Oscars more diverse as pandemic, protests shake up Hollywood

@burning

Unfortunately, in this new age of PC BS, those days are gone

Speaking of “diverse”, the Aug 14 (weekly) Oscar story showcased a more equally distributed “cast of nominees and past winners with that headline. Why not just continue to depicted the same ‘diversity’ with each article?

Eventually, people will just understand the world is “diverse” and we can all move forward recognizing talent for what it is: ”talent”. If you don’t have a skill or a talent, you don’t get ‘a condescending participation trophy’ just because you belonged to any subgroup of a larger whole.

Then again the oscars have been less and less relevant each year, politics became too important in the awards and a lot of people are getting too tired of that.

Not diverse enough!

How about diversity of thought, character and economic status rather than skin color? They might include....

Liberals

Conservatives

Atheists

Religious

Ougoing

Quiet

Rich

Poor

Etc.

Can the awards just be about talent, effort and skill?

Isn't that the case? Have you seen Sound of Metal, for example?

Great performances from both Riz Ahmed and Paul Raci. Although I think that Ahmed will lose to Chadwick Boseman, that said, I can't say if CB is deserving or not (haven't seen Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, yet).

Elsewhere, there seems to be the same old voices who would prefer the good old days of yesteryear, with less BAME actors involved. Maybe they feel uncomforable seeing them on the big screen?

Ultimately, of course it's down to talent. Which, you know, shouldn't get in the way of being black, white, whatever.

The picture illustrates everything.

"more diverse" = less whites

The picture illustrates everything.

Nope, it illustrates 4 nominees.

"more diverse" = less whites

Nope, more diverse equals more representation.

How diverse are the Bollywood film awards? The Hong Kong film awards? Are the pc mob going to move their focus onto these problem areas next or is it just the prodominantly white countries that need diversifying?

I'm sure at this stage most rational thinkers can see through this nonesense box ticking. I doubt anyone takes the winners of the oscars seriously anymore.

The lady who is getting all the attention for directing nomad. I saw an article praising how she will be the first 'woman of color' to win best director and how great this is. They failed to mention she was born into priviledge' being the daughter of a millionaire chinese businessman and was privately educated in London and New York, doesn't fit the narrative as well as how she overcame so many hurdles and is so brave.

How diverse are the Bollywood film awards? The Hong Kong film awards?

India and China really don't have a diverse population. America really does. What a silly argument :)

I love how people who have never cared for the oscars for one second of their lives suddenly have extremely important and vocal opinions about it when two black guys are nominated for best actor...

It used to be that the performing arts was all about the arts. A little escape from the ordinary into a short time into the extraordinary. And award shows offered a little nostalgia, some tenderness, and a little magic to blend seamlessly into the art.

Ahh!

Not any more.

Now they demand that we pay premium coin to go for the arts and be thumped along side the head to hear whatever worldview or political view that is trending at the time. Bully pulpits are good enough for politicians, so they are good enough for Hollywood?

Understandably, ratings for performing arts award shows have been in the toilet. And will foreseeably continue their downward trajectory.

Celebrity opinions are important, though. But they deserve to be in the opinions section of my newspaper. Or in a march or demonstration, or on Twitter, FB, or where else or what ever.

But for Hollywood or Broadway? Bring back some magic. We really need some.

The only suspense is how much viewership will fall again this year. 20% last year. Golden Globes fell 62% this year. Hollywood’s in a free fall.

Because of Covid, not many people went to see movies last year. Heck, they don't even know what movies were released! Of course they're not gonna be familiar with the year's awards - they don't have vested interests on which movies and actors should win

But if anything, this is makes it the purest the Oscars Awards have been for a long time. Think about it: the big-budget Hollywood blockbusters have been postponed till there can be more people in the theaters

So what's been released were the lower-budget films that do not depend on satisfying a huge mass of lowest common denominator. This is the best chance for the lesser-knowns to get their names in the spotlight!

Furthermore, the lack of gatherings due to Covid also all-but-eliminated the typical studio ad campaigns pushing voters to vote for their movies. So voters would actually have to vote for --gasp-- what they actually like!

So this is the purest Oscars for once in your lifetime

Quick! Name a big-budget film that dominated the box office last year! You can't!

It used to be that the performing arts was all about the arts. 

You mean like when a pile of manure of a movie like Shakespeare in Love won for best picture? Or Crash? Or Out of Africa? The Oscars were always about lobbying by the producers, and sometimes about actual talent.

Now they demand that we pay premium coin to go for the arts and be thumped along side the head to hear whatever worldview or political view that is trending at the time. 

Your biggest mistake is thinking that the "performing arts" always were about escapism. But great movies always have depth and always have something to say. Citizen Kane is a very political movie. It's as political as Mank is. Nothing has changed, except the fact that there are now much more minorities making and appearing in movies than 50 years ago. And that is a boon for the movies in general, because more voices = more chances to see interesting stories. That's simple math. The industry has become much bigger and broader, with much more content, and if you don't want to see Moonlight, nobody's forcing you to. Just go see Transformers 5 and live happily everafter!

Oscars were always about lobbying by the producers, and sometimes about actual talent.

So, which is it? Producer politics or ("actual"?) talent ? Sometimes all of one, sometimes a little of both? Disagree with the academy tally results, and a critic gets to sniff loudly, complain that the voters don't understand true art, scorn the stemware the wine was served in, put a beret on, and stomp out in a huff? Sounds like an awards show.

"performing arts" always were about escapism. But great movies always have depth and always have something to say.

People attend the performing arts - including art, media arts, music, theatre, and dance - do so for different reasons, has wondrously diverse as they are. What is universal is the desire to be engaged in mind and emotion; sometimes as the author conceived it, but always how the individual customer perceives and feels it. Escape from the everyday into an extraordinary vision, hosted by an artist.

The industry has become much bigger and broader, with much more content, and if you don't want to see Moonlight, nobody's forcing you to. Just go see Transformers 5 and live happily everafter!

More voices in art is a good thing. It always has, and it always will. However, the motion picture exhibition business - dominated by several large studios - is an industry whose sheer size and strength (sorry, "bigger and broader,") all too often runs counter to the art it pretends to promote; many times in the interest of keeping investor interest attention span. Instead, they throw as much cash as possible on the latest greatest prequel / sequel, to turn performers in walking & talking, life-like automatic teller machines? Mercifully, it is the end-consumer - that's the rest of us (mostly who don't wear berets) who get to vote on the results by our wallets.

So, which is it?

Both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Disagree with the academy tally results, and a critic gets to sniff loudly, complain that the voters don't understand true art, scorn the stemware the wine was served in, put a beret on, and stomp out in a huff? Sounds like an awards show.

I have no idea what any of this means, sorry.

However, the motion picture exhibition business - dominated by several large studios - is an industry whose sheer size and strength (sorry, "bigger and broader,") all too often runs counter to the art it pretends to promote; many times in the interest of keeping investor interest attention span. Instead, they throw as much cash as possible on the latest greatest prequel / sequel, to turn performers in walking & talking, life-like automatic teller machines? Mercifully, it is the end-consumer - that's the rest of us (mostly who don't wear berets) who get to vote on the results by our wallets.

Errr... You're kinda contradicting yourself there, aren't you? Because usually the "latest greatest prequel / sequel" don't really have any of the "trending worldview or political view" you were complaining about. There's very little discussion about the place of minorities in America in the Fast and Furious series. Or Godzilla vs Kong.