2016 Academy Awards (Oscars)

https://twitter.com/TheFanOfWords/status/687760718184091649

Can we at least admit this week is a good week for the international recognition of Irish talent in the film-making industry?

Seven different Irish people have been nominated for Oscars this year. Let's hear it for all of them, including Fiona Dwyer, Benjamin Cleary and Ed Guiney, as well as the more well-known names like Saoirse Ronan, Lenny Abrahamson, Emma Donoghue and Michael Fassbender.

Looper007

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I've never disagreed with anything more strongly in my life but if that is genuinely your opinion you'd probably be better off saving your money.

The only Abrahamson film I couldn't get into was Garage, I don't know why but I just can't get into that one as much as his other films.

I still think Adam and Paul is his best film to date. I loved Frank, has probably one of Fassbender's best performances. What Richard Did was very good too. He's got the vibe of a Hal Ashby to me.

I think Brie Larson is winning best actress unless the voters have a massive change of mind.

I'm over the moon Tom Hardy got a Supporting nod, he actually overshadows Leo in the Revenant. No Ridley Scott for best director, although I wasn't blown away by The Martian. I think George Miller did a better job and I'm amazed he isn't favourite to win best Director. But it's amazing they even put Mad Max Fury Road, as they haven't put a action movie on the list for a good while or have they ever?.

warpdrive

Not all of them are actually Irish.

If we're going to complain and call out the British for trying to claim Irish actors as their own then let's not do the same with other actors.

warpdrive

warpdrive wrote: »

Not all of them are actually Irish.
If we're going to complain and call out the British for trying to claim Irish actors as their own then let's not do the same with other actors.

I'm not interested in making this political, nor do I understand what you mean by saying they aren't “actually Irish”.

All seven of the people I listed are Irish citizens. It's a good day for the Irish film industry.

L'prof

warpdrive wrote: »

Not all of them are actually Irish.

If we're going to complain and call out the British for trying to claim Irish actors as their own then let's not do the same with other actors.

What's this nonsense??? Explain how people either born and raised or raised in Ireland can't be considered Irish?

irishmover

This thread has started well.

Frank O. Pinion

Yay, people born on the same island as me are doing stuff. I am so excited.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Corholio wrote: »

But it's not an Irish nomination. I don't think you're actually claiming her as that right?

I've explained this twice now. Not trying to claim her as Irish at all. But her nomination for an almost entirely Irish film should be counted among the nominations for Irish films.

If she wins it nobody will be saying she's the first Irish woman since Brenda Fricker to win an Oscar, or anything of the sort. But we will be able to say an Irish film won an Oscar.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Patty O Furniture wrote: »

Now when you think of it, i could have sworn i saw funding from Canada for both Brooklyn+Room as well, afaik Emma Donoghue is now based there.

Also if it's got funding from Film4, it maybe on tv sooner? as i noticed Amy was on tv last week.

Although since it's only out on the 15th in cinemas, i heard Lenny say that it's now trebled the distribution after Brie's Golden Globe

Room and Brooklyn both have funding from multiple sources as is the norm for anything made outside the big studio system. I believe BBC films also provided funding for Brooklyn. Room was shot entirely in Canada due to the funding deal.

I don't know how soon it will be on TV but most likely it will be on Film 4 before anywhere else.

johnny_ultimate

I have to admit I've found the reporting of the Irish nominations a bit hysterical. Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to see these people and films doing well abroad (Abrahamson particularly). But there's an almost OTT level of national pride afoot - paying attention to some media outlets yesterday, it was like they were battling with each other to over exaggerate how many Irish people/films were actually nominated :pac: At one point I heard the Force Awakens cited as a possible 'Irish' contender!!

This isn't exclusive to film - anytime Ireland does even modestly well in, say, a sporting event you see an immense level of nationalist pride emerge too. On one hand, it's understandable, maybe even to be encouraged. But I think in the last few years, and in this case, it has reached more hyperbolic levels, fed by the sort of overly emotive, exaggerated reporting that has become a staple of many new media outlets.

Still, on the bright side, if the success leads to more funding for Irish filmmaking, then that is unquestionably a good thing.

Dodge

Its fed by sheer numbers. Irish websites/newspapers/tv shows that highlight Irish interest get more clicks/reads/views than when they don't. It really is that simple

That others don't really care isn't the point. It's about whatever gets most people interested

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think it's worth getting excited about. 2 of the 8 best picture nominations are Irish. Given the sheer volume of films produced every year and the size of our own industry that's some achievement.

I know the awards themselves are somewhat meaningless and you could argue the films with the best marketing tactics are the ones that end up nominated. Abrahamson himself said A24 were targeting an awards run and chose release dates and festivals to target it.

Still, the recognition these Irish films and filmmakers will get for this is huge and given how financially beneficial the film/TV industry is to Ireland and the potential it has to grow it's a huge thing to have 9 nominations for Irish films/actors.

Granted not all the media are reporting it that way, some of them are just doing a bit of flag waving, which is a shame given all that was said the day before at the IFB 2016 launch.

LuckyLloyd

Well you can call it nationalism or whatever, but I'm over the moon for Lenny Abrahmson on this one and really excited to see what he can create in the coming years with such a platform. I remember coming out of What Richard Did stunned at its quality but conversing negatively how great Irish talent tends to get locked into that sort of filmmaking - i.e. making a lot of a little in terms of budget and resources. He'll likely get a real shot now to implement whatever artistic vision he has over the coming decade; just as Saoirse Ronan will get the pick of great scripts.

That is surely cause for celebration as film fans!!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well you can call it nationalism or whatever, but I'm over the moon for Lenny Abrahmson on this one and really excited to see what he can create in the coming years with such a platform. I remember coming out of What Richard Did stunned at its quality but conversing negatively how great Irish talent tends to get locked into that sort of filmmaking - i.e. making a lot of a little in terms of budget and resources. He'll likely get a real shot now to implement whatever artistic vision he has over the coming decade; just as Saoirse Ronan will get the pick of great scripts.

That is surely cause for celebration as film fans!!

Abrahamson already has some TV work lined up. He's directing (and maybe producing? ) the first few episodes of Hugh Lawrie's new show. I think it's with one of the cable networks.
Personally I hope he gets offered a super hero film next


Weird thing about Saoirse Ronan is that personally I feel her performance in Brooklyn was pretty par for the course for her. It's probably a better overall film than some of her previous ones but in terms of performance she's been doing it for years. People just seemed to take notice of it more with this one. Whatever the reason it's good for her.

johnny_ultimate

Don't get me wrong, everybody involved should be delighted for themselves (Element Pictures deserve all the success they can get). And my slightly colder response is certainly down to a) my own opinion that the Academy is a farcically outdated, predictable institution with little interest in celebrating the best of cinematic art (at best an avenue for a visibility boost for some good mid-tier films) and b) that I wasn't particularly fond of Brooklyn :pac:

Still, though, I'm not a fan of the OTT national pride seen in many cases recently, especially when it's from people or outlets who don't give a lot of attention to Irish talent until it comes to awards time or whatever. Certainly these things are cause for some degree of celebration - just more moderated celebration would be nice

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Still, though, I'm not a fan of the OTT national pride seen in many cases recently, especially when it's from people or outlets who don't give a lot of attention to Irish talent until it comes to awards time or whatever. Certainly these things are cause for some degree of celebration - just more moderated celebration would be nice

I get what you're saying.

I think it's a little bit like the #OscarsSoWhite reaction every year. It's unquestionably an issue but so many media outlets get on their high horse for a few weeks between nominations being announced and awards being given out. How much attention do they give the issue the other 11 months of the year? Much like the Irish reaction it's a hot topic for a week or so and it guarantees clicks on sites etc. who normally wouldn't cover the issue at all.

Does anyone know which paper it was that ran a "failure for Irish film" story after the Golden Globes?

Ally Dick

I saw The Revenant last night. I loved it. Di Caprio was great in it. Loved the scenery, and the story was good too.

PressRun

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I get what you're saying.

I think it's a little bit like the #OscarsSoWhite reaction every year. It's unquestionably an issue but so many media outlets get on their high horse for a few weeks between nominations being announced and awards being given out. How much attention do they give the issue the other 11 months of the year? Much like the Irish reaction it's a hot topic for a week or so and it guarantees clicks on sites etc. who normally wouldn't cover the issue at all.

Does anyone know which paper it was that ran a "failure for Irish film" story after the Golden Globes?

This definitely irks me. There's no question that minorities are under-represented in film, but it's not like these media outlets that complain about the white-washing of the Oscars or whatever do much for the visibility of minority actors/directors/writers.

I'm happy for those involved in the Irish films that have been nominated at the Oscars this year. Whatever about the silly nature of the event, it's still a good boost for the Irish film industry and will surely mean that many of these individuals and companies can continue to create and promote good work. The arts is an area in which Ireland had consistently punched above its weight. It's nice to see that that hasn't died away in the midst of financial crisis and so on.

Patty O Furniture

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Room and Brooklyn both have funding from multiple sources as is the norm for anything made outside the big studio system. I believe BBC films also provided funding for Brooklyn. Room was shot entirely in Canada due to the funding deal.


I don't know how soon it will be on TV but most likely it will be on Film 4 before anywhere else.

Yeah I suppose outside the big studio's you need all the funding you can get. I saw that at the end, shot entirely in Toronto.

Well Amy was a documentary, (maybe films take longer?) & afaik was in cinemas in Sept & you wonder if anyone got it for an xmas present, considering it was on tv about 2wks ago!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Abrahamson already has some TV work lined up. He's directing (and maybe producing? ) the first few episodes of Hugh Lawrie's new show. I think it's with one of the cable networks.
Personally I hope he gets offered a super hero film next




Weird thing about Saoirse Ronan is that personally I feel her performance in Brooklyn was pretty par for the course for her. It's probably a better overall film than some of her previous ones but in terms of performance she's been doing it for years. People just seemed to take notice of it more with this one. Whatever the reason it's good for her.

& maybe then they can pronounce her name better, especially 'Shisha' :P

Seems like 2 seasons is ordered by Hulu More info here
Busy man, Although, read he prefers to work with comedians

youreadthat

I thought the kid in Room was at least as good as Brie Larson, but if she wins it's hard to argue against it.

JP Liz V1

It is a shame F&F7 song didn't make it

Having just recently seen Justin Kurzel's Macbeth, I am surprised and disappointed that Adam Arkapaw was not nominated in the Best Cinematography category. Macbeth has to be one of the most beautiful films of 2015.

Looper007

London Critic Awards

Film of the year - Mad Max: Fury Road

British/Irish film of the year - 45 Years

Actor of the year - Tom Courtenay (45 Years)

Actress of the year - Charlotte Rampling (45 Years)

Supporting actor of the year - Mark Rylance (Bridge Of Spies)

Supporting actress of the year - Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

Director of the year: George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)

Screenwriter of the year - Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy (Spotlight)

British/Irish actor of the year - Tom Hardy (Legend, London Road, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant)

British/Irish actress of the year - Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn, Lost River)

Young British/Irish performer of the year - Maisie Williams (The Falling)

Documentary of the year - Amy

Dilys Powell award for excellence in film - Sir Kenneth Branagh

Foreign language film of the year - The Look Of Silence

Philip French award for breakthrough British/Irish filmmaker - John Maclean (Slow West)

Technical achievement award: cinematographer Ed Lachman (Carol)

JP Liz V1

Leo, Sly and Brie won at Critics Choice Awards too

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Charlotte Rampling doing herself no favours here by claiming the row about diversity is "racist to white people"

I don't think the Oscars is necessarily the place to change the issue of diversity in film/media but this is just pure nonsense from Rampling. She's either extremely uneducated on the issue and chose to express a very strong opinion anyway or she has educated herself on the issue and still expresses this opinion. Either way she's a fool.

Leaving aside the race issue the implication that this bunch of all white nominees is even the best of the performances from white people is ridiculous in itself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Charlotte Rampling doing herself no favours here by claiming the row about diversity is "racist to white people"

I don't think the Oscars is necessarily the place to change the issue of diversity in film/media but this is just pure nonsense from Rampling. She's either extremely uneducated on the issue and chose to express a very strong opinion anyway or she has educated herself on the issue and still expresses this opinion. Either way she's a fool.

Leaving aside the race issue the implication that this bunch of all white nominees is even the best of the performances from white people is ridiculous in itself.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Have any of the people complaining listed out the black actors that should have been nominated for acting awards or do the oscars (which are pointless to start with) have to become even more pointless and include minority candidates for the sake of it.

There may be too high a percenatage of white people as voters for the academy awards but is you start down the line of making the awards more diverse for the sake of it you complete dilute any achivement attached with getting nominated.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Have any of the people complaining listed out the black actors that should have been nominated for acting awards or do the oscars (which are pointless to start with) have to become even more pointless and include minority candidates for the sake of it.

There may be too high a percenatage of white people as voters for the academy awards but is you start down the line of making the awards more diverse for the sake of it you complete dilute any achivement attached with getting nominated.

The argument there is that you'd struggle to even name a handful of performers/film that predominantly feature non white leads, directors etc. never mind ones worthy of awards. Leaving aside the fact that these awards are in no way an indication of quality.

The way I see it the Oscars, and awards season in general, are the end of the chain. The problem lies at the start of the chain. Even if you made a serious effort to seek out and watch all the films released in a year that featured minority actors or were written/directed by non white people you'd struggle to get into double figures. Other than Creed and Straight Outta Compton was there any other wide release films that featured black/Latino/Asian actors in any great number?

Introducing quotas for awards are pointless. All that will lead to is accusations that people aren't there on merit. Again leaving aside the face that most people at the Oscars are there because their film has great PR guys pulling the strings.

Where there should be quotas are in the number of films financed and produced by the studios. The number of minority crew members on sets in important positions. The amount of publicity and kind of publicity given to films should change too. It has to change from the start of the chain so by the time you get to the end of it (awards season) there are more films/performances in the actual conversation.

Look at Netflix giving Adam Sandler a 6/7 picture deal and in his very first film he offends the native American cast and crew he has working on it. How much of the money given to him could have been used to finance one or two film, even short films, by non white people? Or even by women which is still a problem when it comes to the non acting categories.

All that said Rampling's comments are still ridiculous.

PressRun

Rampling is a fool.

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The argument there is that you'd struggle to even name a handful of performers/film that predominantly feature non white leads, directors etc. never mind ones worthy of awards. Leaving aside the fact that these awards are in no way an indication of quality.

The way I see it the Oscars, and awards season in general, are the end of the chain. The problem lies at the start of the chain. Even if you made a serious effort to seek out and watch all the films released in a year that featured minority actors or were written/directed by non white people you'd struggle to get into double figures. Other than Creed and Straight Outta Compton was there any other wide release films that featured black/Latino/Asian actors in any great number?

Introducing quotas for awards are pointless. All that will lead to is accusations that people aren't there on merit. Again leaving aside the face that most people at the Oscars are there because their film has great PR guys pulling the strings.

Where there should be quotas are in the number of films financed and produced by the studios. The number of minority crew members on sets in important positions. The amount of publicity and kind of publicity given to films should change too. It has to change from the start of the chain so by the time you get to the end of it (awards season) there are more films/performances in the actual conversation.

Look at Netflix giving Adam Sandler a 6/7 picture deal and in his very first film he offends the native American cast and crew he has working on it. How much of the money given to him could have been used to finance one or two film, even short films, by non white people? Or even by women which is still a problem when it comes to the non acting categories.

All that said Rampling's comments are still ridiculous.

Film studios are not charities. They've obviously backed Sandler (despite his films being sh1te of the highest order) because they feel he'll make money for them.They have no obligation to potentially run at a loss in order to give people a chance.

Only 12.60% of the USA's population are African American and 9 out of the last 60 (15%) acting awards have gone to black actors and actresses.

Film studios are private business and can hire who they like as long as they don't actively stop people working for them there is nothing that should be done to stop them hiring who they like (the same as in any other business).Instead of introducing quotas you have to trust that people doing the hiring and firing aren't racist (and most people aren't) and that the cream will rise to the top.You start going down the quota route in any business and it will cause trouble as once you have a quota you will always have doubts over whether people have their jobs on merit.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Film studios are private business and can hire who they like as long as they don't actively stop people working for them there is nothing that should be done to stop them hiring who they like (the same as in any other business).Instead of introducing quotas you have to trust that people doing the hiring and firing aren't racist (and most people aren't) and that the cream will rise to the top.You start going down the quota route in any business and it will cause trouble as once you have a quota you will always have doubts over whether people have their jobs on merit.

I see what you're saying and in an ideal world maybe I could believe the best in people like that. I have to say I don't though.

I go back to the point I made before about how many films with "minority" leads get wide releases in the cinemas. They can't make money if they're not given the same opportunity to. The only two films I can think of this year, other than Star Wars, that have non white leads and got wide releases and proper promotion are Straight Outta Compton and Creed. Both of which have done big numbers. SOC has taken $161,197,785 ($28 million budget) in a roughly two month cinema run and Creed is currently on $107,735,567 ($35 million budget) and was only released last week in the UK/Ireland.

A few others I can think of that are hardly high quality - Furious 7, which is like a rainbow cast, and made $353,007,020 (budget $190,000,000), Kevin Hart vehicles The Wedding Ringer $64,460,211 (budget $23,000,000) and Get Hard $90,411,453 (budget $40,000,000).

The argument that only white people sell, or whatever it is, doesn't hold up for me.

dreamers75

Who should have got an oscar nomination in the eyes of the boycotters?


The kid in Beast of no Nation is only one I think and tbh that would just because he is a kid.

dreamers75

Who should have got an oscar nomination in the eyes of the boycotters?


The kid in Beast of no Nation is only one I think and tbh that would just because he is a kid.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

dreamers75 wrote: »

Who should have got an oscar nomination in the eyes of the boycotters?


The kid in Beast of no Nation is only one I think and tbh that would just because he is a kid.

You're missing the point if you think the only issue is who should have gotten a nomination.

JP Liz V1

I think Will Smith was in contention and perhaps director and lead actor for Creed

dreamers75

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're missing the point if you think the only issue is who should have gotten a nomination.

Guess I am I never look at it in a "what color is that person?" usually look at it in "who was decent in?" kinda way.

Do the boycotters want Token?



If the Academy is racist then wouldnt that make all the non whites to win it token?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

dreamers75 wrote: »

Guess I am I never look at it in a "what color is that person?" usually look at it in "who was decent in?" kinda way.

Maybe you should start paying attention to what colour the pepole you're seeing on screen are. Then you might realise how many of them are white.

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Maybe you should start paying attention to what colour the pepole you're seeing on screen are. Then you might realise how many of them are white.

That's because the vast majority of people from America are white and therefore the vast amount of actors in Hollywood films will be white as well.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's because the vast majority of people from America are white and therefore the vast amount of actors in Hollywood films will be white as well.

And what about when white people slap on some face paint and take roles as minority characters? Like Rooney Mara or Johnny Depp. Or they just cast a white person to play a character who is supposed to be quarter Asian quarter Hawaiien? Like Emma Stone. Or when a background character suddenly changes race when they become a speaking role? Like Lavender Brown in the Harry Potter films?

How is any of that explained by the demographics of the USA?

The Black Oil

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The way I see it the Oscars, and awards season in general, are the end of the chain. The problem lies at the start of the chain.

Certainly.

What does the Academy do in the months outside of the Oscars? It doesn't appear to be very active or visible, or I could not be looking hard enough. I think most of us don't take the Oscars all that seriously. They are the end of a 2-3 month period of self-congratulation and not always indicative of talent.

Look at the recent DGA report on diversity. Not great. I don't believe anyone wants diversity for the sake of diversity. It's about some sort of wider truth.

If you look at TV, Variety's critic Mo Ryan has written in detail about significant problems for women and non-white directors. I'd imagine there are similar issues in film.

Reminds me of a line from the very funny but largely forgotten Steve Martin film, Bowfinger.

https://twitter.com/TheFanOfWords/status/690813378500030464

Means Of Escape

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Maybe you should start paying attention to what colour the pepole you're seeing on screen are. Then you might realise how many of them are white.

There has to be a solid and non arguable reason why a director has not cast a black actor in a film ie Braveheart

Boyega was cast as Finn in Star Wars to balance this issue
It is rare to see contemporary movies without a black actor regardless of the role or their ability .

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

And what about when white people slap on some face paint and take roles as minority characters? Like Rooney Mara or Johnny Depp. Or they just cast a white person to play a character who is supposed to be quarter Asian quarter Hawaiien? Like Emma Stone. Or when a background character suddenly changes race when they become a speaking role? Like Lavender Brown in the Harry Potter films?

How is any of that explained by the demographics of the USA?

Maybe the directors/producers like those actors and thought they had star power that might help the film.They can hire whoever they want for films.The colour of most film characters is largely irrelevant unless it is key to the story.

Tyler Perry played a character from Gone Girl that was actually white in the book but I never heard one complaint about him being casted because the characters race was irrelevant.

Why Do We Fall

Means Of Escape wrote: »

There has to be a solid and non arguable reason why a director has not cast a black actor in a film ie Braveheart

Boyega was cast as Finn in Star Wars to balance this issue
It is rare to see contemporary movies without a black actor regardless of the role or their ability .

Being true to historical accuracy in a period piece is one reason I wouldn't argue with.

The only thing I see as important is if the actor is good enough and has shown an ability to embody a role better than anyone else. That's where it begins and ends for me. There should be no race "requirement"and certainly not one that takes precedence over ability. If there was then everyone is shortchanged.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Means Of Escape wrote: »

There has to be a solid and non arguable reason why a director has not cast a black actor in a film ie Braveheart

Boyega was cast as Finn in Star Wars to balance this issue
It is rare to see contemporary movies without a black actor regardless of the role or their ability .

Yes, if you're talking about historical figures you're going to cast them according to what they looked like. (although other than him being white the historical accuracy of Braveheart was non existent)

I was reading yesterday an agent in Hollywood said that black clients are never put forward for auditions unless the casting sides specifically say "black". And the majority of roles that do specify "black" are supporting roles, very rare to get leads. And yes, you could argue that their agents should send them to all the auditions that don't specify "white" but they know from years of experience that there's no point.

The casting of the recent Star Wars film seems like a deliberate attempt to appease minorities in casting a black man and a woman in the leads, Oscar Isaac is Guatemalan American so you could even include Hispanic/Latino in there too. And it was fine, mainly. There were people who $hit themselves over seeing a black storm trooper in the trailer. The company making the toys decided not to bother making Rey action figures in their sets because "boys don't want stuff with girls on it". Leaving all that aside the film did well, which proves that you don't have to have all white leads to have a successful film. Granted everyone was going to see Star Wars even if they'd cast a herd of cows in the lead roles. But still, it's a start.

silverharp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I see what you're saying and in an ideal world maybe I could believe the best in people like that. I have to say I don't though.

I go back to the point I made before about how many films with "minority" leads get wide releases in the cinemas. They can't make money if they're not given the same opportunity to. The only two films I can think of this year, other than Star Wars, that have non white leads and got wide releases and proper promotion are Straight Outta Compton and Creed. Both of which have done big numbers. SOC has taken $161,197,785 ($28 million budget) in a roughly two month cinema run and Creed is currently on $107,735,567 ($35 million budget) and was only released last week in the UK/Ireland.

A few others I can think of that are hardly high quality - Furious 7, which is like a rainbow cast, and made $353,007,020 (budget $190,000,000), Kevin Hart vehicles The Wedding Ringer $64,460,211 (budget $23,000,000) and Get Hard $90,411,453 (budget $40,000,000).

The argument that only white people sell, or whatever it is, doesn't hold up for me.

clearly nobody is saying that and I doubt movie backers are leaving money on the table, if someone can sell them a $100m movie that costs $30m they will bite your hand off.
on the flip side there are lots of different genre of movie that basically in a lot of cases need to be white character driven be they chic flicks, "suburban" movies, many kids films, historically based movies, geographically based ones etc.
I dont see that there is anything to "fix" , force producers hands and it will take away from movies as people point out the "tokens" or deriding movies because the progressive input is layered on so thick that it distracts

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Maybe the directors/producers like those actors and thought they had star power that might help the film.They can hire whoever they want for films.The colour of most film characters is largely irrelevant unless it is key to the story.

Yes, star power definitely plays a part. Look at Meryl Streep being cast in Suffragette this past year. She had about 3 minutes screen time, any half decent actress could have played her part but then they couldn't have put MERYL STREEP on the posters.

The problem is though that the myth that only white people sell has been perpetuated for so long that everyone believes it now. There are articles about how white people, particularly in America, think if there are "too many" black people in a film then it's a "black film" and not for them, so studios and casting directors make decisions based on that. Straight Outta Compton and Creed proved this isn't necessarily the case.

Tyler Perry played a character from Gone Girl that was actually white in the book but I never heard one complaint about him being casted because the characters race was irrelevant.

People were mad when Samuel L Jackson was cast as Nick Fury in Avengers. People were mad when they saw a black storm trooper when the Star Wars trailer arrived.

It's very easy to say race is irrelevant when you're white because you are always looking at yourself on screen. Imagine being a black child going to the cinema. Before this year if you ever saw someone that looked like you on screen he/she was probably a drug dealer, a gang member, a stripper, at best a wise cracking associate. You can point to a handful of names, Will Smith, Denzel etc. but they are the exception that proves the rule. I can't even think of who young black girls might have been seeing on screen that looked like them.

Anyway, the point is that it's a problem. It may not be solely down to racism now but Hollywood itself was established in a time before the civil rights movement and people were excluded from it for decades because of their skin colour. It shouldn't still be the case but it's become the status quo and what a lot of people really need is just to open their eyes and ears and realise that it doesn't have to be that way.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

silverharp wrote: »

clearly nobody is saying that and I doubt movie backers are leaving money on the table, if someone can sell them a $100m movie that costs $30m they will bite your hand off.
on the flip side there are lots of different genre of movie that basically in a lot of cases need to be white character driven be they chic flicks, "suburban" movies, many kids films, historically based movies, geographically based ones etc.
I dont see that there is anything to "fix" , force producers hands and it will take away from movies as people point out the "tokens" or deriding movies because the progressive input is layered on so thick that it distracts

Why do any of these, other than historic or geographically based ones, need to be white driven? Black people don't fall in love? Black people don't live in the suburbs? Kids hate Latinos?

You want to talk about geographically based films? Let's talk about the two very recent ones set in Egypt that had almost entirely white lead casts.

Peter Anthony

Rampling spot on. I mean of course the Oscars and Hollywood aren't liberal and diverse enough.....:rolleyes: It's already just a liberal back patting circus that nobody takes seriously. And funny when ****e like Selma and 12 Years a Slave cleaned up undeservedly just because of "diversity" and white guilt, nobody was complaining. Most of the voters didn't even watch 12 years a Slave. And Will Smiths wife and oddball family are only crying because he didn't get nominated. Just typical playing the race card. Yeah Will Smith is really discriminated against.....:pac:

The fact they are talking about quotas for token Blacks has just killed the last ounce of credibility these awards had. Its a joke to most people already anyway, rubbish Oscar Bait like the Danish Girl gets lauded because of its backers and the fact there is a strong lobby for transexuals at the minute. No wonder it and Spotlight both bombed at the Box Office. Even people interested in the Danish Girl story and theme said the story was told badly and that it's subject matter and Backers just purely made top class Oscar bait.

BoJack Horseman

It will certainly add the unintentional 'token' moniker over future nominees.