Chris Rock And Jada Pinkett Call Out The Oscars For Lack Of Diversity

[nieman]

People keep saying that straight outta Compton, Creed etc. didn't deserve it. But what made the films that got nominated more deserving?

What made the white actors more deserving?

Can anyone explain this to me?

Those films are "Oscar bait", with the exception of Mad Max. There's no way that ish deserves to be in there. But the movies that are nominated, are strictly actor-driven, scene after scene of intense emotional acting. The Revenant, The Martian, I've only watched half of The Big Short and even less of Room, but they are the same thing. That's why a true snub is Hateful 8, but they don't nominated QT for ish. Creed isn't that type of movie and Straight Outta Compton is pretty bad in the second half. But that brings me back to Mad Max, but the one thing that Max does is maintain the same tone throught the movie. I think that's one thing that black movies suffer from more than anything - they shift tones entirely too much. Of course they could've went with 10 (which was a dumb ass decision in the first place to increase the pool), but they didn't.

Now for the movies - Creed was a good movie, an entertaining movie but an all-time great movie, it's not. Watch Rocky, Raging Bull, Million Dollar Baby (boring as fukk), then watch Creed. I didn't see Foxcatcher but watch Balboa and you'll notice that Creed is an extension of that. It's good and Michael B Jordan is good. If he keeps it up, he will have a statue one day, especially since he goes outside of the box for movies. The movie itself isn't special, and the reason is because he just doesn't struggle enough in the movie. The ONLY reason Sly is nominated is because it will be a legacy award for giving us Rocky.

Straight Outta Compton - We've all said it. The first half of the movie is excellent, Oscar quality and Jason Mitchell is amazing as Eazy. Every scene he's in was powerful. The second half of the movie shifts away from him and is VH1 biopic status. It has no direction, the tone is completely different, the pacing is wrong; it just becomes a string of random scenes. The first half, you're engaged; second half you're like "whatever." That Death Row ish was comical. And the most important thing is that NO ONE CAMPAIGNED FOR JASON MITCHELL. Oscar Rule #1.

Samuel L was a snub, Tom Hardy for Legend snub, Hateful 8 snub...I'm gonna watch Concussion in about an hour. Once again, no campaigns but they were submitted.

Beasts of No Nation - I'm gonna keep it 100% Authentic - N!ggas don't watch the Oscars, period. Not us movie/film buffs, but the average n!gga don't watch the Oscars. The average n!gga has no idea what's nominated because they don't watch most of the films unless they happen to be blockbusters. You won't be able to find my a everyday n!gga that even knows about Idris' Beast of No Nation, and wasn't that a Netflix movie? He needed a studio behind him to push it. And no n!gga will go see a movie with Will in a dramatic lead. That's the truth. So the argument is really for 2 movies, and 1 lead in Michael B, but it wasn't really an Oscar-worthy performance, he just is the type of actor you want to root for. He's that good. I would say that his performance was some type-of-ish that legends win for as a make-up, but not performance in itself. The people rooting for these W's, don't watch the other ish.

Smh at certain black people chiming in with the "why is the timing right now they just mad because will smith didn't get a nomination". Ol distractionin ass simpletons. Fk the Timing issue, an opportunity has arose and prominent people are stepping up. Now ain't the time four nitpicking about " timing". Why the spectacle of public distrust. I trust Jada and will on this shyt.

It is about timing because how the hell you gonna boycott an award show that you're not even nominated? No one will care if you're there or not. This is all because Will played a role and didn't get nominated? It's BS. You've been saying that there needs to be more black representation in Hollywood (watch Halle's speech) and she even called for black support of said movies. Last year, Selma was nominated and that's it. So why didn't they boycott? It was nominated without the director (which happens often) and no actor. The setup was there because had it won, without anyone there to accept, that would really bring the ruckus. It's also pointless for Jada to call for a boycott because she has NEVER had an Oscar quality role in her career, and Will literally gets any movie role that he wishes. He can accept and turn down ANY role in Hollywood, so what the eff is his point? Of course he has to side with Jada, but Will roles have no color. Neither do Morgan Freeman, Denzel, Michael B (currently), Alfre Woodard, Samuel L and Angela Bassett, Regina King - all can play any role they wish. Others need to follow suit and you do that by cultivating relationships and working outside of the "black movie" box. All of that BS about us needing our own is just that. The Oscars are the epitome of excellence in the filming industry. If you're an actor, you want one (unless you're a comedic actor - because you have no shot), because it shows you that you're worldwide recognize for that accomplishment. However, there are politics behind the AA's and if you don't play you won't be let in. And for the record, black actors/actresses boycott the Image Awards, NAACP awards, Essence, Black Reel, BET so what's the argument again?

Now the argument for winning for playing slaves and butlers/maids is there, BUT what are black movies? Madea the biggest stereotype of them all, hoodflicks with intelligent drug dealers, business women with hood-a$$ dudes, misogyny, young dudes with bad attitudes, people just coming home from jail, ghetto ass best friends, lots of violence (domestic, black-on-black) etc. Black movies themselves are stereotypes. I want diverse topics for black people, but of course that won't happen. That's how you get awards.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

Those films are "Oscar bait", with the exception of Mad Max. There's no way that ish deserves to be in there. But the movies that are nominated, are strictly actor-driven, scene after scene of intense emotional acting. The Revenant, The Martian, I've only watched half of The Big Short and even less of Room, but they are the same thing. That's why a true snub is Hateful 8, but they don't nominated QT for ish. Creed isn't that type of movie and Straight Outta Compton is pretty bad in the second half. But that brings me back to Mad Max, but the one thing that Max does is maintain the same tone throught the movie. I think that's one thing that black movies suffer from more than anything - they shift tones entirely too much. Of course they could've went with 10 (which was a dumb ass decision in the first place to increase the pool), but they didn't.

Now for the movies - Creed was a good movie, an entertaining movie but an all-time great movie, it's not. Watch Rocky, Raging Bull, Million Dollar Baby (boring as fukk), then watch Creed. I didn't see Foxcatcher but watch Balboa and you'll notice that Creed is an extension of that. It's good and Michael B Jordan is good. If he keeps it up, he will have a statue one day, especially since he goes outside of the box for movies. The movie itself isn't special, and the reason is because he just doesn't struggle enough in the movie. The ONLY reason Sly is nominated is because it will be a legacy award for giving us Rocky.

Straight Outta Compton - We've all said it. The first half of the movie is excellent, Oscar quality and Jason Mitchell is amazing as Eazy. Every scene he's in was powerful. The second half of the movie shifts away from him and is VH1 biopic status. It has no direction, the tone is completely different, the pacing is wrong; it just becomes a string of random scenes. The first half, you're engaged; second half you're like "whatever." That Death Row ish was comical. And the most important thing is that NO ONE CAMPAIGNED FOR JASON MITCHELL. Oscar Rule #1.

Samuel L was a snub, Tom Hardy for Legend snub, Hateful 8 snub...I'm gonna watch Concussion in about an hour. Once again, no campaigns but they were submitted.

Beasts of No Nation - I'm gonna keep it 100% Authentic - N!ggas don't watch the Oscars, period. Not us movie/film buffs, but the average n!gga don't watch the Oscars. The average n!gga has no idea what's nominated because they don't watch most of the films unless they happen to be blockbusters. You won't be able to find my a everyday n!gga that even knows about Idris' Beast of No Nation, and wasn't that a Netflix movie? He needed a studio behind him to push it. And no n!gga will go see a movie with Will in a dramatic lead. That's the truth. So the argument is really for 2 movies, and 1 lead in Michael B, but it wasn't really an Oscar-worthy performance, he just is the type of actor you want to root for. He's that good. I would say that his performance was some type-of-ish that legends win for as a make-up, but not performance in itself. The people rooting for these W's, don't watch the other ish.



It is about timing because how the hell you gonna boycott an award show that you're not even nominated? No one will care if you're there or not. This is all because Will played a role and didn't get nominated? It's BS. You've been saying that there needs to be more black representation in Hollywood (watch Halle's speech) and she even called for black support of said movies. Last year, Selma was nominated and that's it. So why didn't they boycott? It was nominated without the director (which happens often) and no actor. The setup was there because had it won, without anyone there to accept, that would really bring the ruckus. It's also pointless for Jada to call for a boycott because she has NEVER had an Oscar quality role in her career, and Will literally gets any movie role that he wishes. He can accept and turn down ANY role in Hollywood, so what the eff is his point? Of course he has to side with Jada, but Will roles have no color. Neither do Morgan Freeman, Denzel, Michael B (currently), Alfre Woodard, Samuel L and Angela Bassett, Regina King - all can play any role they wish. Others need to follow suit and you do that by cultivating relationships and working outside of the "black movie" box. All of that BS about us needing our own is just that. The Oscars are the epitome of excellence in the filming industry. If you're an actor, you want one (unless you're a comedic actor - because you have no shot), because it shows you that you're worldwide recognize for that accomplishment. However, there are politics behind the AA's and if you don't play you won't be let in. And for the record, black actors/actresses boycott the Image Awards, NAACP awards, Essence, Black Reel, BET so what's the argument again?

Now the argument for winning for playing slaves and butlers/maids is there, BUT what are black movies? Madea the biggest stereotype of them all, hoodflicks with intelligent drug dealers, business women with hood-a$$ dudes, misogyny, young dudes with bad attitudes, people just coming home from jail, ghetto ass best friends, lots of violence (domestic, black-on-black) etc. Black movies themselves are stereotypes. I want diverse topics for black people, but of course that won't happen. That's how you get awards.

I think Creed is an all-time great movie. I liked it better than Rocky I. I think Michael B had an incredible performance. I also watched most of the movies that were nominated and I felt Creed was better. Also the critics felt that it was better than most of the movies that were nominated.

I'm gonna ask this question again and let's see if you or anyone else can come up with a legitimate answer. "Oscar-bait" is bullshyt.

What specifically made the movies that were nominated better than Creed?

What specifically made the actors nominated better than MB Jordan?

You complained about nikkas now it's my turn. For some stupid fukking reason a lot of black people fall in line with "we have to be twice as good to get half as much". Why do you and so many black people do this?

You say Creed isn't an all time great movie? Okay well last time I fukking checked you don't have to be an all time time movie to be nominated

White movies certainly dont have to be all time great to get nominated

Name one person that put in an all time great performance this year and give specific reasons as to why

 

[No1]

Also to plug my own shyt and our site
Why Chris Rock Should Host The Oscars Despite The Controversy

This is your site?

 

[MartyMcFly]

This is your site?

Nah, a site I write for tho.

 

[No1]

Nah, a site I write for tho.

Side note: @ the anger

Academy members are reacting with a range of responses — from joy to resignation to anger — to Friday's announcement that the organization plans to restrict voting privileges to "active" members in response to the lack of diversity amongst this year's Oscar nominations. Under the new rules, members who have not worked across a span of three decades after gaining membership will lose the right to cast Oscar ballots unless they've been nominated for an Oscar themselves.

Supporters have been most open with their reactions. Ava DuVernay, a member of the directors branch who controversially did not receive a directing nomination for Selma last year, tweeted: "One good step in a long, complicated journey for people of color + women artists. Shame is a helluva motivator. We've all felt shame even when we didn't believe we were wrong. It's the fact that EVERYONE ELSE thinks you're wrong. Fix it mode kicks in. Marginalized artists have advocated for Academy change for DECADES. Actual campaigns. Calls voiced FROM THE STAGE. Deaf ears. Closed minds. Whether it's shame, true feelings, or being dragged kicking + screaming, just get it done. Because the alternative isn't pretty."

However, of the wide cross-section of members with whom The Hollywood Reporter spoke on Friday and Saturday, far more were displeased with the move than pleased with it, insisting that the Academy's older members were being unfairly scapegoated.

"Notes from the soon-to-be-retired peanut gallery," was the subject line of an email I received from one longtime member of the writers branch whose credits all came in the 1970s. "I'm an obvious candidate," he acknowledged, "which does not bother me too much. But I have voted, often, for Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Samuel L. Jackson and other people of color. And such a procedure does raise the question of the nature of the Academy: is its membership based on merit and accomplishment or in-tune-ness with all that is currently popular?"

Some were less accepting of the news. "It's trying to clear the decks so the show can go on in February without people screaming," vented Sam Weisman, 68, of the directors branch. "As a member who has stepped partially away from the industry, it feels like someone like me is being victimized. I'm in the mentoring phase of my life — I teach — so I'm now supposed to not be relevant, even though I'm being as relevant, in working with young artists, as people who have current credits are. And, by the way, I've contributed a lot of time to the Academy as a judge for the Nicholl Fellowships and the Student Academy Awards. So basically they're saying that I don't matter anymore. It seems like this is a hastily put-together reaction to a firestorm."


Tab Hunter, 84, a member of the actors branch, concurred, calling the announcement "bullshyt." He elaborated, "Obviously, it's a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, 'politically-correct' voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first."

Documentary branch member Arnold Schwartzman, an Oscar winner for 1982's Genocide, was aggrieved on behalf of his fellow members. "I'm quite angry," he said. "I'm alright, I've got my Oscar. But what about all of those people that were elected to the Academy because they are skilled, but who never got an Oscar nomination?" He continued, "I just resent being characterized by some people as a racist. We judge films on the merits. There were some great films with white people that didn't get in that I was upset about. Race had nothing to do with any of it."

Executives branch member Marcia Nasatir, 89, who in recent decades has worked as an independent producer, asked what the word "active" even means in the eyes of the Academy. "Someone has to answer that question," she said. "It sometimes takes 10 years to get a movie made when you work on it as a producer, so what does this mean for producers?"

"Thank God I'm 'active,'" chuckled Mike Medavoy, 75, also of the executives branch. He said of the new membership requirements, "My feeling is generally that they're fair. There are a lot of members that got in because at the time they were executives. But if you haven't been active for over 10 years, then you're not 'active' and it seems to me you have to justify your membership." He questioned, though, if the changes would impact the diversity of the Academy's selections. "You can keep adding members — pack it like the Supreme Court [during the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration] — but I don't think that answers the question. I also don't think that the boycott [of the Oscars ceremony called for by some] is a good idea because it diminishes the rest of the people in the Academy."

A member of the music branch who wished to remain anonymous suggested the move has far more bark than it has bite. "I don't know how many people it's actually going to affect," she said, noting that the majority of "old-timers" were invited after being nominated (although some got in under rules that used to allow people with questionable credentials to become a member upon receiving the recommendation of two other members).

Leigh Castle, an agent who, as an associate member, doesn't have voting privileges, was torn about the decision made in the name of the organization to which she has belonged for decades. "I'm kind of on the fence about it and trying to look at both sides," she said. "I go to the Academy a lot and there are some people there that shouldn't be voting — they're very elderly and they don't look as if they can really judge what's in today's market, so in that way it has some merit. But there are other people that are 90 years old or whatever and they're perfectly vibrant and very much with it and, while they may be retired, it doesn't mean they aren't functioning on all cylinders. They have earned the privilege of being in the Academy through their work and just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they can't be a good judge of what they're looking at." (Of "the diversity business" that spurred the rule-change, she said, "People were chosen on merit. I don't think it had anything in the world to do with color. I mean, I would have picked Will Smith for Concussion — I think he did a marvelous job in that and it's very topical. But the reason that didn't get anywhere is the same reason that Truth didn't get anywhere: money talks.")

Veteran publicist Bruce Feldman, a member of the public relations branch, was outraged. He said that days ago, upon hearing rumors that the Academy might seek to sanction members who haven't been active in recent years, he emailed the PR branch's three representatives on the Board of Governors — Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Marvin Levy and Nancy Utley — and pleaded with them to consult the members they represent before making any changes, and that Levy and Utley acknowledged his concerns in a reply but Isaacs did not. "I think that's wrong," he said. "I think they have an obligation to represent us and not to act unilaterally. As a longstanding member, I find these actions very, very discouraging. While I understand that changes are necessary, it's disappointing that the Governors never communicated what they were considering with members and never asked for feedback before they made a decision. I would like to point out that we elect members to represent us and they have very simply failed to do so."

Another member of the PR branch who wished to remain anonymous fumed, "They did a knee-jerk reaction, when in fact the issue around actors [of color not receiving nominations] is in the actors branch — they are the ones who do the nominations!" He continued, "This 30-year rule is going to hit the PR branch and executives branch the hardest. What are you going to tell Bob Iger? He got in in 2005 when he took over Disney. He leaves in a year and goes to the NFL. So is he out? He is only building the Academy Museum."
Click to expand...

 

[No1]

And what about Jeff Shell and Kevin Tsujihara? They’re not going to be active for 30 years going forward. Michael Lynton once he’s fired? Beyonce and J-Lo? Are they in the movie business? Is Jada Pinkett Smith in the movie business? And by the way, there are a lot of Academy board members who aren't 'active,' like Jon Bloom or Bill Kroyer, who teaches, or Charles Bernstein, who hasn’t done a movie in 30 years." He continued, "I have news for you: older people who lived through the struggles for civil rights are way more sensitive to minority issues than young people who don’t understand what it was all about in the first place. It’s fukking knee-jerk liberalism without taking into consideration what is fair. Bill Mechanic should get a special shout-out for waging a 10-year struggle to kick out older people and bragging about it in the Times. What an idiot." And, he added, "I imagine the NAACP’s film group [the Image Awards] is also racist for not choosing Ava DuVernay for best director for Selma?"

A member of the documentary branch posted a bitingly sarcastic statement to Facebook: "The Motion Picture Academy, in the spirit of Affirmative Action (which has worked so well in our universities), is determined to take the Oscar vote away from the Old White Guys (including mine, possibly). Personally, I wish they'd examine their complex preferential ballot procedure which clearly isn't working right. But no, blame the Old White Guys."


Another PR branch member who is very active mused: "Their goal is to eliminate 'non-active' members, in spite of their experience, and to attract young industry members more in tune with the times. However, last I looked, these young industry members are the ones working today who are not making diverse films. What makes anyone think that having these additional members will change anything? The assumption is that minorities vote for minority projects and white members don’t. I've never heard anything so absurd and, yes, racist."

Among the people whose voting privileges appear to be on the chopping block is Mother Dolores Hart, 77, who for many decades has been a nun at the Abbey of Regina Laudis in Bethlehem, Conn., but who was an actress until the age of 24, and famously gave Elvis Presley his first on-screen kiss. "I've been an Academy member since 1960 and it does mean a lot to me, it really does," said Hart, who emphasized that she diligently watches almost all of the screeners she receives. "The older I get, the more I value the films that come — and I have time to see them." She said she is not sure she'll continue to watch films "if I have no way to offer a comment about them," and feels other members moved to "emeritus" status will react the same way: "I think it's going to destroy their initiative. Why would you sit for all of those hours if you have no say in anything?"

"I really think that the Academy will miss the input of people who have wisdom and experience," continued Hart. "I live in a monastery. We have age groups from 23 to 89, and it's very interesting to see how a younger generation evaluates things. But to cut out the wisdom of another grouping? I think you lose a very important voice." She added, "It's age discrimination," and insisted that she and the Academy members she knows don't have a racist bone in their body: "I just find the whole thing so disturbing, to say the least. I used to know the president of the Academy, and unfortunately I don't now. But if I did, I would ask her to please reconsider this."

 

[Box Cutta]

^^^

 

[joeychizzle]

What about the Asians in Hollywood
Life ain't just black and white like an oldass tv

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Blacks in Hollywood should be ashamed. All the power and influence they weird and they still choose to stay all up in these racist cacs studios. They should have been had their own production studios and film houses. So ridiculous it's been this long without a huge black precense.

Nollywood as already laid the blueprint. They need to get back on the independent movie circuit and build and independent black Hollywood of sorts. Meanwhile, blacks in the community need to shun these traditional movie houses and instead divert their dollars to projects like these. More black movie houses need to the built as well.

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

What about the Asians in Hollywood
Life ain't just black and white like an oldass tv

This is actually true

 

[Rekkapryde]

Blacks in Hollywood should be ashamed. All the power and influence they weird and they still choose to stay all up in these racist cacs studios. They should have been had their own production studios and film houses. So ridiculous it's been this long without a huge black precense.

Nollywood as already laid the blueprint. They need to get back on the independent movie circuit and build and independent black Hollywood of sorts. Meanwhile, blacks in the community need to shun these traditional movie houses and instead divert their dollars to projects like these. More black movie houses need to the built as well.

Tyler is doing this

 

[Rekkapryde]

disagree. it's sticking up for himself. "don't fukkin tell me how to react and what to do. You don't speak for me." Then turn around after shytting on those loudmouths and say "but seriously though, this room is whiter than..." he could easily pull off both. rip the ones trying to pressure him, while also slaying the academy for being old and white.

Cats obviously aren't familiar with Chris if they believe he'll c00n. Cacs was mad as hell for his 2005 Oscars hosting.

 

[Roman Brady]

Tyler is doing this

He's not using his position responsibly though, anyway can tap dance and make minstrels to prosper and continuously get their flicks greenlit but where is Tyler's trading places? Platoon or Freedomland?

 

[BXKingPin82]

I just now thought about this episode of Wife Swap I saw with DJ Paul and Plaxico Burress

DJ Paul had his Oscar for Hustle and Flow in a box deep in his closet somewhere

 

[No1]

What about the Asians in Hollywood
Life ain't just black and white like an oldass tv

I mean, if you can me on with Shay Mitchell I'll look into it.