Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Rule #1.)Please don't argue an ideology just facts.

Which minority actors were shafted this year?

Please keep it Civil and follow rule #1

I've heard people talking about Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation. I haven't seen it yet though, but Elba is a great actor generally.

Michael Jordan

I dunno, it's only been 2 weeks though.

I don't think any of them were shafted, frankly.

Assuming that there's a limited number of slots to fill per category, I think 2015 was a really competitive year for the Oscars. I thought the actors in Straight Outta Compton were excellent, but not necessarily better than any of the other candidates.

Oscars are the wrong battle for diversity, imo. The onus should be on expanding the number of minority headed and acted films in general, which will increase the probability of minority actors performing stand-out performances and being recognized by the awards.

Though better representation at the awards shows and other industry events might lead to more films by and with minorities.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though better representation at the awards shows and other industry events might lead to more films by and with minorities. What would you suggest they do to provide better representation?

Originally posted by NemeBro
What would you suggest they do to provide better representation? Nominate Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan is a ****boy.

I would rather an actor be nominated because they deserve it instead of just doing so in order to fulfill some kind of racial requirement.

I did not find "Straight Outta Compton" to be bad. Did anyone give a performance that really resonated and will stay with me for a long time? Meh, no.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Michael Jordan is a ****boy. I'll kill you, you phuck

Originally posted by Surtur
I would rather an actor be nominated because they deserve it instead of just doing so in order to fulfill some kind of racial requirement.

I did not find "Straight Outta Compton" to be bad. Did anyone give a performance that really resonated and will stay with me for a long time? Meh, no. What about Michael B Jordan, buddy?

Surely you think he should be nominated, friend.

Will Smith's son.

There is no mandate that a certain number of minorities must get nominated every year. No one got obviously shafted. This is a non story of political correctness going overboard.

Have you heard of the actor Michael B Jordan?

He got shafted.

Not really. He wasn't even the best actor in the film.

Originally posted by ares834
Not really. He wasn't even the best actor in the film. Yes he was.

Originally posted by Mindset
Nominate Michael Jordan.
I nominated him to win my heart. I got you, brobeans. **** these white devils.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I nominated him to win my heart. I got you, brobeans. **** these white devils.

Post of the year.

I find Jordan to be meh. I like Idris Alba better.

Originally posted by Surtur
I find Jordan to be meh. I like Idris Alba better. You hate your country.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I don't think any of them were shafted, frankly.

Assuming that there's a limited number of slots to fill per category, I think 2015 was a really competitive year for the Oscars. I thought the actors in Straight Outta Compton were excellent, but not necessarily better than any of the other candidates.

Oscars are the wrong battle for diversity, imo. The onus should be on expanding the number of minority headed and acted films in general, which will increase the probability of minority actors performing stand-out performances and being recognized by the awards. I'd say the bigger issue is primarily Black directors making movies that are very much only aimed at 13% of the population at most.

Jordan didn't get anything for Creed?

Did Sam Jackson get anything for Colonel Marques Warren? He was amazing in H8ful Eight.

Nope. Hateful Eight got very little love. But I don't think Jackson should have got a nomination.

And if anyone in that should have gotten a best (supporting) actor nom, it should have been Goggins.

Hateful Eight needed a lot more love in general, and yeah, Goggins definitely deserved a nomination.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Rule #1.)Please don't argue an ideology just facts.

Which minority actors were shafted this year?

Please keep it Civil and follow rule #1
I dont see color(unless, like in this thread, it gets made a point of), i see good acting.
Most Oscar nominated movies i find boring anyway, but i'm hoping Leo and Stallone bring home the gold.

Originally posted by roughrider
There is no mandate that a certain number of minorities must get nominated every year. No one got obviously shafted. This is a non story of political correctness going overboard.
Good point

Originally posted by ares834
Nope. Hateful Eight got very little love. But I don't think Jackson should have got a nomination.

And if anyone in that should have gotten a best (supporting) actor nom, it should have been Goggins. Jackson was better than Goggins.

Jackson basically played himself / the role he's played in every movie he's been in over the last decade.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Jackson basically played himself / the role he's played in every movie he's been in over the last decade. I don't think Jackson acts like that irl, bud.

Goggins basically played a dumber version of Boyd.

Jackson just comes across as a paid actor these days.
There's no discrimination to the quality of films he chooses these days.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Jackson just comes across as a paid actor these days.
There's no discrimination to the quality of films he chooses these days. He's trying to bring enjoyment to your life, man.

You should be thanking him.

I thought Jackson was great in H8, tbh. I will admit, though, that Goggins, had more to do in the movie, so it felt almost like he carried it a bit more.

Both were great.

It felt like Goggins was a sidekick to me.

Originally posted by Mindset
He's trying to bring enjoyment to your life, man.

You should be thanking him.

I honesty can't remember an outstanding performance from him in the last 5 years. Nothing that stands out that he's even trying to act but just be himself in front of the camera.

Maybe Kingsman but that was pure camp on his part.
Enjoyable but cringeworthy.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Rule #1.)Please don't argue an ideology just facts.

Which minority actors were shafted this year?

Please keep it Civil and follow rule #1 possibly O'Shea Jackson Jr - but I think Straight Outta Compton should of been nominated for something. Could of been nominated for best picture. Seriously they nominated The Martian and that wasn't anything special

Also Sam Jackson, even though some of you don't feel that way but compared to some of the other nominees... meh

Who would you bump for Sam?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I honesty can't remember an outstanding performance from him in the last 5 years. Nothing that stands out that he's even trying to act but just be himself in front of the camera.

Maybe Kingsman but that was pure camp on his part.
Enjoyable but cringeworthy. Hateful 8

I was surprised that Idris Elba wasn't nominated for supporting actor for Beasts of No Nation, he was incredible in that, one of the better and more nuanced villain roles I've seen.

Originally posted by Mindset
Have you heard of the actor Michael B Jordan?

He got shafted.

No silly that was Samuel L Jackson, he was the modern Shaft. They don't ALL look alike.

Originally posted by BackFire
I was surprised that Idris Elba wasn't nominated for supporting actor for Beasts of No Nation, he was incredible in that, one of the better and more nuanced villain roles I've seen.

I wasn't.

Yeah, he certainly deserved it but almost nobody saw the film and those who did were probably turned off voting for him due to how unsettling the character is. Shame.

Idris Elba should've been nominated.

Did it get a theatrical release?

It did. And I suppose Ares is right, evil monstrous characters generally don't get a lot of love at the Oscars.

Maybe they used up their quota with Forest Whitaker...

Heath Ledger too, but he died that year so that might have skewed things.

Anyone seen this?

N9eY-kKXBnQ

Damn, I hope Smith has some aloe vera for that burn.

I'm actually bored to tears with this nonsense argument. Does any complaining about it genuinely think any of the performances from black actors this year are better than the nominated people? If so then argue the case based on the performance. If not then sit down and shut the **** up. I mean Jada Pinkett Smith is boycotting the Oscars? So what. It's not like she'll ever get nominated. She's ****ing crap and so is her idiot son. Did she also forget that her own husband has been nominated twice and both times lost out...to other black actors namely Denzel Washington for Training Day and Forrest Whitaker for Last King of Scotland. Is she a total moron? Time ***** like her got the massive chips on their shoulders seen to.

no one takes the, Oscars serious, especially, fans...,so why bother trying to make anything of the nominees? No one cares. Even the people that do care really don't care.

Sorry but no, even a nomination opens huge doors for actors; both in movie choice and earning potentials.

That is just an even bigger reason to not make race a factor.

Originally posted by Surtur
That is just an even bigger reason to not make race a factor.

The claim is that the Academy has already made race a factor. i.e. white people are advantaged.

But there's no equitable way of ensuring that black actors/filmmakers will always receive recognition.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The claim is that the Academy has already made race a factor. i.e. white people are advantaged.

Okay, it's super easy to claim race is a factor if you don't get nominated though. Some people can't accept their performance just wasn't up to par. Others seem to think if you're black and in some movie with an important issue(like slavery) you should just be automatically nominated because..well, because because because because because.

Hard to prove it one way or the other besides going "look at all the white folk winning and being nominated".

So have the nominations for each category been announced yet? I do think that Idris Elba and Michael B Jordan should've been recognized for their performances this year but it really doesn't matter much as the Oscar's aren't really something I'm actively paying attention to.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, it's super easy to claim race is a factor if you don't get nominated though. Some people can't accept their performance just wasn't up to par. Others seem to think if you're black and in some movie with an important issue(like slavery) you should just be automatically nominated because..well, because because because because because.

Hard to prove it one way or the other besides going "look at all the white folk winning and being nominated".

Yes, people can lie about being racist. But like for example we do know that the voters are 94% white...which seems kinda weird, unless only 6% of people in the industry are minorities. And if that's the case maybe there's a problem there (which there is as well).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But there's no equitable way of ensuring that black actors/filmmakers will always receive recognition.

Well, yes, but talking about this very odd issue that apparently white people are just always better actors every year, might convince some of the voters to examine their biases, whether conscious or unconscious.

Except they aren't. People of color get nominations (and wins) from time to time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, people can lie about being racist. But like for example we do know that the voters are 94% white...which seems kinda weird, unless only 6% of people in the industry are minorities. And if that's the case maybe there's a problem there (which there is as well).

If 94% are white and a majority of those were racist then wouldn't we never ever see anyone who isn't white even nominated? Let alone achieving victory.

Originally posted by ares834
Except they aren't. People of color get nominations (and wins) from time to time.

True, it's just disproportionate. Insanely disproportionate:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/the-diversity-gap-in-the-academy-awards-in-infographic-form

And that's before the two consecutive years of no minority nominees.

I mean we can pretend there's no issue, but we'd have to dumb ourselves down a lot, possibly by as much as the percentage of white voters in the Academy Awards.


Now, it's probably not all due to the inherent racism of the Awards, the whole industry has these issues after all, but it's particularly pronounced in these ceremonies.

So out of curiosity, who was nominated that doesn't belong there this year?

Originally posted by Surtur
So out of curiosity, who was nominated that doesn't belong there this year?

You keep talking in these absolutes.

"Someone racist would NEVER vote for a black person"

"You either deserve to be nominated or not"

That's just not how the world works. And you and I literally had this discussion previously when I explained to you the racism in the police and justice system and how it doesn't have to be evil racists that plan to keep down minorities to lead to the outcome we currently have.

I'll try to explain it again though, basically the claim is this, rather than just 5 actors who are nominated for best actor each year there are more, maybe 8 or 10 that would deserve a nomination. Now, out of this pool, the mostly white voters slightly lean towards preferring white actors over black actors, and hence white people are more likely to be nominated.

Originally posted by Surtur
So out of curiosity, who was nominated that doesn't belong there this year?

Jennifer Lawrence for Joy.

So then I take it you don't have any actual reason you are just going off statistics, okay that is all that needed to be said. Problem is in this thread we have people going "what about Michael B Jordan, what about Michael B Jordan" so I'm curious as to who they'd take out for him.

Originally posted by Surtur
So then I take it you don't have any actual reason you are just going off statistics, okay that is all that needed to be said. Problem is in this thread we have people going "what about Michael B Jordan, what about Michael B Jordan" so I'm curious as to who they'd take out for him.

Yeah, I have no problem with any of the actors, they all seem fine and have given good performances. I have a problem with the system that is set up in a way to favour white actors. And I guess further than that I have a problem with the industry which has the same problem on a grander scale.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I have no problem with any of the actors, they all seem fine and have given good performances. I have a problem with the system that is set up in a way to favour white actors. And I guess further than that I have a problem with the industry which has the same problem on a grander scale.

So what is your take on specific award shows? As in, award shows meant specifically for just a single race. Are they good or bad?

Well, I think award shows for minorities which generally don't have much exposure or get snubbed in general shows make some sense.

I think an award show in the US for only white people would be very distasteful and send a gross, awful message.

Originally posted by Surtur
So out of curiosity, who was nominated that doesn't belong there this year?
Of the nominees depicted I think Eddie Redmayne is the odd man out at least in comparison to Idris Elba in Beast of No Nation IMO.

Originally posted by ares834
Jennifer Lawrence for Joy.
Agreed

So then something like the Latin Grammy's, those are okay?

Originally posted by Surtur
So then something like the Latin Grammy's, those are okay?

Well, I think the Latin Grammys actually don't fit what we were talking about, since what they award is Spanish and Portuguese language music, rather than a specific race or anything. But generally sure, I don't see a problem with that kind of thing, like I said.

So they don't give academy awards to like..foreign films or anything? Or is it only foreign english speaking films? Since they definitely nominate actors from outside this country.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Of the nominees depicted I think Eddie Redmayne is the odd man out at least in comparison to Idris Elba in Beast of No Nation IMO.

For Eddie it's the film where he plays a trans-gender chick, right? That is another potential problem for me. Transgender issues have been a hot topic recently, makes me wonder if the movie got oscar buzz solely because it was worthy of it or if it's because it's a movie about an issue people feel more light should be shed on.

I'm not even kidding when I say the first time I ever saw a trailer for it I told myself it will get oscar buzz just because of the subject matter.

Speaking of subject matter, also seems to me like you very rarely see a fantasy/science fiction film get nominated or win best picture. I think the problems go beyond just race. Just looking at the wins..as far back as 1965 we've had ONE fantasy/science fiction movie win. Can't seem to find any actors from fantasy or science fiction that won best actor.

Originally posted by Surtur
So they don't give academy awards to like..foreign films or anything? Or is it only foreign english speaking films? Since they definitely nominate actors from outside this country.

There is a category of foreign language films in the Oscars, which kinda implicitly states that the Oscars are for English language films mainly. Additionally English is spoken in many countries besides the US, in fact it is named after a different country that speaks it as well.

I am not an expert on the Latin Grammys, but that was my impression.

Originally posted by Surtur
For Eddie it's the film where he plays a trans-gender chick, right? That is another potential problem for me. Transgender issues have been a hot topic recently, makes me wonder if the movie got oscar buzz solely because it was worthy of it or if it's because it's a movie about an issue people feel more light should be shed on.


Yeah the movie itself appeared to be pretty lame especially when taking his win from "Theory of Everything" into play where he was Steven Hawkings. As for the subject matter, I believe Carol may also fit into that category as it has two nominations: even though Cate Blanchett was in it.

Assuming that 94% of white voters are racist.

Yeah this is what Stacey Dash thinks about all of this:

http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4713743325001/stacey-dash-on-oscars-outrage-no-need-for-bet-image-awards/

Her heritage means her opinion>>>most opinions in this thread in regards to the topic!

How about they change the system so no one is nominated...all movies that have been released from jan.01-dec.31 go into the oscars and they just announce the winners?

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah this is what Stacey Dash thinks about all of this:

http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4713743325001/stacey-dash-on-oscars-outrage-no-need-for-bet-image-awards/

Her heritage means her opinion>>>most opinions in this thread in regards to the topic!



She is calling for an end to segregated awards. Which makes a kind of sense if you're going to see people complaining about racism at an awards show why would you have a "blacks only" award show?

Segregation is either good or bad. Her opinion doesn't matter more, but holy hell it's about time a person of color stood up and said this shit, because if she was white she'd be called racist within a nanosecond.

Originally posted by Shadow_King
How about they change the system so no one is nominated...all movies that have been released from jan.01-dec.31 go into the oscars and they just announce the winners?

You ever hear of an epically terrible movie called "The Room"? You realize if we went with your suggestion then technically upon it's release that movie would of had just as much a shot at "best picture" as..whatever movie actually won that year.

See if you'd seen "The Room" you'd know why such a thing would be a travesty.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah this is what Stacey Dash thinks about all of this:

http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4713743325001/stacey-dash-on-oscars-outrage-no-need-for-bet-image-awards/

Her heritage means her opinion>>>most opinions in this thread in regards to the topic!

I'm more blak than she is, looks like I win.

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm more blak than she is, looks like I win.

Pictures or no wayz, stacy is apparently a total pro she was in clueless and usess fox to deliver her mssg.

Originally posted by Surtur
You ever hear of an epically terrible movie called "The Room"? You realize if we went with your suggestion then technically upon it's release that movie would of had just as much a shot at "best picture" as..whatever movie actually won that year.

See if you'd seen "The Room" you'd know why such a thing would be a travesty.

Yep there is always a risk that an absolutely terrible movie could win best picture, but I doubt it would ever happen and even if it did win most people would care for about 5 minutes. I only propose such an idea so situations like this don't happen

Originally posted by Surtur
So they don't give academy awards to like..foreign films or anything? Or is it only foreign english speaking films? Since they definitely nominate actors from outside this country.

Roberto Begnini won Best Actor for Life is Beautiful and it was beaten to best movie by Shakespeare in Love in an absolutely horrendous decision.

Originally posted by Mindset


Post of the year. He is white you know.

#Gotem

So does this mean 50 Shades of Black didn't get nominated for anything?

This is a RIP!

His spoofs aren't really that good save scary movie 2. That was awesome.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He is white you know.

#Gotem
Don't hate because I have black friends.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah this is what Stacey Dash thinks about all of this:

http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/4713743325001/stacey-dash-on-oscars-outrage-no-need-for-bet-image-awards/

Her heritage means her opinion>>>most opinions in this thread in regards to the topic!


Her being what, an eighth black, doesn't make her an authority on the subject. That's idiotic logic.

Everyone's calling her an idiot right now because she thinks Black History Month "fosters segregation."

Originally posted by Surtur
She is calling for an end to segregated awards. Which makes a kind of sense if you're going to see people complaining about racism at an awards show why would you have a "blacks only" award show?

Segregation is either good or bad. Her opinion doesn't matter more, but holy hell it's about time a person of color stood up and said this shit, because if she was white she'd be called racist within a nanosecond.
So instead they're just calling her an idiot. Which she is. She didn't just stop at awards. She basically doesn't believe there's any legitimacy to any kind of activity or organization focused on black people. This is harmful because it feeds into the erroneous presumption that our society is fundamentally equal and thus there's no need for groups like the NAACP. These things are necessary because our society still isn't racially equal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/what-stacey-dash-neglects-when-she-calls-for-ending-bet-and-black-history-month/

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So instead they're just calling her an idiot. Which she is. She didn't just stop at awards. She basically doesn't believe there's any legitimacy to any kind of activity or organization focused on black people. This is harmful because it feeds into the erroneous presumption that our society is fundamentally equal and thus there's no need for groups like the NAACP. These things are necessary because our society still isn't racially equal. are you more apt to give money to a homeless man sleeping next to a donation can or a pushy one who tells you you could give him more?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
are you more apt to give money to a homeless man sleeping next to a donation can or a pushy one who tells you you could give him more?

I'd wager that pushy beggars make more on average.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So instead they're just calling her an idiot. Which she is. She didn't just stop at awards. She basically doesn't believe there's any legitimacy to any kind of activity or organization focused on black people. This is harmful because it feeds into the erroneous presumption that our society is fundamentally equal and thus there's no need for groups like the NAACP. These things are necessary because our society still isn't racially equal.

Oh she's definitely crazy no doubts there. But then even a broken crazy clock is still right twice a day.

Which hey I get it, shit isn't equal so it's needed. But you can't have it both ways. If more blacks began to get nominations, they would start cancelling these blacks only award shows, right?

Also just to me if I was upset and thinking "well shit blacks aren't getting the nom's they should, we need diversity" I would not then go "that equates to a blacks only awards show". Why not try to show them how to do an awards show correctly, if you think they are failing?

You see the go to excuse will always be "it's unfair to them so they need a specific award show" but the catch there is those types of shows just foster the exact opposite of the process of thought these guys apparently want people to have. Do diversity right if you're going to complain over it, is this a fair thing to say? Otherwise you might as well say "when all else fails fight racism with racism".

But see even saying that..you will get people who will say "it's not racist, it'd be racist for a whites only award show because no racism, but since blacks experience racism in the country its not racist for them to do it". Which of course just kinda fosters and "us" and "them" mentality to me. One set of rules for one set of people, another set of rules for another. Which no, nobody ever wins in such a scenario, it doesn't foster equality or diversity. You don't try to fight a lack of diversity with a lack of diversity. Or do you think we should?

Though she honestly reminds me of how people whined at Raven Simone when she said she isn't african american just american.

I can understand the criticism of some blacks of black history month too. I think it was Morgan Freeman who said nope it's not black history, it's AMERICAN history. In both of those instances? People jumped on them saying they are embarrassed of being black even though that isn't what they said.

We live in a time where any black person saying anything critical of the black race automatically becomes an "Uncle Tom". I can almost guarantee you if you went to look at the comments to the youtube video I posted you'd see people calling that lady a coon or a female Uncle Tom or something.

I feel bad for the Asians and Hispanics, personally. They get far less exposure in both casting and in awards.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10816010/academy-award-voters-diversity-plan-2020-oscars

Sounds like some good changes to me, keeping the voting more in line with the times.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10816010/academy-award-voters-diversity-plan-2020-oscars

Sounds like some good changes to me, keeping the voting more in line with the times.

Just out of curiosity, do you think an organization like the NBA is racist?

As to your article, I do hope "double the number of diverse members" means that and not merely "double the number of black people". But anyways you did say it was 94% white people, correct? So forgive me but..how would doubling the number of non-whites come ANYWHERE near closing that huge huge gap?

It comes off like they are trying to shut people up and get them to stop complaining, but they aren't really changing the balance of power. Also wait this apparently isn't just about race, apparently women are just not represented and nominated enough as well. So it's doubling the number of women AND diverse? So are woman included in that diversity thing or is the double the amount of women separate from double the amount of people who are not white? So when they double women are whites allowed for that increase?

Also wait guys we don't want to forget anyone. We covered blacks and the other non-white races that apparently also exist. We covered females. So what about doubling the number of gays and lesbians on the academy? Try to toss a few transgender people in there too, we don't want to forget anyone, right? Toss in an albino too.

Sometimes in the past kids have been nominated for academy awards, right? So there is that too, kids aren't repped enough either. So we need some kids, but it can't be only whitey's though.

So the biggest liberals in the world live in Hollywood and are racist.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I feel bad for the Asians and Hispanics, personally. They get far less exposure in both casting and in awards.

I'm sure you sit at home feeling bad.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm sure you sit at home feeling bad.

Where else would I sit?

I'm still waiting for more diversity. I want some children on the academy. Either that or you forbid any child from being nominated. We most def need some gays and transgender folk too.

I also still feel albino's just aren't represented enough. I mean did you guys not see "Da Vinci Code"? These people exist they aren't from some fairy tale.

I don't mind if there aren't any Asian actors nominated for an award. There is no limit on what we can boycott in America... and really, Will Smith got mad he didn't get an award? He is a horrible example of a deserving black actor.

http://i.imgur.com/kNkQ4Th.jpg

I'm confused, is the 100m sprint voted for by a panel of 94% black people?

A better example would be the BET awards

100% black panel & no white person has ever won their award.

This is one of those non stories. Like those wretched college students whining about cultural appropriation and safe space violation. SJWs looking for shit get offended at because they're special snowflakes who've been mistakenly told by their parents that they deserve good things.

http://my.xfinity.com/articles/entertainment/20160124/US--People-Julie.Delpy/?cid=newHP_featmod_Delpy

Notice that this woman, two years ago, criticized the academy for being very male and white and was apparently harshly criticized over it. So why is pointing out stuff like that now suddenly the thing all the hip kids are doing?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
A better example would be the BET awards

100% black panel & no white person has ever won their award.

Sounds like they need to diversify. We need to make changes to the NBA as well. 74% of players are black, we need more diversity among players.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm confused, is the 100m sprint voted for by a panel of 94% black people?

Did you possibly think that no black people were worthy of an oscar this year, or is this socialism where people deserve anything now.

Originally posted by Lucius
This is one of those non stories. Like those wretched college students whining about cultural appropriation and safe space violation. SJWs looking for shit get offended at because they're special snowflakes who've been mistakenly told by their parents that they deserve good things.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Did you possibly think that no black people were worthy of an oscar this year, or is this socialism where people deserve anything now.

I don't believe that the voting system for the Oscars is racially unbiased. Apparently the Academy agrees and will attempt to be better in the future.

So liberal hollywood is racist

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't believe that the voting system for the Oscars is racially unbiased. Apparently the Academy agrees and will attempt to be better in the future.

I asked this before and I don't know if anyone answered, but you said 94% of the voters are white. The article you posted said they are going to double the amount of non-whites. If true, doesn't that still make it so the vast majority of voters are still white?

With the current plan wouldn't they need to also get rid of a decent amount of the white voters in order to achieve any substantial change? But then the problem there is you are getting rid of people due to race which is racist and this entire thing is apparently meant to combat racism.

Originally posted by Surtur
I asked this before and I don't know if anyone answered, but you said 94% of the voters are white. The article you posted said they are going to double the amount of non-whites. If true, doesn't that still make it so the vast majority of voters are still white?

With the current plan wouldn't they need to also get rid of a decent amount of the white voters in order to achieve any substantial change? But then the problem there is you are getting rid of people due to race which is racist and this entire thing is apparently meant to combat racism.

Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but probably won't fix the issue immediately.

They are changing the membership requirements to make it reflect current demographics, rather than those of 20 or 30 years ago.

But doesn't it come off like they are trying to essentially shut these people up by making some changes..while at the same time still insuring the changes won't be that substantial?

In a way..if I was a minority and I was upset and thought this place was racist and they told me they were going to double the number of minorities..but they also told me the current number only makes up 6% of voters I'd feel like I'd been played.

I feel like it could be an attempt to go in the right direction..or it could be they just want people out of their hair for the next 4 years. Since apparently these changes aren't set to be fully complete until 2020.

Originally posted by Surtur
But doesn't it come off like they are trying to essentially shut these people up by making some changes..while at the same time still insuring the changes won't be that substantial?

In a way..if I was a minority and I was upset and thought this place was racist and they told me they were going to double the number of minorities..but they also told me the current number only makes up 6% of voters I'd feel like I'd been played.

Not to me, it feels to me like they are genuinely trying to do better.

Just seems like if there is indeed a not so small amount of racism going on then..well, why wouldn't they do that? They save face while not really making things better.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just seems like if there is indeed a not so small amount of racism going on then..well, why wouldn't they do that? They save face while not really making things better. But they are making things considerably better....

How is it considerably better when, if the numbers you gave are correct, whites will still make up nearly 90% of the voters?

If the numbers I gave are correct they will make up 88%. Which is considerably better than 94%, and will likely already lead to less people of color being overlooked.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
A better example would be the BET awards

100% black panel & no white person has ever won their award.

This isn't true. BET is owned by a white person and white people have won before.

As for this controversy, I haven't seen most of the films nominated so can't judge their quality. However, having so many white people on the panel seems "off." I don't think they're racist but prejudiced. And not overtly so but in the same way pretty much everyone is. It's human nature to gravitate towards the familiar. Increasing diversity on the panel won't guarantee more minorities will get nominated but it certainly won't hurt.

Oh and Stacy Dash is fine as hell but she's a moron.

It is silly is subjective and it seems like people just crying because they weren't nominated. Get over it.

Originally posted by 80sBaby
As for this controversy, I haven't seen most of the films nominated so can't judge their quality. However, having so many white people on the panel seems "off." I don't think they're racist but prejudiced.

Um, so you haven't seen most of those movies and have no idea about the performances that these actors delivered, but you still claim that the choice was motivated by prejudice. WTF?

I have been boycotting the Oscars for Decades.

I think this has more to do with other social issues bleeding over into the Oscars moreso than anything else. In 2006 Last King of Scotland and Blood Diamond were both highly decorated films and Forrest Whitaker took home the Best Actor award beating out DiCaprio for Blood Diamond (Djimon Hounsou was nomintated for Best Supporting Actor for Blood Diamond as well, though somehow lost to Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine). Jennifer Hudson also got the nod for Best Supporting Actress that year. It could just be that the films in question for 2015 weren't among the top 5, or didn't contain the top 5 acting performances, for the year while still being very good movies.

Originally posted by Stigma
Um, so you haven't seen most of those movies and have no idea about the performances that these actors delivered, but you still claim that the choice was motivated by prejudice. WTF? This is part of the problem. Ignorance but yet still acting like this is a travesty over subjective opinions over acting.

Originally posted by Stigma
Um, so you haven't seen most of those movies and have no idea about the performances that these actors delivered, but you still claim that the choice was motivated by prejudice. WTF?

Try reading everything I wrote then comment. Thanks.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is part of the problem. Ignorance but yet still acting like this is a travesty over subjective opinions over acting.

The fact that judgment is subjective is kind of my point. And what influences one to make a subjective judgement involves certain inherent prejudices that we all have. It's normal. Try actually engaging your critical thinking skills, quan.

Originally posted by 80sBaby
The fact that judgment is subjective is kind of my point. And what influences one to make a subjective judgement involves certain inherent prejudices that we all have. It's normal. Try actually engaging your critical thinking skills, quan. The same awards certain actors want to boycott they were at previously. Crying over spilled milk. You don't like who they chose. Who cares ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
The same awards certain actors want to boycott they were at previously. Crying over spilled milk. You don't like who they chose. Who cares ?

That's not at all my point, though. Which was what you were commenting on. Do you believe people have inherent prejudices?

Originally posted by 80sBaby
That's not at all my point, though. Which was what you were commenting on. Do you believe people have inherent prejudices? Everyone does. If you can't prove they influenced the decision you have nothing.

I agree with Quan. The fact that, for example, Beasts of No Nation, didn't get a nomination doesn't necessarily have anything to do with biases towards the ethnicity of the cast (like the Last King of Scotland and Blood Diamond examples, which were also films which took place in Africa, and most of the voters who gave those films nominations are the same members of today's academy board). It could just be that Creed, Straight Out of Compton, Concussion, and Beasts of No Nation, while great, didn't contain anything that was considered top 5 of 2015 in any of the qualifying categories. Creed and Beasts of No Nation had Golden Globe nominations and wins.

What would convince either of you (MF or Quan) that there is racial bias in play when it comes to Oscar nominations, short of voters coming out and admitting to it?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I agree with Quan. The fact that, for example, Beasts of No Nation, didn't get a nomination doesn't necessarily have anything to do with biases towards the ethnicity of the cast (like the Last King of Scotland and Blood Diamond examples, which were also films which took place in Africa, and most of the voters who gave those films nominations are the same members of today's academy board). It could just be that Creed, Straight Out of Compton, Concussion, and Beasts of No Nation, while great, didn't contain anything that was considered top 5 of 2015 in any of the qualifying categories. Creed and Beasts of No Nation had Golden Globe nominations and wins.

BFFs again for 2016.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Everyone does. If you can't prove they influenced the decision you have nothing.

Tje fact that everyone has them, as you admitted, means they have to influence the decision making process on some level. Even if only on a subconscious level, which is my point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What would convince either of you (MF or Quan) that there is racial bias in play when it comes to Oscar nominations, short of voters coming out and admitting to it?

I'm curious as to the answer as well.

Every nomination deserved it though (besides imo 2). Who are they going to replace, a supporting actor or two for Ibris playing a despicable (though good) villain?

The only questionable ones are Eddie which is already pandering, and Leo/Rev which is more of a pity thing. Or it's just to crush Leo again.

It's filled out with top talent. Arguing this undermines the movies and people nominated. Though Ibris should have gotten a nomination, but I can see why he didn't considering the nature of his character. Which is shitty.

There's only so many spots, and it's not like they were picking trash to highlight racism. They picked largely great choices, and Leo in one of his worst movies and performances just to either crush him or finally give him it undeserving like.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What would convince either of you (MF or Quan) that there is racial bias in play when it comes to Oscar nominations, short of voters coming out and admitting to it?

It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the numbers I gave are correct they will make up 88%. Which is considerably better than 94%, and will likely already lead to less people of color being overlooked.

Uh but 88% is still a VAST majority of voters. So sure, technically people of color have less chance of being overlooked, but not much of a chance.

Lets also be real as there is no point not to: by people of color we of course mean blacks.

Also doesn't this mean we are also basically saying people of color just can't be impartial judges? Seems that the implication is "add more blacks they will vote for more blacks". Which just adds a new kind of racism to the awards. It's not about talent anymore, it's about adding the type of people you feel are more likely to vote for the type of people you'd like to see voted for. You see I don't want a single person on there who is going to go "hmm not enough blacks, we need a black". I want someone to go "I legitimately feel this black actor deserves this nomination". Is this an award show for acting or is it just the politically correct awards?

Actually you know what? Just do what someone else said: name each award. Give a best white actor award, give a best black actor award. It's the only way to avoid true racism, it's the only way to avoid "I am voting for a black not because of skill, but because gosh darn these nom's are far too light skinned".

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

Well said

I personally mean people of color. When Javier Bardem won for No Country for Old Men no one blinked an eye, just like when Forrest Whitaker won for Last King of Scotland. Those films were great and deserved to win. The issue in 2016 is that we're in the midst of some social upheaval on various fronts in this country so any perceived slight becomes a cause to rally for. When Will Smith was deservedly nominated for Ali none of this was an issue, but since the Concussion film has some social significance due to recent events in the NFL and coupled with racial tensions some parties feel the film should carry more weight. Just like Selma last year. The voters not considering that public perception of social importance is perceived as racism. There was a stronger argument for Denzel's portrayal of Malcolm X, which was an all-time great, than there is for any of these films.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing. I specifically said I don't think they're racist so not sure why you're harping on that in response to me.

My point has always been since inherent prejudices exist, it makes sense to diversify the judging panel, if only to better ensure everyone is included in a more equitable manner. As I said, it won't guarantee more POC nominees but it certainly won't hurt, will it?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.
Great points

Maybe you mean people of color, but for a lot this just comes down to black people. The same blacks with blacks only awards on their channels specifically for blacks. You see it's okay for them to be racist because people were racist to them.

The same blacks who assume putting a black person on the board guarantee's they will vote for a black person. Whether it's a Denzel as Malcolm X type performance or it's Keenan from friggin "Good Burger".

Of course if you really wanted to fix shit? No race would have more then a 50% presence on the board. But see that would involve getting rid of people based on skin color which is a no no. Getting rid of someone based on skin is bad, adding someone based on skin is good. You see if you behave racist towards a group you feel hasn't been oppressed? It's just somehow..meh.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I personally mean people of color. When Javier Bardem won for No Country for Old Men no one blinked an eye, just like when Forrest Whitaker won for Last King of Scotland. Those films were great and deserved to win. The issue in 2016 is that we're in the midst of some social upheaval on various fronts in this country so any perceived slight becomes a cause to rally for. When Will Smith was deservedly nominated for Ali none of this was an issue, but since the Concussion film has some social significance due to recent events in the NFL and coupled with racial tensions some parties feel the film should carry more weight. Just like Selma last year. The voters not considering that public perception of social importance is perceived as racism. There was a stronger argument for Denzel's portrayal of Malcolm X, which was an all-time great, than there is for any of these films.

Oh I agree that the time we live in plays a big part in why this is happening. But it's also not the first time people have complained about the Academy's lack of diversity, either. I'm not saying it's this huge problem (it's the Academy Awards after all) but I do think its not a bad thing to look at or talk about.

From what I've read/heard, Denzel wasn't nominated more due to pressure from Muslims than any sort of racism/prejudice. Apparently they didn't like how the film insinuated that Malcolm was killed by Muslims.

Originally posted by 80sBaby
Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing. I specifically said I don't think they're racist so not sure why you're harping on that in response to me.

My point has always been since inherent prejudices exist, it makes sense to diversify the judging panel, if only to better ensure everyone is included in a more equitable manner. As I said, it won't guarantee more POC nominees but it certainly won't hurt, will it?

I was actually replying to Bardock. You simply piggy backed on his question.

And while prejudice and racism can be independent, mutually exclusive issues, let's not be coy here and try to mince words about what the prejudice that is being insinuated about the Academy voters is. It's being insinuated due to the ethnicity of the characters and actors in the films.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

This just restates the question though. Of course "evidence" is what would convince you. What is the evidence you need to convince you? Can you come up with any set up that doesn't involve racist people admitting that they are racist, which seems far fetched?

Originally posted by 80sBaby
Tje fact that everyone has them, as you admitted, means they have to influence the decision making process on some level. Even if only on a subconscious level, which is my point. You are the one saying there was prejudice involved so let's hear some evidence to support it. Prove your claim. Don't throw what ifs at me and coulda, woulda, shouldas.

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe you mean people of color, but for a lot this just comes down to black people. The same blacks with blacks only awards on their channels specifically for blacks. You see it's okay for them to be racist because people were racist to them.

The same blacks who assume putting a black person on the board guarantee's they will vote for a black person. Whether it's a Denzel as Malcolm X type performance or it's Keenan from friggin "Good Burger".

Of course if you really wanted to fix shit? No race would have more then a 50% presence on the board. But see that would involve getting rid of people based on skin color which is a no no. Getting rid of someone based on skin is bad, adding someone based on skin is good. You see if you behave racist towards a group you feel hasn't been oppressed? It's just somehow..meh.
Things like BET Awards aren't just for black people though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What would convince either of you (MF or Quan) that there is racial bias in play when it comes to Oscar nominations, short of voters coming out and admitting to it? Well if you accuse them of using prejudice or racism then prove it. Are you saying people can just say this without any proof and be ok with that. Are you serious ?