollywood and the Oscars still haven't taken enough poo poo for it. The "reforms" the Academy passed purges inactive members of the Academy, but won't shake up who's gatekeeping films from getting made and recognized. If anything it's increasing the net influence of a few core Hollywood assholes. If more black actors get nominated next year, it'll only be because of the memory of the backlash from this year. Don't be surprised at all in two or three years it'll be 20 white acting nominees again. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
ROTK sweeping was one of the few times I was okay with the result, compared to the film geek backlash against it. I don't want to see people get into any rants over which LOTR film really should have been the one that got recognized, but ROTK was a This Is Why I Sometimes Love Movies movie. Anyway, I'm really hoping Chris Rock goes way farther than NPH did in ripping into the Academy's racism. I still think Mad Max has a strong shot precisely because of the "angry at Hollywood" climate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I'm not following the logic here. You think Hollywood is angry at itself? Likewise, Mad Max seems like a decent populist and geek-friendly choice if they want to try to push aside all the bad PR from that huge racism issue, you know... without changing how Hollywood works in general. The political climate seems to be factor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I dunno, that reasoning seems flimsy. High grossing trash comes out every year and they award a prestige drama almost every other year. The political climate is definitely a factor but the backlash is about minority representation, not populism. Awarding Mad Max wouldn't address the issue. They're not trying to appease geeks, they're trying to appease minorities and others who are vocal about the lack of representation, which they can't do with the current slate of nominees. The best they could do is award The Revenant but they just gave that guy an Oscar last year so there's probably not as much impetus. This is seriously the whitest Best Picture slate since probably 2010. If they want to go "social conscience" it will probably be Spotlight. I'm not saying X directly causes Y, but the climate seems to be like Hollywood really wants their cheerleaders (people who promote their movies for free aka film geeks who blog and review movies, etc.) to like Hollywood again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:No dude the geek crowd is not the driving factor, your user name is an apt explanation for why you think that though. There are a lot of people to whom the treatment and portrayal of minorities is a very real issue, not just a fun topic for a thinkpiece to guestwrite on Slate or whatever, and they are very vocal as well, you probably just don't run in their circles and that's okay. I like Fury Road but giving a mostly-white geek scifi movie best picture wouldn't really mean anything to most of the people who are upset by the whiteness of Hollywood. Like I said it's to shift the attention away, consciously or unconsciously. For Hollywood, getting white people to shut up is good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 22:03
|
|