#Oscar's so White

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.

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?

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.

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?

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