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.
OK, as to your first paragraph we mostly agree. I still see an issue with 100% blind casting, in the sense that I do not trust most of Hollywood to cast a "blank" role with a minority instead of a more marketable white star (and why are they marketable? They got more roles so they are more visible...cycle starts again). But, we do see minor improvement with huge movies like The Martian, as you said and with Star Wars.
The second one, nope and that's ridiculous and hyperbolic. As an Italian myself, I am not even going to touch that.
Yes, I think ones of the problems is that casting directors and producers just think of white actors for most roles. I mean, if the role is specifically about an Italian or Irishman than I can understand -- but most roles a person of color could play.
Also, I agree that most roles are created to be filled with big (mostly white, mostly male) stars. I am sure many roles are created with someone like Tom Hanks in mind (does any other actor create so much good will among fans? I've watched him since his Bosom Buddies days ).
Although Denzel Washington is one that made the big breakthrough (I've enjoyed his work since his St. Elsewhere days ).
So it appears now that the Academy is going to move from lifetime membership to 10-year memberships, renewable if the member has remained active in the industry; and the rule will be retroactive.
So they've moved from maybe discriminating against minorities and women to definitely discriminating against older members, including many legendary members of the film industry.
This may actually help with another issue in the academy, those who vote without seeing all the movies and/or performances nominated. There's several who never saw some movies such as nominations for best animated and voted on what they saw.
So it appears now that the Academy is going to move from lifetime membership to 10-year memberships, renewable if the member has remained active in the industry; and the rule will be retroactive.
So they've moved from maybe discriminating against minorities and women to definitely discriminating against older members, including many legendary members of the film industry.
I'm not seeing a real problem with the membership rules.
1. Members must "be active in motion pictures" during each ten years of membership in order to be active voters. "Active in motion pictures" is a pretty broad criterion.
2. Members who have been "active in motion pictures" for three decades (apparently not three consecutive decades), get lifetime membership.
3. Members who have been nominated for an Academy award get lifetime membership.
4. Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status. Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting.
That's only going to affect people who have not maintained any activity in the motion picture industry for years and years...seems entirely reasonable to me, and not targeting anyone except those who are not truly serious in the business.
No enough though to say Creed could have replaced one of those (The Big Short) and replace another (Bridge of Spies) in best picture...
I saw Creed. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say its an Oscar movie. Its Rocky 7. There wasn't anything original about the movie. If you've seen any of the previous 6 movies, you knew the plot.
I think the actual problem with Oscars is money and PR to encourage the Academy members to consider the films with minorities. The studios simply dropped the ball on certain films. It is similar to US elections. Candidates have a very difficult time getting potential voters to consider them if there is very little money to spend. So candidates and super PACs accumulate massive amounts of funds for promotion. In essence, the studios need to spend similar amounts of money for all films that need consideration by the different branches of the Academy.
Now, THIS, right here, is another root of the problem. I was told, years ago, that these awards, from pre-nomination to 'the winner is' is a big lobbying campaign.
Some companies may not have the financial backing to push their movie, or some may just choose not to push it.
There was reference to 'Italian typecasting'. Just recently, a musician I know posted an announcement of a gig he has with Vincent Pastore. Folk responded, "say hi to *****"! One will admit, typecasting isn't just a black thing!
Yes, possibly there are not the opportunities there should be, but in many movies or TV shows, there are and have always been characters of all backgrounds. Maybe enough stories are not written, but there have been good roles and winners. I recall when Halle Berry won some years back, she had also mentioned in her speech how women like herself had not been nominated enough or won. However, there have been others since in leading and supporting roles who have done so. I think there may not be enough great roles offered or better films made.
There are not very many well formed stories and opportunities for people of color.. an you imagine how frustrating it would be if the only roles available were drug deal #1, head drug dealer, drug lord, nanny, housekeeper, janitor, thug on the corner, sassy friend.....
This video is an excellent summation of how many non-white actors and actresses feel.
Just because Stallone apparently gave an Oscar worthy performance, that doesn't mean that Jordan necessarily did. SomeONE can give a stellar performance in a movie that otherwise stinks to high heaven. I'm not saying Creed did or didn't. Just that one performance doesn't mean anything for the rest of the cast or the film itself.
You mean Stallone played the same role he has been playing his entire career, and now it is suddenly Oscar worthy? Sure.....
So it appears now that the Academy is going to move from lifetime membership to 10-year memberships, renewable if the member has remained active in the industry; and the rule will be retroactive.
So they've moved from maybe discriminating against minorities and women to definitely discriminating against older members, including many legendary members of the film industry.
There are not very many well formed stories and opportunities for people of color.. an you imagine how frustrating it would be if the only roles available were drug deal #1, head drug dealer, drug lord, nanny, housekeeper, janitor, thug on the corner, sassy friend.....
This video is an excellent summation of how many non-white actors and actresses feel.
I'd love to see a "black" movie that has nothing to do with Civil Rights or slavery.
I am no fan of Oscar movies in general, but representation is important.
That was good.
I recall being aware of how there are usually a concentration of silly, caricature-type roles, dumb comedies or romance rather than strong, leading dramatic roles and better stories for Black actors. There typically aren't more mainstream roles it seems (as a lead character George Clooney might play), such as a "successful guy dealing with divorce / death and having to now focus more upon his kids", etc., for instance. It doesn't have to be a "down on his luck" character or criminal, etc., (and isn't always), but there should be more of a balance of available roles, besides ones demanding an overall black cast and storyline. It just seems there are not enough stories developed to reflect real-life personalities, when in real life there exist educated, well-off individuals in high places.
Having seen tons of movies (and TV shows) in my lifetime, I know there can always be a mix of characters in many of them, but often the black male or female plays the sidekick role or some stereotype, instead of making the white person a sidekick or the poor family. (I'm Caucasion, but have been aware of this being unbalanced for years).
It appears I may have seen more movies than some and as I mentioned prior, actors go without being nominated, no matter what. I was surprised last year when Zach Galifinakis was not nominated for his role in "Birdman", though the film got several other nominations and awards. He was one aspect that made it good and was nice to see him in a more "real" character than he has done. Years ago, Dustin Hoffman did not win for playing "Ratzo Rizzo" in "Midnight Cowboy" nor did his costar, Jon Voight, though nominated. They were both tremendous and it won Best Picture and other awards.
I understand that this seems to represent more of an issue, but ultimately, it is an awards show. I get the feeling that after Jada initially reacted, which might have been due to mood or other aspects, she may have realized she had overracted, but did not want to recant her stance, either. Otherwise, as with anyone, they would have accepted it, gone to the show, been interviewed on the Red Carpet, maybe being presenters, gone to the party and hung out with friends as usual. I do watch awards shows for the spontaneity and entertainment - afterall, I love movies and like to examine all the artistry involved.
Last edited by In2itive_1; 01-23-2016 at 04:13 AM..
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.
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.
). 
