Author Topic: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality  (Read 7162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #195 on: March 10, 2018, 04:06:10 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12703
  • Tommy Points: 1334
Quote
Making assumptions based on the color of ones skin is stereotyping.  Using one's power to act on a stereotype to discriminate or oppress is racism.   There is a lot of misguided thinking that folks in America do which others may classify as racism -- but these are often the building blocks of racism rather than racism itself. I think the distinction matters because most of us have the potential for racist behavior because we actually do have some measure of stereotypic assumptions based on race and ethnicity -- but our value systems hold us back from actions of conscious oppression.  I don't think anyone would disagree that "white privilege is wrong", but I think many would disagree with the notion that it doesn't exist in America.   Of course, in a country of 360 million people there are many POC who have privilege, and many whites who (based on other factors mentioned in this thread) don't.   The question is whether, when taken as a whole, we can isolate race as being a factor, in and of itself (even though it is ALWAYS mixed in with other variables), that influences opportunity or privilege, or their polar opposites.

I don't make that distinction. To me, when you collectivize a group of people and cast aspersions on them, based on the color of their skin, that is inherently racist. Other groups, outside of the white population, have experienced great success in this country (Asian and Jewish People). So it is difficult for me to take the notion very seriously. In my summation, it is a term used to absolve one of personal responsibility. It's like, "Oh... Well that is why I didn't make it, this white privilege thing really kept me down". Well no, actually it's because you didn't graduate high school, or you had a kid before you were married, or you didn't get a job. Any job. In fact, The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue, and they whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class. So the United States is a meritocracy.


Quote
Equal opportunity based on skin color is as elusive as "full employment".  We all know that it can't really happen -- people are influenced by physical appearance in various ways and we can't just take that out the equation.  When I was in high school, I knew twin sisters who were both talented artists and musicians -- seeming remarkably equal in their skills.  One happened to be beautiful; the other, not so much.  Do you think their opportunities were equal?  They weren't.  One was always front and center, the other not so much.  The front and center one was noticed and offered scholarships, jobs, and social opportunities while the other fell behind.

Well, I don't know the different elements behind this anecdotal example, but I would imagine there is a little more to the story than attractiveness. I get your overall point though, it's tough to argue that there isn't a "Beauty", "Well Dressed" or "In Shape" privilege. But that benefit would apply to all races.

Quote
I think most of us would accept that equal opportunity is an imperfect ideal -- just as most accept that 4% unempoyment is pretty much considered full employment.   I think most of us are OK that some people get more breaks than others, and that privilege happens.  Where I think the big question rests isn't that inequalities exist, it's when inequality is so blatant and clear that something needs to be done to correct the injustice -- even if the solution sounds ugly or unfair.   There are times when hiring a talented female over a talented male -- simply because she's female, may be acceptable.  There are times when hiring an African-American who has potential, but is behind in skills compared to a white job competitor perhaps due to a culturally-deprived background, may be the right thing to do.   I am not saying that a society, or an industry, should make these decisions lightly, or base them on anecdotal circumstances.  But sometimes disparities tell us something ugly about ourselves and it's possible that we can become better as a people if we act as assertively to repair the injustice as we did to create it.

Would you care to unpack why the NBA, NFL, NCAA has such a disparity of players of African American heritage? Wouldn't the culturally-privileged have better facilities, coaches and well supported children in two parent households? Or why Asian Americans are the highest wage earners in the United States?

JSD --   I won't try to explain why racial bias exists in one arena even in the face of apparent racial parity in another.  Suffice it to say that I believe racial bias exists in America, that it impacts opportunities in some arenas, and that it has existed since the days of slavery and continues to have some impact on the upward mobility of African-Americans.  Poor children who are raised in unsafe neighborhoods, in homes with young single parents who aren't well-educated, go to poorly funded schools taught by the bottom of the crop of educators, who experience discrimination at the hands of police officers and judicial systems, and who are shown by their neighbors and family that the only feasible way out of empty pockets is through crime -- or perhaps if you are a mega-gifted athlete, are struggling human beings and have been harmed in their development as people.   These are the children we hope will wake up one morning and suddenly start acting like adults and take personal responsibility.  Sadly, it is more likely that before this epiphany occurs, they become the young parent, the HS dropout, the struggling next generation of workers and/or recipients of government support.   Note: the description above is a generalization and should not be taken to mean that I think this is the plight of all African-American families.

I also do not believe I am an extremist in my views on racial equality and am not happily pulled into arguing a "side" of an issue that I believe has multiple sides.   Personal responsibility is an enormous piece of the puzzle -- maybe the most important piece when it comes to reducing stereotypes and equalizing the playing field.  I also think that MOST Americans hold to the ideal that we should judge others on their merits and character and not skin color or ethnicity.  I agree with this and I hope America continues to evolve as a meritocracy.  I think most of us are aware that the American foundation that was built upon its first two centuries was hardly a meritocracy; good jobs were kept safe for privileged friends and families (predominantly for white males), immigrants were favored by like races/ethnicities -- taken into family businesses; civil service jobs were handed to those with "pull" usually based on being a friend, family-member, or from a specific country of origin.   America's "meritocracy" is evolving, it is in the making, and I think most of us (including me) value this direction.   

I will not apologize for, or minimize the value of, compassion, listening and seeking to understand.   There are trauma histories in many of today's struggling families that have been multi-generational and have devastating impact.  Arrival to our country for some was a journey to find freedom, a job in a cousin's business, a place for political or religious refuge, a place where one could promote valued ideals like knowledge, education and hard work.  For many African-American families, arrival was forced entry into slavery and servitude with family members abused, raped, sold off. These families were cultured into believe that they had an inability to be educated -- and they were assured that hard work would not pay off for anyone other than the master. Through much of the 20th century blacks were systematically segregated, denied voting rights, denied equal education opportunities, equal job opportunity, equal pay for equal work, etc.  It took 100 years post-slavery to get the constitution to acknowledge that it was not OK to discriminate on the basis of race or country of origin.

The historical realities that traumatized generation after generation of African-Americans as well as present realities that traumatize children today, do not absolve ANYONE of personal responsibility. They do however, provide a backdrop for understanding the plight of many current African-American families.  Opportunity exists, but children are still children, and when they are brought into a world with multiple factors pushing against them (including racial bias), they often give up -- as mistreated children often do.

The beauty of freedom is that it allows us to listen or not, to believe what we are told or not, to have compassion or not.   Compassion should not imply a desire for absolution of personal responsibility, providing easy ways out, giving unfettered handouts, or a belief in quota systems.  Compassion is just a state of understanding and caring which does at the very least tend to take blaming and shaming out of the equation, and can lead to open thinking about how best to empower and how to most effectively lend a helping hand.

I appreciate the civil discussion, but I am spent on it.  I can tell you are a good person, and a responsible American.  I am too -- we just see things differently.  Go Celtics.

 
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 04:12:55 PM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #196 on: March 10, 2018, 04:24:23 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4363
  • Tommy Points: 397
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html

Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?

EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.

Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story.  There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.

As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.

1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.

2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?

1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th. 

Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/

Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?

2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.

1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.

2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?

1. They used weighted scores to make the ranking list I provided.

Strangely, three of their top-10 most favorably reviewed films of all time are social justice films made this decade. Five of the top 21.  “Get Out” is ahead of every movie in the history of film except The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and The Third Man.  That’s not even a little bit suspicious to you? Would you rank Get Out in the top four movies ever?

2.  Please stop being intentionally obtuse. As I said earlier, she changed races and genders to push a diversity message. She’s acknowledged this. One place to start:

Quote
Her choices — in casting, tone and vision — have been as groundbreaking as the fact that she was directing it in the first place, the first woman of color at the helm of a $100 million studio tentpole. To hear her tell it, though, that milestone meant less to her than the opportunity to plant seeds, as she called it: cultivating, as she always has, a new way of looking at the world. She set out to “feminize” the movie, about a headstrong middle schooler — in this case, a biracial girl — who searches for her missing scientist father and saves the universe from encroaching evil.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/movies/a-wrinkle-in-time-ava-duvernay-disney.amp.html

1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.

2. How is asking for you to provide supporting evidence being obtuse? You once again showed that Duvernay cares about social justice but have still not given any evidence that she prioritized it over craft.

1. The point is that critics as a whole have inflated social justice movies this decade. Three of the top nine best-reviewed movies *ever* just happen to have come out of this decade and deal with SJ issues? Odd.  It’s almost like there’s a bias there.

2. She took a classic novel and decided to “plant seeds” by diversifying it and radically “feminizing” it. She’s pushing an agenda, rather than sticking to the source material.

Is she a hack, or did she handcuff herself by putting agenda over story?

1. So you're saying that movies with social messages are reviewed better by critics but A Wrinkle in Time is being poorly reviewed because it focused too much on its social message? It looks more to me like critics like movies with a social message when it's a good movie and don't like movies with a social message when they aren't good movies. You don't have to like Get Out but you can't just dismiss the consensus opinion of the movie because it doesn't align with your own.

2. How does changing the race of a character in a story where the race is irrelevant handcuff her? Duvernay herself told PBS, "It’s the same story. Just has different skin."

She also said, "Asserting my presence in a film is not anything that requires any thought. It just is, because it must be if I’m working on it." Which is basically in line with what other filmmakers say (Duncan Jones just told Marc Maron the exact same thing recently about himself). What you call pushing an agenda is really just the result of having a different perspective behind the camera and that in no way means that Duvernay ever sacrificed craft to push a message.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #197 on: March 10, 2018, 04:36:01 PM »

Offline Vox_Populi

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3568
  • Tommy Points: 227
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.

I'm assuming he doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. Their review aggregation is
binary based - either the critic liked it or they didn't. They do not standardize the actual reviews conclusive number. A film's RT score is only useful in a vacuum - it provides no context outside of the film itself. As such, "grade inflation" doesn't really mean anything within the confines of such a reductionist system.

Metacritic does the opposite. It actually collates and weights a film's numerical review scores. Coincidentally, Get Out was the 48th rated movie of 2017 by this measure.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 04:41:37 PM by Vox_Populi »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #198 on: March 10, 2018, 04:44:53 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I’d be really interested in seeing some hypotheses on why Asian-Americans have risen to the top of American society in terms of education and economics.   We’ve fought wars against Vietnam and Korea in the past 70 years, Chinese were essentially slaves in the railroad area, etc. Affirmative action programs actually discriminate against Asians. Physically, Asians don’t “blend in” like people talk about as a factor in European assimilation.

Is there a leading theory for why this is?



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #199 on: March 10, 2018, 05:30:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.

I'm assuming he doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. Their review aggregation is
binary based - either the critic liked it or they didn't. They do not standardize the actual reviews conclusive number. A film's RT score is only useful in a vacuum - it provides no context outside of the film itself. As such, "grade inflation" doesn't really mean anything within the confines of such a reductionist system.

Metacritic does the opposite. It actually collates and weights a film's numerical review scores. Coincidentally, Get Out was the 48th rated movie of 2017 by this measure.

I understand how a “positive / negative” review aggregator works. I also provided a link to what Rotten Tomatoes calls the “Top 100 movies of all time”, based upon adjusted score. There sits Get Out at #4 of “all time”. Their words, not mine.

And, I’m not the one using Rotten Tomatoes system inappropriately:

Quote
This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did.

99% fresh in no way implies “Oscar worthy”.  A 99% score for a good-but-not-great movie may imply a certain bias among critics, however, particularly looking at the freshness of new SJ movies compared to acclaimed movies of the past.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #200 on: March 10, 2018, 06:17:05 PM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
  • Tommy Points: 2006
I’d be really interested in seeing some hypotheses on why Asian-Americans have risen to the top of American society in terms of education and economics.   We’ve fought wars against Vietnam and Korea in the past 70 years, Chinese were essentially slaves in the railroad area, etc. Affirmative action programs actually discriminate against Asians. Physically, Asians don’t “blend in” like people talk about as a factor in European assimilation.

Is there a leading theory for why this is?

Aside from the two popular explanations (genetics and socio-demography), here is an interesting 3rd one which hasn't been thoroughly studied yet:

Quote
–15).

The third explanation attributes Asian Americans’ educational advantage to their greater work ethic and motivation. A growing body of evidence now confirms that academic success is not determined by cognitive ability alone but also by a multidimensional set of capabilities that are referred to as “noncognitive skills” by economists (16⇓–18) and “self-control” and “motivation processes” by psychologists (19⇓–21). These studies show that qualities such as attentiveness, self-control, motivation, and persistence may be as important as cognitive abilities in positively affecting academic performance. Asian-American parents may engage in parenting practices that better cultivate these qualities that, in turn, enable their children’s academic success. It is widely documented that Asian-American parents hold higher educational expectations for their children than white native-born parents (2, 3, 22). Asian and Asian-American parents are also more authoritarian and less permissive than white American families (23, 24). Also in contrast to white American parenting, some scholars argue that Asian-American parenting fosters greater interdependence and collectivism within the family, which helps Asian-American parents to more easily inculcate values such as high educational expectations and strong work ethic in their children (25). The proposed explanation that increased academic effort explains Asian-American youth’s academic advantage is consistent with popular perceptions of Asian-American youth being studious, hard-working, narrowly focused on academic matters, and highly motivated in the classroom. However, little empirical evidence is yet available pertaining to the validity of this explanation relative to the two other competing explanations./quote]


http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #201 on: March 27, 2018, 08:10:19 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #202 on: March 27, 2018, 08:24:43 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32667
  • Tommy Points: 5366
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #203 on: March 27, 2018, 08:44:10 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34919
  • Tommy Points: -27825
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.

The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 08:52:03 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #204 on: March 27, 2018, 09:35:42 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4363
  • Tommy Points: 397
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I'll stand up for Moonlight, No Country For Old Men, Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Annie Hall, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The French Connection, The Godfathers, and you know what? Titanic is actually quite good. There are others farther back as well.

The Oscars have done some pretty stupid things over the years but the list of winners is actually pretty eclectic and mostly strong.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #205 on: March 27, 2018, 09:41:08 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18741
  • Tommy Points: 1226
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.

The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.

Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 09:47:17 PM by eja117 »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #206 on: March 27, 2018, 10:49:38 PM »

Online fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18236
  • Tommy Points: 1964
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.

The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.

Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right

Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank is a decision that has not aged well.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #207 on: March 28, 2018, 08:07:40 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4363
  • Tommy Points: 397
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.

It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline.  We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.

The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.

What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.

I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.

I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.

The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.

Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right

Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank is a decision that has not aged well.

Yeah, Pulp Fiction should've won but I think Forrest Gump has become underrated at this point. I understand the criticism but I think its a better movie than Shawshank, which is terrific too.

Shakespeare In Love is the most searing indictment of the Academy, probably.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019