Author Topic: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality  (Read 29866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #180 on: March 09, 2018, 02:24:03 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2948
  • Tommy Points: 320
Back to Hollywood...

This is from an article criticizing the lack of female directors in the Star Wars universe:

Quote
With the “Star Wars” properties threatening to continue as long as the Earth spins, Kennedy has yet to make good on her supposed desire to recruit a woman to call the shots. In 2016, Kennedy said “there are many” women who could direct a “Star Wars” movie ― and she’d “talked to most of them.” Just last month, J.J. Abrams, who is preparing the follow-up to “The Last Jedi,” told Metro that Kennedy is “actively working to do the right thing” with regard to the lack of female directors in Lucasfilm’s annals.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-star-wars-apos-fails-000600663.html

Why is it the “right thing” to hire a female director? Isn’t the “right thing” to hire the best director with the best vision?

Yes, the "best" or "right" hire shouldn't depend on any racial/gender specific basis. The most talented person should get the job. The challenge is that the best isn't always hired.

Are you assuming that the "right" or "best" person is always hired?

What happens when you have two candidates that are deemed to be of equal talent? Is it then ok to hire based on secondary factors?

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #181 on: March 09, 2018, 04:30:35 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
Back to Hollywood...

This is from an article criticizing the lack of female directors in the Star Wars universe:

Quote
With the “Star Wars” properties threatening to continue as long as the Earth spins, Kennedy has yet to make good on her supposed desire to recruit a woman to call the shots. In 2016, Kennedy said “there are many” women who could direct a “Star Wars” movie ― and she’d “talked to most of them.” Just last month, J.J. Abrams, who is preparing the follow-up to “The Last Jedi,” told Metro that Kennedy is “actively working to do the right thing” with regard to the lack of female directors in Lucasfilm’s annals.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-star-wars-apos-fails-000600663.html

Why is it the “right thing” to hire a female director? Isn’t the “right thing” to hire the best director with the best vision?

If Kennedy wants to do "the right thing" she should immediately fire Abrams and hire ANYBODY else.

Dude is a hack and is worse than Michael Bay at making nonsensical CGI trash. I have no idea how he hustled his way this far into the industry.

Hollywood could use some new voices over all as well. These formulaic mindless blockbusters have become stale beyond belief, I could care less what the paid-off reviewers say, most of them aren't any good. If changing that means bringing in women then I'm all for it.

Half the population is female, so I'd be interested to see the numbers of how many women try to enter the field to becomes filmmakers in proportion to men.

If the numbers are relatively comparable, then it  stands to reason Hollywood is hurting itself by not giving women more opportunities. 

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #182 on: March 09, 2018, 07:45:57 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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?
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #183 on: March 09, 2018, 08:00:45 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2018, 08:50:52 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #184 on: March 09, 2018, 10:10:43 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23319
  • Tommy Points: 2509
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?

Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.

Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.

many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.

I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.

I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.

To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society.  It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives.  It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
There is also a ton of peer reviewed stuff that got people doctorates that show white priviledge exists. So, no, white priviledge has not been debunked and being a white in a most minority world most of my life, I would tend to agree with that.

If you are accusing, or making assumptions about someone, based on the color of their skin, that's called "Racism". The concept of white privilege is not only wrong, but fundamentally racist.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #185 on: March 10, 2018, 12:18:27 AM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
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?

I thought "Get out" was truly spooky. Maybe the best film out of the nominees, though they were all very good.

And it was tense and well-crafted, in a Hitchcockian sort of way. I truly had no idea of where it was going.

And the name was perfect - the whole time you are just praying the main character can save himself. You see through his eyes and it is frightening.

And that to me is what is "progressive" about the film The racial component is obviously very potent and effective.

But the fact that they wrote a role for a black character at all that was not token or stereotyped but felt like an organic character - THAT is what is missing in Hollywood. Same for other minorities and for women. It should be okay to write quality roles for people who are not white men.

But for all its acclaim, its budget was only $4.5M. The studio wasn't exactly throwing money all over the place here, taking a chance.

Black Panther has been cited as an example of progressiveness, but it has the "Marvel" logo on it so it was a guaranteed success no matter how good it actually was. To me that's not as daring as some others think.

We have yet to see any high-budget black-centered original projects.

So time will tell if anything is gonna change here.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #186 on: March 10, 2018, 12:26:33 AM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
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.


Err.... what was the "Shape of Water's" social agenda?

To me it was pretty much about compassion vs hatred... The sort of thing you might read in a fairly tale or a Disney animated film. I dunno if it was any sort of direct modern social commentary.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #187 on: March 10, 2018, 04:29:31 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12562
  • Tommy Points: 2155
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?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 04:47:45 AM by JSD »
The only color that matters is GREEN

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #188 on: March 10, 2018, 07:43:45 AM »

Offline Chief

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21216
  • Tommy Points: 2450
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.

Tp
Once you are labeled 'the best' you want to stay up there, and you can't do it by loafing around.
 
Larry Bird

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #189 on: March 10, 2018, 09:21:59 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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.


Err.... what was the "Shape of Water's" social agenda?

To me it was pretty much about compassion vs hatred... The sort of thing you might read in a fairly tale or a Disney animated film. I dunno if it was any sort of direct modern social commentary.

It was.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/guillermo-del-toro-on-the-shape-of-waters-politics.html
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #190 on: March 10, 2018, 09:29:54 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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?
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #191 on: March 10, 2018, 10:31:47 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #192 on: March 10, 2018, 11:11:46 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
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.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #193 on: March 10, 2018, 11:26:21 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
But the fact that they wrote a role for a black character at all that was not token or stereotyped but felt like an organic character - THAT is what is missing in Hollywood. Same for other minorities and for women. It should be okay to write quality roles for people who are not white men.

Of course it should be okay to write quality roles for minorities and women. Whether or not it's the best business practice is determined by the market, or should be. What I think many people have an issue with it is this concept being forced on studios against what may or may not be in their best financial interest.

If people want more of the good roles in Hollywood to go to minorities and women they need to speak up with their spending power.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #194 on: March 10, 2018, 11:49:25 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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?



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes