Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Academy has probably made the only change it needed--which had been pushed in 1970 by Gregory Peck--that would increase the influence of active members and reduce the influence of inactive members.
What does this do? It means that the people who are involved with the current state of moviemaking--which involved many aspects, not just racism--will be the ones with the most influence in the Academy. It's not more influence for black or white or old or young or male or female, but of those who are involved right now.
I don't know why they can't make the nominations uniform.That would help as much as the changes being offered which are merely cosmetic in nature.
I don't know why they can't make the nominations uniform.That would help as much as the changes being offered which are merely cosmetic in nature.
I would point again to the fact that these changes were proposed by Academy president Gregory Peck 46 years ago and may have (AFAIK) been proposed numerous times.
Thus, the basic reason for giving more influence to members who are active in the business is probably a more substantial issue than it appears from the outside and may have more effect than we think. I suspect there are a lot of members who are annoyed that people who haven't done anything in the business this century have as much influence as any mover and shaker today.
I would point again to the fact that these changes were proposed by Academy president Gregory Peck 46 years ago and may have (AFAIK) been proposed numerous times.
Thus, the basic reason for giving more influence to members who are active in the business is probably a more substantial issue than it appears from the outside and may have more effect than we think. I suspect there are a lot of members who are annoyed that people who haven't done anything in the business this century have as much influence as any mover and shaker today.
I agree that it is a start but I feel the change may work or may not. A larger class don't hurt best picture prestige do i still fail to see what is wrong with a enlarged acting category.
Well, it isn't entirely Caucasian. And there is a black nominee, a pop singer.
But is it the nomination process or the casting and hiring processees? Or perhaps its whether studios are doing the promoting (spending the money) it takes to campaign a picture for nomination?
This is like accusing a college of not having enough black PhDs or the military of not having enough black generals. What's going into the front end of the pipe?
It's one thing to say that in a given year, there weren't any black people who made the short list for Best Actor or Actress or Supporting. But to say that no black person involved in filmmaking contributed anything worthy of a nomination in any category is hard to believe.
I've seen the Academy praise forgettable and undeserving productions, as well as ignore productions that everyone, including scholars and the National Film Registry, consider timeless classics. I don't trust the Academy, and I don't buy the argument that it was somehow "a bad year" for black people in film.
It's too bad that the Oscars are still considered a gold standard of quality filmmaking, when their voting record has shown that it's more complicated than that. I want people in the industry to win awards based on merit and not identity, but this looks like extreme oversight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.