Topic: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

I am not really interested so much, in fact, I have one rule when it comes to movies I chose to watch and that is, I don't watch movies that received an Oscar as they are more often than not either boring or obnoxiously blowhardy and pretentious.

A movie like Birdman for example (just from the trailer ... cause, well, I haven't watched it) looks like it has been made for one purpose only - to win an Oscar.

The reason I am posting this is another one though - the picture of this years oscar winners looks like it is P/C Principles wet dream:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5278395/oscars2017.JPG

Of course, maybe all of these awards are deserved (again, haven't seen any of the films) but especially after last years controversy about the lack of black oscar winners, this feels very unhealthy for society. Same counter-productive effects that female employment quotas arguably carry for example.

The summary of this years winners looks like somebody sat down and created a matrix of about 8 personal features that need to be covered (women v man, white v black, beard v no beard ...) for only 4 Oscars to be awarded. I am glad they added a ginger kid this year to be fair.

If we really want for Trump not to win another election, we need to stop doing shit like this ...

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

hear hear...

Brothers! What we do in life...Echoes in Eternity!


http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=9a35ebe93d371275706bdebcafefaa47

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

BenTheMan wrote:

Of course, maybe all of these awards are deserved (again, haven't seen any of the films) but especially after last years controversy about the lack of black oscar winners, this feels very unhealthy for society.

[...]

If we really want for Trump not to win another election, we need to stop doing shit like this ...

So you admit to not having seen the movies, your problem is merely that in 2016, black people have a slightly higher chance than ever at winning an Oscar, and that it the problem for you? Or is it the fact that this year featured both a black winner for supporting actor and supporting actress at the same time?

Are you saying that the solution to end "shit like this" that's being "unhealthy for society" by... Uhm... Not letting black actors win? Or assuming movies featuring black actors can't be as good, and will always win for a political reason? I'm extremely confused by your statements, and I don't understand what your suggested solution to the problem is - is it to only let one tenth or one twentieth of the winners be black, otherwise it will automatically be for political reasons that they win, because they can't win just because they've done some great acting?

Sorry for my confusion. Feel free to clarify.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

I think the point is, that awards should be given purely on merit, and not part of some kind of agenda.  Discrimination, whether it's positive or negative, is simply wrong.

When I was much younger and more naive than I am now, I used to believe that Oscars were awarded to the best in the film industry.  Now I see it as something I probably won't enjoy.

I've seen most of the movies that have won "Best Picture", and I can honestly say that most of the ones from the last 20 or so years have been undeserving of an Oscar.

I've seen La La Land and I didn't like it.  I personally know a lot of people that have seen it, and none of them liked it.  I don't see the point in making an old 40's/50's style musical - and I love those old movies. 

I just see the Oscars as a way of people in the movie industry to pat each others' backs about how great they all are.

But hey, what do I know.

That's the second biggest X I've ever seen.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

ellkay wrote:
BenTheMan wrote:

Of course, maybe all of these awards are deserved (again, haven't seen any of the films) but especially after last years controversy about the lack of black oscar winners, this feels very unhealthy for society.

[...]

If we really want for Trump not to win another election, we need to stop doing shit like this ...

So you admit to not having seen the movies, your problem is merely that in 2016, black people have a slightly higher chance than ever at winning an Oscar, and that it the problem for you? Or is it the fact that this year featured both a black winner for supporting actor and supporting actress at the same time?

Are you saying that the solution to end "shit like this" that's being "unhealthy for society" by... Uhm... Not letting black actors win? Or assuming movies featuring black actors can't be as good, and will always win for a political reason? I'm extremely confused by your statements, and I don't understand what your suggested solution to the problem is - is it to only let one tenth or one twentieth of the winners be black, otherwise it will automatically be for political reasons that they win, because they can't win just because they've done some great acting?

Sorry for my confusion. Feel free to clarify.

I think it's a parable of how society is trying to be fair, accepting, tolerant, equal to a point where fairness becomes an obsession and therefor ironically unfair and counterproductive.

Look, I don't know who deserves the oscars this year, but I do see the direction society is going towards while trying to cover all (and I mean all) bases in terms of policitcal correctness through censorship and the obsession with eqality through a lack of competition, and I don't agree with it because it drives people into the arms of Milo, Trump, Bannon etc. Maybe the winners this year were coincidentally EX-FUCKING-STREMELY gender and race diverse but I don't really believe in coincidence - I believe in the weakness of a political institution (the academy) that wants to pad itself on the back saying "Boy are we a bunch of pro-diverse and tolerant motherfuckers. Look at us, behold how non-racist we are."

I do know that in a world where everyone gets a trophy, whether he's (yes, he, not he or she, not he or she or *, fuckin he, cause it doesnt fuckin mean anything) first or last, trophies don't mean anything anymore. I also know that up until a few years ago I would've called myself left wing but cannot anymore, because of the shit that 'my team' is producing in terms of rules, narratives, over-sensible/over-sensitiveness towards anything because their biggest worry is not to be called tolerant, inclusive and accepting of everything on the planet ever. As opposed to just being that without the need to constantly fuckin tell us.

So instead of implying I have a problem with black people - which is the obvious, easy way of reacting to this - it's much more complicated to try and understand why the Oscar winners may have something to do with why Trump won / people are fed up with the left.

Calling Trump a racist or fascist doesnt help. Cause when he's a racist, most people suddently become racists and by way of that group (their team) part of THE group that ACTUAL racists belong to. Instead of saying what he does is wrong, we say it's fascist.

The solution to the problem is, to actually forget race, color and religion and make decisions (give jobs and awards for that matter) based on right and wrong, deserved / undeserved, better and worse. If that means that the next 500 Oscars go to a white guy from Tennessee, so be it. Same goes for the next 500 Oscars going to a black dude from Brazil.

Either of that is very unlikely to happen (I admit, primarily for mathematical reasons) but also because we're living in a time where it's about looking like you're doing what's right, versus actually doing what's right.

If none of the Fortune 500 companies have a women CEO, well, maybe they just aren't that good yet. And yes, it's the males fault for keeping them down for so long, but that doesn't change the fact that they may just not be ready and that's why more men are in positions of powerm - as opposed to sexism. And you know why we were able to keep them down for so long? Because we're fuckin stronger and can kick their ass if we wanted to. Today we know it's wrong, but it's still true nevertheless. You know why kids don't get cookies before dinner? Because we could break their tiny little hands and lock them up in a room with no fuckin light. Should we be doing this? No, and we don't but there's still no fuckin cookies cause the grown ups say so.

Yeah, I'm ... not a big kid-person ...

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

graybags wrote:

I've seen La La Land and I didn't like it.  I personally know a lot of people that have seen it, and none of them liked it.  I don't see the point in making an old 40's/50's style musical - and I love those old movies.

La La Land hasnt won best picture tho.

http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=Watchlist&kk=276008292d78a1f619f8bbc10840767b

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

The problem only becomes a problem when someone who admittedly even hasn't seen the movies suggest that the winners are winners not because of merit but because of an agenda. I wholeheartedly agree that race shouldn't be an issue here - but it also goes to a point where nothing done will be "right". If black people win, must it always become a question of whether it was for political reasons? Is society really that f'ed up that if more than one black person wins, it's because of political reasons and not because they deserve it? But when 20 white people win every single category, then you CAN'T question it, because then THAT becomes political?

If the road to making color not be a factor in who wins and who doesn't, start with a few black people actually getting the win for once, isn't that a good thing? I mean, for over 50 years the academy awards have been politically white. The few years they become politically "black" (majority of winners are still white), raises eyebrows to some people - well let them. That's the road it will take before it becomes a question of merit and not color.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

BenTheMan wrote:

The solution to the problem is, to actually forget race, color and religion and make decisions (give jobs and awards for that matter) based on right and wrong, deserved / undeserved, better and worse. If that means that the next 500 Oscars go to a white guy from Tennessee, so be it. Same goes for the next 500 Oscars going to a black dude from Brazil.

But you're the one who brought up race, and made it sound like they didn't deserve the Oscars, even though you haven't seen the movies - you yourself are creating the problem you say you want to get rid of. You automatically assume they don't deserve the Oscars. What do you base this on?

9 (edited by proteinnerd 2017-02-28 20:07:48)

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

I find myself agreeing with Ben, Moonlight wasn't that good and did not deserve to win best picture. La la land was also overhyped.

Hacksaw ridge should have won but you know...Mel Gibson goes against the PC party line (not that I agree with him) but they were never going to give him the Best Picture award a year after the so called white wash scandal of last year.

...the ridiculous thing is its actually reverse racism in this case, don't give it to the white guy because he went on an anti-semitic rant, give it to the predominantly black film to make everyone happy after last years accusations that the academy is racist.

simply put..the world is f##ked

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

I'm not talking about race specifically. My observation was the sheer diversity that HAPPENS to happen with genders and races. Considering that stupid discussion from last year, where the academy bascially said they'll make sure they'll be more diverse - as opposed to: fuck you, we award who we feel needs to be awarded - leads to a result like this years looking very curious.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

ellkay wrote:
BenTheMan wrote:

The solution to the problem is, to actually forget race, color and religion and make decisions (give jobs and awards for that matter) based on right and wrong, deserved / undeserved, better and worse. If that means that the next 500 Oscars go to a white guy from Tennessee, so be it. Same goes for the next 500 Oscars going to a black dude from Brazil.

But you're the one who brought up race, and made it sound like they didn't deserve the Oscars, even though you haven't seen the movies - you yourself are creating the problem you say you want to get rid of. You automatically assume they don't deserve the Oscars. What do you base this on?

The assumption gets made because of political correctness. It's not racism to assume that point of view when you're in a society that is clearly political correct, it's not him that is the problem, it's political correctness.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

HomerS wrote:
graybags wrote:

I've seen La La Land and I didn't like it.  I personally know a lot of people that have seen it, and none of them liked it.  I don't see the point in making an old 40's/50's style musical - and I love those old movies.

La La Land hasnt won best picture tho.

It did - for about 10 seconds smile

That's the second biggest X I've ever seen.

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

100% Agree with BenTheMan!

This "PC" trend is a real danger to society, when you choose winners based on minorities and race just to have a "healthy" mix and not performance.

Bring back competition and rewarding those who deserve it based on performance, not gender, race.

http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=133ba59597f9a4f2f96f73177a621cd8

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

SPOILER:

IMO, Affeck winning for Manchester by the Sea was a joke. The character suffered a terrible tragedy which was shown in flash backs but the actor rarely spoke. We got it. He couldn't talk about his loss so he drank beer and started bar brawls. He won an Oscar for being filmed doing his job as a handyman and not talking. This is acting?

15 (edited by MeDumbDuck 2017-03-04 00:27:36)

Re: Oscars 2017 (Spoilers)

AnneLee wrote:

SPOILER:

IMO, Affeck winning for Manchester by the Sea was a joke. The character suffered a terrible tragedy which was shown in flash backs but the actor rarely spoke. We got it. He couldn't talk about his loss so he drank beer and started bar brawls. He won an Oscar for being filmed doing his job as a handyman and not talking. This is acting?


Acrually it's the hardest kind of acting; not saying a word.