Forum - View topicAnswerman - What Do The Changes To Oscar Rules Mean For Anime?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
residentgrigo
Posts: 2546 Location: Germany |
|
|||||||||
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/01/22/academy-overhauls-membership-voting-rules-in-response-to-oscars-backlash-over-lack-of-diversity Spike Lee appreciated the changes and gave some fascinating insight here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crSlY4aku2g (Youtube mixed up the titles it seems) |
||||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||||
So what if after all of these changes most of the nominations next year are still white? Does the Academy implode?
Chances are that the nominations will be that way because internationally there's just more white people acting. In conclusion: LeBron was robbed. |
||||||||||
TarsTarkas
Posts: 5914 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||||||||
Was it really that lauded? I remember people saying it seriously glossed over the actual abuse of women. |
||||||||||
katscradle
Posts: 469 |
|
|||||||||
Umm, yeah since Justin brought it up in the article I'm curious to know his feelings on why it's garbage. It's a movie I was thinking of seeing but, I usually have to travel a good distance to a different theater to see something. (Star Wars isn't even in my town yet!) Thank goodness When Marnie was There is already out on disc so I at least could see it already. I've barely seen any of the Oscar nominees this year so I feel a little sad. |
||||||||||
Saffire
Posts: 1256 Location: Iowa, USA |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
Amara Tenoh
Posts: 333 |
|
|||||||||
"Bill" didn't ask this question, a Twitter user named Todd did.
https://mobile.twitter.com/worldofcrap/status/690637155677241344 |
||||||||||
belvadeer
|
|
|||||||||
Let's face it, the bottom line is they have never wanted "anee-may" to win an Oscar for anything.
|
||||||||||
EricJ2
Posts: 4016 |
|
|||||||||
"Oscar bait" was, if not invented, at least cemented by Miramax/Weinsteins after they got too greedy over their all-Miramax Picture lineup the year English Patient beat Shine and Secrets & Lies. Ever since, Harvey & Bob became infamous for thinking they could "make" the next Shakespeare In Love every year through an orchestrated FYC voter-mailing and hype campaign for their one groomed favorite, causing an all-out Oscar-Bait movie like Finding Neverland or My Week With Marilyn to be dissed as "the Miramax Bribe". (See Hugh Jackman's joke about "I haven't seen The Reader...") To try and prevent Miramax Bribes through endless FYC nagging/hype, the Academy changed the process in '05 by shortening the voting period by a month, announcing the nominees in Jan. instead of Feb., and giving the awards at the end of Feb. instead of March. Unfortunately, this backfired into the OPPOSITE effect: Because no one had time to watch screeners--and then had to nominate ten movies after '08--voters were down to the same fanboy "Fantasy baseball" games of trying to guess nominees from the Globes, NBOR and Critics' Circle lists...Not to mention the usual urban-legend witch-doctoring of "Leo will win it because he's working with Scorsese/Spielberg/a past winner!" "Into the Woods is a musical in December, just like Les Miserables, so that means Meryl Streep will get it!" "Tarantino's got another movie at the end of the year, save a seat!" "Inside Out will never get it because the Academy hates animation!" (Yes, I'm bitter about it, I'm freakin' citric-acid bitter. ) Which is the reason that '04's Return of the King is considered "the Last True Good" mainstream five-nomination Picture, in the true Amadeus/Unforgiven/Schindler's List sense: It ended the era on a high note, but everything screwed up the next year. Extremely wasn't nominated because it was a "sap story", as if they'd actually seen the movie, but because it was one of the buzzy "Fantasy Baseball" titles being thrown around by fanboys indulging their pastime, based on whatever the hype-gullible Globes believed for their nominations based on FYC hype campaigns. (The Globes are, after all, given out by Hollywood press publicists, that's how they were invented.) Case in point, the NBOR, consisting of the press critics, tends to be paranoid that the Oscars are "too mainstream", and generally tilt at windmills picking the "forgotten" critical favorite of the year, like The Hurt Locker, for their Best Picture. This year, they thought no one would remember the mainstream summer thrills of Mad Max: Fury Road for nominations, and made a big critic-united show of giving it great big hugs in public, just to show 'em, so there. Guess who baffled everyone by making the Oscar's Best Picture cut this year, and why. |
||||||||||
leafy sea dragon
Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||||||
Of course. I don't know how seriously animation people take the Annies, but I notice they pay much closer attention to what gets nominated in than the Oscars.
While I know there was a lot of Latino/Hispanic outcry during the Civil Rights Era, notice that there was comparatively little complaint from the Asian sector. This is because in most Asian countries, it is a taboo to speak out against authority figures. If you're unhappy with it, the best you can do is tough it out and hope things will change for the better. (Though of course, this isn't always the case, like with Tianenmen Square, the recent civil wars in Thailand, the Burmese elections, and so forth. You just can't keep a good populace down.) These values get reflected onto Asian communities in the United States. (Speaking from experience being in communities from many different Asian countries, some of them are even too scared to vote.) Because the mass media barely gets any complaints from Asians, however, it means they're never really heard outside of a few comedians and celebrities like Margaret Cho or George Takei, and thus nothing really changes. We're seeing a rise in TV shows that star Asians or an Asian family, however. They seem to be doing reasonably well, though I don't know just how many Asians are actually watching them. The Asians I know either just watch mainstream shows white people would watch or they focus exclusively on shows from their own country.
Yeah, those are two things I'm wondering: By "30 years," do we mean "30 years since the last job in the movie business" or "30 years of your life you haven't worked in film"? Because if it's the latter, it'd exclude anyone who is over 30 years old by the time they get into the industry. For the other one, I was a random freelance artist to an independent ultra-low budget film. Would that mean if it's the former definition of "30 years," my countdown has already begun?
I'd suspect it will be a gradual process, as the old guard will still be there. If, after the younger, more diverse voters become the majority and we'restillseeing almost entirely white actors, then that's a problem.
Are you serious? I was in a tiny pass-through town for Arcade Expo with a single movie theater with three screens, and they had The Force Awakens. Unless they're so small they can't afford to screen it, a movie theater owner would be crazy not to have it. |
||||||||||
Agent355
Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||||||||
My biggest problem with the Oscars is how lazy they are. It's not just that only white people get nominated, it's that the *same* white people get nominated over and over again. Critics didn't even like Joy and Jennifer Lawrence got her 4th nomination for it! Maybe they really wanted to nominate her for The Hunger Games but that was too much of a "genre" film to count? I don't get it!
I read the comments under that article and the white supremacy there was glaring (not blaming the article itself, but wow, what a cesspool!) Many minorities have been overlooked for Oscars because they haven't had the opportunities to compete for them, period. How many films with minority casts (or even more rare, minority staff--including female writers and directors) are produced with an eye towards the Oscars in the first place? You're lucky if an "Oscar worthy" film passes a people of color Bechdel test. And of the films that do, how many are about a "racial" topic and/or showcases a white savior character? The Blindside (*shudders*) The Help, 12 Years a Slave, D'jango Unchained, Selma... the list goes on. Someone in the comment section of the Economist article decried "whiny movies about slavery." I could criticize that comment in many ways, but just looking at the Oscar bait angle--"Whiny movies" about all sorts of topics win Oscars. Making that movie about slavery (or some other oppression) is one way you can convince your producers that you can cast more than one actor of color in it. Because the gatekeepers in Hollywood have weird, outdated, inaccurate rules (consciously or not) about who can get cast in which films for which roles, and which films by which writers and directors get funding to begin with. |
||||||||||
jsevakis
Former ANN Editor in Chief
Posts: 1684 Location: Los Angeles, CA |
|
|||||||||
I don't accept questions via Twitter. I told him to email it in but he didn't. Someone else did |
||||||||||
relyat08
Posts: 4125 Location: Northern Virginia |
|
|||||||||
What does this mean? If you have to have 30 years of work experience in showbiz... wouldn't that basically put every single member in their mid 40s to 50s at the youngest? The IGN article that residentgrigo left makes more sense, but doesn't address this either. |
||||||||||
Hoppy800
Posts: 3331 |
|
|||||||||
I wish they made this change right after the awards even if it was announced 1 second after, the problem is that the changes came too soon. I don't think this will bring in more anime nominees, the stigma is just too strong however, it could bring in a few Japanese celebrities and definitely Chinese especially after the Legendary Pictures buy out.
|
||||||||||
Nitsugalego
|
|
|||||||||
I read most of the recommended comments and I didn't find a single racist one. Dissenting opinions are not racism. Anyways, one could even argue that blacks are overrepresented compared to whites, if you take into account all the European movies that get nominated. Of course, this whole ''scandal'' is a non-issue. Individuals should be judged based on their abilities, not their race. |
||||||||||
John Thacker
Posts: 1008 |
|
|||||||||
The better theory has a bit more nuance than that. The "right type" of film involving life as a minority wins, and pretty often. (I certainly don't deny that it helps to either be fundamentally optimistic in the end or to focus on the safe good white liberal savior character.) Crash (2004), Slumdog Millionaire (2008), 12 Years a Slave (2013). Biopics are always popular and have quite a few wins: Sean Penn in Milk. Jamie Foxx in Ray. (Denzel Washington in Malcom X and The Hurricane.) I'd say actually that "films involving life as a minority" do better than "minorities in films that aren't specifically about life as a minority," though Denzel Washington did win for Training Day. They also do better than big popular movies. It's true that the Academy voters absolutely go nuts for, say, a period piece about a British guy or maybe a scientist overcoming a disability (The King's Speech (2010), The English Patient, A Beautiful Mind, Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking in Theory of Everything), or movies about actors, the movies, or authors (The Artist (2011), Birdman (2014), Capote, Ray). Double bonus for Shakespeare in Love. As the recently deceased great actor-- but never nominated-- Alan Rickman said, "roles win awards not actors." Everyone knows that certain movies are Oscar bait, and for some of them all the actor or actress has to do is show up and it's a foregone conclusion. Give a great performance as a villain in a comedic movie? Never. (Tropic Thunder had one of the best knowing scenes about this.) |
||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group