I think you've got that twisted, laughing about people whining about who wins awards isn't whining....it's really what should be expected. I guess it's a good thing when this is the best people could come up with to b**** about, must mean things are pretty good and that we've come a LONG way.
You still are way off about what this is actually about btw. Also, this isn't the only thing people are "Whining" about. Another thing, I wasn't the one to bump any of the Oscar threads. Same can be said for anyone else you'd probably consider to be "whining" about it. Must be easy to just consider any opposing view of yours to be "Whining" it's like every thread you go on about others whining lol.
Oh I'm sure people are whining about all sort of other things as well, but this seems to be the biggest thing they've got going at the time. It's not my fault that people like yourself choose illegitimate issues to complain about. Once upon a time the civil rights people had actual reasons to be up in arms, today we get whining about awards shows. It's pretty pathetic.
Also the idea that this topic based on the entertainment industry doesn't deserve to be talked about at all is funny to me considering the forum we are on. I mean this is a forum based around a basketball team...I love the forum, obviously I'm in every game thread but in the end everything we discuss about our Rockets are about as trivial as this.
Lol, I'm not the one that bumped the thread or created it. Well, you think complaining about police violence is whining too, so I'm not sure your word on it means anything at all.
I think complaining about someone who attacked a cop and ended up shot is whining..... I think the problem here is that some people just don't pick their battles very wisely. I mean, none of the legitimate examples of police brutality ever seem to generate as much protest as the illegitimate examples.....why is that?
You call a lot of things whining though so that's not surprising. Any ways, we don't have to talk about police brutality again, we can pick up the conversation in about a week or so when the next instance of it becomes a thread here.
Sure, and if it's another illegitimate case, I'll argue that you are doing nothing but whining. If it's a legitimate case, you'll probably say nothing at all because you seem to skip those.
Lol, it was actually you who skipped the Dothan thread and the Mathew Ajibade thread that I created. Not sure who made you judge and jury on what is a legitimate or illegitimate any ways.
Just curious: What is an example of legitimate police brutality? And what does this have to with the Academy Awards being an old (white) boy's club? As for me, I'm still pissed at Saving Private Ryan losing out to Shakespeare In Love - what a joke!
No quotas are necessary. Just put in place rules that "time out" people who aren't active in the industry. Add to that, an elimination of any "friend of a friend" networks that get people into the Academy. Outside of that, the best way to address the problem lies with the studios, directors, and casting directors. I am not aware credible person promoting quotas. Quotas are generally promoted by yahoos or people play partisan games to detract from the issue. If someone credible is tossing that idea around, I am firmly against it. This is an "old boys club" problem. Just break up the club and let competent people active in the industry cast the votes.
We are in complete agreement. I need to apologize on misinterpreting the article you posted. I saw "Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs has pledged to double female and minority members amid a row over the lack of diversity in the nominations", and interpreted it as doubling the nominations of minority and female nominees. Sincerest apologies.
No problem. In these things, I always hope no one every suggests quotas. It sounds good to say "double this" and "double that" and, on the surface, it sounds like quotas. But then, when you think about the small numbers and the people in the industry who get excluded from voting, roles, and directing, then you realize it really doesn't take much to double the representation of the target populations. Even double will still be small numbers, relatively speaking.
I'm not convinced there is actually an "old boys club" problem, nor do I put a lot of stock in this changing things. Predominantly British and Australian actors will still be giving the best performances and they are predominantly white. Historical films that the Academy loves will still mainly be about whites. And whites will still get race-neutral roles in may movies due to real or perceived mass appeal calls by studio execs whose main purpose is to make money. That being said, I don't really see a problem with this tactic. It's seems logical that those active in the industry are the one's making the calls. Of course it's not foolproof, like they gay, Hispanic academy member that was like, "hey, I'm going to be kicked out by these new rules," but it's about the fairest way you can do it.
Those in the industry say its a club, so I roll with them on this. I don't have time to google up links, but the complaints about it have been there for quite a while. It exists at both the voting and studio levels. Most of what you just said is that white people like white stuff. Which is exactly the complaint. You are right, I think, about perceived tastes on the call of studios. John Singleton said he thought Hollywood was racist until he became a part of it. He claims that really, Hollywood is afraid of losing money and they think the rest of America is racist. So they don't want to risk putting non-whites in too many roles. On the other hand, I think there was a reporting 2015 suggesting that movies with black leads have tended not to perform as well internationally as movies with white leads.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...emy-members-20131221-story.html#ixzz2uqvZKl10 There is an article in 2013 (Before the 2015-16 'Whining') about how most of the voters were old white guys. I don't know what the numbers are now, they had to have had a massive shift since they have had large invitations to broaden their demographics since then. I mean it's changing and I agree with the thought that Isaacs thrown out there that these past two years don't really highlight how much it has changed throughout the years and how much better it has been. I said at the start of the thread that really African-Americans are doing well in hollywood, it's not perfect but they are pretty well represented. It's now to the point where black actors are taking roles of traditional white (fictional) characters. I also talked about the issue of studios thinking non-white leads can't sell as well and how it's untrue. There are stars when it comes to the names like Dwayne Johnson, Sam Jackson, Denzel, Will Smith, Idris Elba you can sell movies on those names...but apparently like you've said, the people in Hollywood say they are told that they can't sell and I think that's where the issue is coming from when it comes to African-Americans. Not getting roles, but getting lead or important roles and the theory behind it is that they can't be sold to a global audience. For the other minorities, it's worse as the data that was posted earlier in the thread points out.
"Basketball forum" is bit worn out as a cop-out for losing a D&D argument. This section is clearly used for fairly contentious and rigorous debate of global and life-and-death issues.
