SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 10:51am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    General Boards    Questions or Comments  ›  #Oscarssowhite
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 7 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    #Oscarssowhite   (currently 4313 views)
TonyDionisio
Posted: March 4th, 2016, 7:56pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


Damnit, get to the point!

Location
Tennessee
Posts
768
Posts Per Day
0.20
I can't imagine going from a once a year nomination "show" to the higher education system is a good comparison. Although, both are 2 peas in the same liberal pod.

I mean, first we have to agree on what the goal is here. Are we truly looking to arrive in a better place for every race of people in the world or is this hyper-emotional sensationalism race bait? I'd say the latter.

Aren't "white" people different shades of white? What is the threshold of "whiteness"  we are willing to award something before this imaginary racist "feel good fairness" kicks in? Then what -- #OscarsNotYellowEnough? See how stupid analyzing something like this truly is? What better place do race baiters want to go? What will it look like? I'd like to know. I doubt they know, or even care. How about a mandate for the next 5 years of Oscars to only award a certain color of skin awards regardless of talent in the name of affirmative action - dumb right?

Stack the fact the award  was twice hosted by a "so black" host, who by the way is a raving racist himself - who's only ever been funny making fun of his own race while degrading women. He can do it, so why not? Every time he's tried to be truly funny in a movie without raving racism, he failed. But, let's let him have a forum while we go after a truly funny guy such as a Cosby. Again, my opinion.

Silly shit IMO.






Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 15 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 4th, 2016, 8:34pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from TonyDionisio
I can't imagine going from a once a year nomination "show" to the higher education system is a good comparison. Although, both are 2 peas in the same liberal pod.

I mean, first we have to agree on what the goal is here. Are we truly looking to arrive in a better place for every race of people in the world or is this hyper-emotional sensationalism race bait? I'd say the latter.

Aren't "white" people different shades of white? What is the threshold of "whiteness"  we are willing to award something before this imaginary racist "feel good fairness" kicks in? Then what -- #OscarsNotYellowEnough? See how stupid analyzing something like this truly is? What better place do race baiters want to go? What will it look like? I'd like to know. I doubt they know, or even care. How about a mandate for the next 5 years of Oscars to only award a certain color of skin awards regardless of talent in the name of affirmative action - dumb right?

Stack the fact the award  was twice hosted by a "so black" host, who by the way is a raving racist himself - who's only ever been funny making fun of his own race while degrading women. He can do it, so why not? Every time he's tried to be truly funny in a movie without raving racism, he failed. But, let's let him have a forum while we go after a truly funny guy such as a Cosby. Again, my opinion.

Silly shit IMO.



While I disagree with your rant on liberalism, the census and affirmative action (that's a discussion for another day) - I think you missed the point of the post entirely. The question was merely this - is the protest really rooted in Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action at it's core means that an individual of a minority would receive preferential treatment over a non-minority as a tool to address prior discrimination.  The "preferential treatment is easily documented (e.g., a white person and a black person have identical SAT scores, but the black person is admitted to college over the white person based on their race).

That is not what the complaint is here. It is that black actor or film is not being recognized when they were equally as good or better than the white actor or film. i.e., they are not seeking preferential treatment (affirmative action). Instead, they are seeking equal treatment.
The fact of the matter is that 94% of the Academy voters are white. Do you not think that there may be a chance that a different set of nominees would have arisen of the inverse were true? (i.e., 94% of the voters were black). Same with the fact that more than half are over 60 years old.

It is just silly to think that the demographics of those who vote have no impact on the films and actors they vote for.



My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 16 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 3:30am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Black actors have won Oscars before... it is the same (type of) people voting then as it is now. I honestly feel that the fact that there aren't any black actors in it this time around shows it as being fair. There are very few quality black actors in comparison to white actors.

Maybe there is a sum we could do to help figure this out. Something like counting the total amount of white and black actors and then dividing by the amount of Oscar ceremonies they have held... it's really too early in the morning for me to think properly, but you get what I mean.

It could turn out that there have been too many black nominees.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 17 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 12:04pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from DustinBowcot
Black actors have won Oscars before... it is the same (type of) people voting then as it is now. I honestly feel that the fact that there aren't any black actors in it this time around shows it as being fair. There are very few quality black actors in comparison to white actors.

Maybe there is a sum we could do to help figure this out. Something like counting the total amount of white and black actors and then dividing by the amount of Oscar ceremonies they have held... it's really too early in the morning for me to think properly, but you get what I mean.

It could turn out that there have been too many black nominees.


Whether or not the Oscars are racist is unknowable since we have no real way of looking into people's minds. That being said, it is easily determinable whether the voting demographics
align with the participating demographics.  They clearly do not.

Tony's argument is that the oscarssowhite movement has it's roots in Affirmative Action. It does not. It's core is that there should be equal treatment - not preferential treatment.

There is a site that does a pretty good job of breaking down the numbers. It is here:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

It basically concludes two things:

1. Black Actors have received nominations and awards proportional to their representation in the industry.

2. Whites have received nominations and awards far in excess to their representation in the industry. This quote in particular:

Could the “whiteout” be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely. A 2013 survey of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), an American union for film performers, suggests that 70% of its members are white. If all of the Guild’s members were equally likely to receive Oscar nominations, regardless of race, then over a two-year period 28 out of 40 nominations would be of white actors. The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally small—even during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000.


Very long winded way of saying - (1) I have no idea if there is any element of racism in the voting. (2) I am confident that the make up of those who vote bears little resemblance to those who participate both on an age basis and a ethnicity basis. (3) I don't believe black actors are seeking preferential treatment.  


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 18 - 31
DustinBowcot
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 1:59pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from eldave1


http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

It basically concludes two things:

1. Black Actors have received nominations and awards proportional to their representation in the industry.

2. Whites have received nominations and awards far in excess to their representation in the industry.


How can whites be over represented while blacks are proportionate? It's impossible... unless we add an extra demographic to the equation. If black nominees are proportional, then where are the extra white places coming from?

Logged
e-mail Reply: 19 - 31
Bogey
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 3:32pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
The Chair
Posts
232
Posts Per Day
0.06
Oscars aside, when Amy Schumer received a Golden Globes nomination for Best Screenplay (Trainwreck), that pretty much magnified that Hollywood's a social club, and the awards nominations and voting is a popularity contest - not an honest evaluation of the work.

As for whether the Oscars nominations have had an element of racism, I don't need metrics and analysis to know what I can see with my own eyes. It exists. On what level, I don't know, but it obviously exists.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 20 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 3:54pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from DustinBowcot


How can whites be over represented while blacks are proportionate? It's impossible... unless we add an extra demographic to the equation. If black nominees are proportional, then where are the extra white places coming from?



Because Hispanics, Asians, etc are grossly underrepresented (yes - it's the other demographics). So - the mathematical data concludes:

Black Nominations percent roughly equal Population
White Nominations percent much greater than population
Other groups (Hispanics, etc) much less than population.

Now, none of the above = racism. Could be Hispanics were proportionally bad and Whites were proportionally good. Who knows? That being said - whenever the vote is going to be subjective (i.e, there is no merit based metric that determines who is best) I think it is always better to have those who's opinion we are relying on represent the population they serve. If I am on trial for robbing a young black man - I don't want a jury of 12 black twenty year olds. If I want someone to vote on the best rock song of the year - I don't want a bunch of 80 year olds voting.    etc.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 21 - 31
James McClung
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 5:44pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
The most important thing IMO is that the Oscars have essentially proved to be a catalyst for a bigger conversation about race in Hollywood, which is good. The controversy over the nominations themselves is a little overblown. The Oscars have always been bullshit in that regard.

That said, if the Academy is to do anything at all, I think the voter demographic is worth a look, as arguments for the lack of diversity amongst them do have merit. The alternative would essentially be establishing some kind of quota for non-white nominees, which would be all kinds of bullshit. Race issue aside, the voters are on record for not even watching some of the films they're supposed to be voting for and making decisions based on petty beefs with individuals associated with the nominees. Time is ripe to clean house, I think.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 22 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 5th, 2016, 5:57pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95
makes sense to me


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 23 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 6th, 2016, 12:16pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted from CJ Walley
I don't think the nominations have to be inline with population statistics, I don't understand why that comparison is made. It should be entirely possible for the nominations to be 100% black if the best productions and performances of the year just so happen to come from black industry members.

What the Oscars has highlighted is that there is a lack of diversity with key influencers and decision makers and that appears to be trickling down the industry.


They don't have to be. I think the question really is would it be better if they were. IMO - yes. Unlike objective measures (grades, test scores, etc.) the voting is entirely a subjective process. By matter of comparison, when I think of all my early musical favorites who never won a grammy (e.g., Bob Marley, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Janis Joplin, Journey, The Who, The Kinks, etc.) I can't help but to think that some of that had to do with the fact that a bunch of old foks had most of the votes. I just can't see how anyone could argue that a group of 60 year old plus white guys opinions are reflective of the culture or have a monopoly on what in their opinion is good or bad.


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 24 - 31
TonyDionisio
Posted: March 7th, 2016, 1:51pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


Damnit, get to the point!

Location
Tennessee
Posts
768
Posts Per Day
0.20
Once again, what is the goal here? Is it to get everyone to agree that the Oscar's are influenced by racism? You want 100% agreement that forces are working behind the panel to discriminate? Ain't gonna happen. You want action taken for future Oscar's such as regulations and sanctions to change the industry image? Do you need to be explained how dangerous that would be?

You don't like something, boycott it. Lower ratings will force the show to change something about itself (and it is a business, not a government agency) Perhaps then it will be what you're after - if you even find out what that is. Or let it die out, watch one of the other dozens of shows.

Just please, reject race baiting. Reject these clever hash tags and their nefarious agendas.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 25 - 31
Heretic
Posted: March 7th, 2016, 2:46pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28
Tony, I'll try rephrasing my question:

You said, I think, that "true talent" will shine through. Since judging things like acting, production designing, or music is completely subjective, is the Oscars really a place that "true talent" can shine?

To answer your questions in kind (I'm not sure if they were directed at me):

I have no goal regarding the Oscars as I think the whole thing is pathetic -- I am however sympathetic to people who think that the Oscars are important but that the judges are less likely to be interested in certain films/people. To the rest of your questions, no, no, no, and it wouldn't be dangerous because the Oscars have no impact on real life.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 26 - 31
eldave1
Posted: March 7th, 2016, 2:50pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6874
Posts Per Day
1.95

Quoted Text
Once again, what is the goal here? Is it to get everyone to agree that the Oscar's are influenced by racism?


Nope - I've said several times I have no idea whether or not they are.


Quoted Text
You want 100% agreement that forces are working behind the panel to discriminate? Ain't gonna happen.


Nope -see above.


Quoted Text
You want action taken for future Oscar's such as regulations and sanctions to change the industry image? Do you need to be explained how dangerous that would be?


Nope - don't want any sanctions any never asked for any. I merely stated (a) it would be preferable to have the demographics of the voters align somewhat with the demographics of the participants (b) the protest is not about affirmative action in that they are not seeking preferential treatment - they are seeking equal treatment.


Quoted Text
You don't like something, boycott it. Lower ratings will force the show to change something about itself (and it is a business, not a government agency) Perhaps then it will be what you're after - if you even find out what that is. Or let it die out, watch one of the other dozens of shows.


That is an alternative that has been exercised by many - ironically, you seem to disagree with their actions. You are the one that stated that - Forces are at work trying to manipulate the minds of people through sensationalism such as the Oscar event


Quoted Text
Just please, reject race baiting. Reject these clever hash tags and their nefarious agendas.


Tony - you need to read before you react and attempt to stay on point.  Again - my position was - whether you agree with those who raised the issue or not - their issue is not affirmative action based as stated in your post. They are seeking equal treatment. It is impossible for me to say they have not received it. It is equally impossible for you to know that they have.



My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 27 - 31
James McClung
Posted: March 7th, 2016, 3:11pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
Not sure anyone mentioned regulations or sanctions, but indeed that would be crap. No goals on my part; just adding to the conversation.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 28 - 31
TonyDionisio
Posted: March 7th, 2016, 8:16pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


Damnit, get to the point!

Location
Tennessee
Posts
768
Posts Per Day
0.20

Quoted from James McClung
Not sure anyone mentioned regulations or sanctions, but indeed that would be crap. No goals on my part; just adding to the conversation.


Hence MY point. The conversation is moot unless you decide to take action. With regard to leveling the "playing" field, you know it is already being implemented behind closed doors as we speak -- that's how these people make deals to save jobs and face.

Look, I live in NY, the biggest melting pot in the world, and I know EXACTLY were this is heading, you will see changes -- and those changes will not bring us to a better place. Hence why I am telling all of you not to regurgitate this affirmative action conversation at its very core. Reject it.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 29 - 31
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Questions or Comments  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006