Quantcast
Will Smith will not attend the Oscars in row over lack of diversity

Forums - Movies Discussion - Will Smith will not attend the Oscars in row over lack of diversity

Aeolus451 said:
theDX said:
Why are Americans so obsessed with race and gender?

 


Liberals for the most part own the media and they pander to minorities for votes. 

Try watching Fox News sometime. They are just as obsessed with sex and race and pander to older, white men.





Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

Make your own award show. There are still some weeks without one, Platinum equality awards.
The oscars are mostly bought anyway.



Sixteenvolt420 said:
Boycott the BET awards, Latin Grammys, and all of these other awards shows, which offer a true lack of diversity. If we had a White entertainment awards program, there would be riots.

Shiiiiiiiu that can't be said... there is no prejudice against white folks.

ratchet426 said:
Hmmm....(rummages in drawer)...now where did I put my box of Fucks? Oh, that's right, I'm all outta Fucks for Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their bullshit campaign.

You sir, are totaly right



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

If Will Smith was seeking "fair" representation, he would hope that one of the 4 acting nominees would be black every 3 or 4 years. This taking into account that 12% of the US is black - and other acting hotbeds like the UK are only 2%. There are 7 nominees since 2010, so it seems like black people are actually over-represented. Since Asians make up 5% of the US, we should be expecting about 1 nominee for every 2 black Nominees, but we get none. So if anyone wants to bitch, it should be the Asians.

But will just wants to sook because he didn't get nominated despite doing a movie he thought would be trendy. Suck it up Fresh Princess, and don't cheapen yourself and the achievements of others by playing the race card.



I suggest everyone calms down and that the Academy has a good long talk with the people concerned.
Personally, I think the Academy HAS a diversity problem, but we should try to resolve this without everyone getting in a racial hissy-fit (on both sides of the argument).



Around the Network
LipeJJ said:
So, he's implying that they should nominate people not by their merit, but based on ethnic/cultural diversity?

Or the did I read it wrong?

 

You read it wrong



Aielyn said:
Wonktonodi said:
I disagree that your not knowing proves your point. She wasn't the first to be arrested for not giving up her seat. The boycott is part of what made Martin Luther King Jr. so well known and showed what the movement could do when they worked together. The boycott wasn't to keep the pressure, the boycott was the pressue.

In this case the "event" could be considered two years in a row of only white people being nominated for the acting roles, but indeed in this case for the boycott to be efective would either them getting people not to watch the show or not to watch movies the show being an easier target than movies since they would have a hard time getting peopel to agree what movies need to be boycotted to prove the point.

for an efective boycott of the show they need to have many more high profile people not show up to the awards ceremony,  even if they got changes in the nominating process, the issues go much further back when the movies are made to begin with, where there isn't diversity in the making of the movies and good acting roles as well as directing, aren't cast as diverse, so for all those who don't even get offered acting roles because of race, it is an econimic issue and the awards are only a symptom of the underlying issue, not the issue itself.

If you don't think it proves my point, then I suspect you haven't understood my point. The momentum for the civil rights movement was triggered by Rosa Parks' highly visible action (there were previous cases, but they didn't push those events due to relative "unsuitability" of the women involved). Boycotts require momentum, they don't create momentum.

What we have right now is some rich black people vowing to not attend a glitzy awards event. That's just not going to start any momentum for change. The "#OscarsSoWhite" hashtag itself (or whatever it's called) is a more effective movement (and that's not really saying much).

When I spoke of lack of economic relevance, what I was talking about was specifically the issue with the Oscars, not to the film industry in general. Think of it this way - a boycott of the bus system sends the message "deal with this, or you won't get our money". What, exactly, does the boycott of the Oscars say? "Deal with this, or... we won't attend your event"? They're trying to boycott a social situation (an event that they get to go to for free) rather than a market. And that just won't work.

So if I understand your understanding correctly, you think that Rosa Parks case was so highly visible that it lead the blakc community boycotting the busses?  You should know the boycott started 4 days later, on the first day of her trial, that's hardly the time for any event to become highly visible. Her case and her name are well known because of the boycott.

The NAACP of wich she was a member, had wanted to do it for a while but they wanted a good face for the movement. They didn't think a 15 year old pregnant girl would be suitable. The movement was already there to make Rosa Parks known, it didn't form out of her arrest and court case.

This all stemed though from you saying there wasn't a boycott as an example of what they should be doing now.

As for your thoughts on what is going on now. Even talking of boycotting it has people talking about it, and the academy has already spoken of some changes they plan to make, so that's already achomplishing something might only be a small step but it's already showing that it's more effective than many here think.  You might dismiss them as a rich black people, who feels snubbed about awards, but that's just the narative people use to dismiss the deaper issues.



racial diversity =/= talent



Own:Nes,Snes,N64,Gamecube,Wii,WiiU,Gameboy Pocket,Gameboy Advance SP,DS,DSi,3DS XL,Sega Genesis,Sega Dreamcast,PS1,PS2,PS3,PSP,PSVita and Xbox 360.

Looking to get: Original Xbox 

A significant portion of my soul died with the first "SMT X FE" footage reveal.

Add me on PSN: afnanthekooltrex 

Check out my YouTube channel:  

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzZ6P0251NWOf7WUTsHmw_Q

Hopefully this doesn't mean that people will be nominated based on color rather than talent. Besides, Will Smith doesn't deserve a nomination. The ones nominated were better.

Also, I hope this group is also fighting for equality for Asians, Hispanics, etc and not just black people.



Honestly, I think this commotion is pretty racist in itself. Those who are making a big deal about the lack of colored actors are the ones making a distinction on skin color.

I'm not an American so maybe I just don't fully grasp the cultural dynamics and everything, but the emphasis on the 'black community' as a seperate entity from the rest of the nation has always struck me as odd. If anything, by differentiating between ethnic groups you sustain a form of seperation in a society.



Spending warm summer days indoors   

Writing frightening verse

To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, WiiU, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS, Mega Drive, Game Gear, PS1, PS2, PSP, XBOX 360, Atari Lynx