The Oscars controversy surrounding the lack of diversity

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 334 comments
  • 15,322 views
TenEightyOne
Your usual mis-written economic arguments aside... are you saying that there "hasn't been any real demand" for films with non-white actors?
Click to expand...

No matter how you frame it there is always and economic argument when you consider the fact that foreign box offices make up the greater share movie-goers oppose to the domestic market, even Bill Maher is correct on this point(even though I personally disagree with the use of racism by foreigners)

http://deadline.com/2016/01/bill-maher-diversity-china-real-time-with-bill-maher-1201688927/
 
Last edited:
As bad as it is for African Americans in Hollywood (it's not), their issues can't hold a candle to the plight of women in Hollywood, according to Julie Delpy anyway:

https://www.thewrap.com/julie-delpy-hollywood-dumps-women-sometimes-wish-african-american/

“Nothing worse than being a woman in this business,” actress says at TheWrap’s interview studio. “It’s funny — women can’t talk. I sometimes wish I were African American because people don’t bash them afterward.”
Click to expand...
 
Johnnypenso
As bad as it is for African Americans in Hollywood (it's not), their issues can't hold a candle to the plight of women in Hollywood, according to Julie Delpy anyway:

https://www.thewrap.com/julie-delpy-hollywood-dumps-women-sometimes-wish-african-american/
Click to expand...

Having read that article none of that hold water especially on the issue of pay this when you consider the fact that actors and actresses are compensated based on how their contracts are negotiated. In fact all off these actresses acting like cry babies over the issue of pay like the hypocrite Jennifer Lawrence and biggest cry baby of them all Patricia Arquette(who clearly failed economics 101) fail to understand there is no such thing as a gender pay gap, especially in the entertainment industry.

Behind the scenes, Delpy said she was frustrated at having trouble getting her movies made.
Click to expand...

In this day and age making a film is by no means easy this when you consider the fact that these days a majority of the financing are coming from foreign investors add the fact that studios are risk weary; Its for this reason why you tend to have many film project ending up in the proverbial development hell. That said this clueless woman really need to get her head out of the ground and realize that is a business.

I love how clueless Viola Davis is....

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_gr...boycott_the_problem_is_with_movie_making.html
 
Last edited:
At least Hugh seems to agree, that they handled it in such a nice way when the Academy probably doesn't deserve it. At least that's the way he seems to hint about the topic.
 
What relevance do the Oscars have to anything anyway? They're all about Hollywood patting themselves on the back. At best they might make DVD/Bluray or Download sales that little bit stronger. But outside of that Hollywood bubble no gives a damn.
 
Johnnypenso
As bad as it is for African Americans in Hollywood (it's not),
Click to expand...
Remember when Denzel Washington won it for Training Day? He had lots of excellent performances, but the only time he won it was for playing a crooked and thuggish cop. It was a good performance to be sure (it was one of the few times he didn't repeat every single line of dialogue; I can't be the only one who has noticed that he repeats every single line of dialogue), but it was still a role that fit the African-American stereotype.
 
prisonermonkeys
Remember when Denzel Washington won it for Training Day? He had lots of excellent performances, but the only time he won it was for playing a crooked and thuggish cop. It was a good performance to be sure (it was one of the few times he didn't repeat every single line of dialogue; I can't be the only one who has noticed that he repeats every single line of dialogue), but it was still a role that fit the African-American stereotype.
Click to expand...
A crooked and thuggish cop is an Africa-American stereotype? On what planet? When Jamie Foxx won for playing Ray Charles, was that because a blind singer is an A-A stereotype?
 
The question in my mind is: Who gets an invite and who doesn't? Obviously those nominated are invited, but there have to be (if they choose); past winners and the like who are also in the list. But surely not everyone in the realm and reach of Hollywood can fit in that singular auditorium.

Therefore, what is a boycott if you possibly weren't invited? It's amazing how one-sided this "issue" has become.
 
Soon what's next people call racist when their movie doesn't sell tickets.

I don't get acting awards, a movie isn't going to magically sell more Because it won an Oscar or what not, it just seems like an Ego stroking exercise to me.

There is plenty of Actors that don't have Oscars and they could basically get any acting role they wanted because everyone knows they're good.

The funny thing I found is the Movie that Leonardo DiCaprio is getting nominated for is a terrible movie that is incredibly slow paced and you know the entire outcome well before it happens.
 
mustafur
a terrible movie that is incredibly slow paced and you know the entire outcome well before it happens.
Click to expand...

The technical term for movies like that is "Oscar Bait".

Some of which can be quite enjoyable with a glass of wine and a cool Sunday afternoon in which you have nothing better to do than fall asleep during the best parts of "The King's Speech."



Well, yes, I did enjoy the King's Speech... but not enough to pay cinema prices (both tickets and outrageously expensive popcorn) for it.
 
There's half-and-half to that. I'd call it a chicken-or-egg thing. Granted, many of the big blockbusters that we watch are male-led, but a lot of wildly succesful movies over the past few years have been female-helmed. Pitch Perfect 2, Gravity, Frozen (Disney Princesses, go figure), Cinderella, The Hunger Games (not a fan, but it's there), etcetera. The question is, really, why studios don't make more female-led movies, if the interest is so obviously there?

The paychecks will follow if the leads establish their star power or drawing power. That's simply the biz. What's lacking are the opportunities.
 
niky
The question is, really, why studios don't make more female-led movies, if the interest is so obviously there?
Click to expand...

ghostbusters-2016-official.jpg


I'm not sure the world is ready.
 
I think they just need to be better negotiators, especially in Jennifer Lawrence's case as she is the crucial key to the Hunger Games franchise she would have nearly all the power in a salary negotiation.

Movie industry is a business and your basically worth what sales you can bring to film, I guess the female led movie genre is still fairly low at this point and they probably see it as a risk.

But you can't blame anyone for that as everyone needs to eat too.
 
Is the interest there for female led movies in general, or is the interest there for those specific types of movies? Hunger Games being a bit of an outlier that perhaps proves in favor of the point, but stuff like the live action Cinderella, and Frozen, and Maleficient, and that Alice in Wonderland movie all made oodles of money and were very much female led, but they also all seem to slot in the same sorta specific niche. I still think we need to see a studio take greater risks with the idea for it to be clear what the drive is behind their popularity.



It's kinda like the Fast and the Furious movies. They have each made progressively more money, and every one of them since 4 have also had very spread out viewer demographics who are stated to be drawn to the wide spread of ethnicities who run the show. But which one is the chicken and which one is the egg? Are so many varieties of people going to see those movies and responding well to their casts because they are hungry for more movies with casts that aren't whitewashed? Or is it because those widely differing groups of people just happen to like those movies anyway and having the diverse casting they do only fuels their enjoyment?
 
niky
There's half-and-half to that. I'd call it a chicken-or-egg thing. Granted, many of the big blockbusters that we watch are male-led, but a lot of wildly succesful movies over the past few years have been female-helmed. Pitch Perfect 2, Gravity, Frozen (Disney Princesses, go figure), Cinderella, The Hunger Games (not a fan, but it's there), etcetera. The question is, really, why studios don't make more female-led movies, if the interest is so obviously there?

The paychecks will follow if the leads establish their star power or drawing power. That's simply the biz. What's lacking are the opportunities.
Click to expand...
They don't make more female led movies because male led movies are more likely to succeed. You don't think if there was as much or more money to be made on average with female leads, that studios wouldn't be lining up for them? It's a business whose sole purpose is to make money, they'll hire whomever will make them the biggest pot of gold.
 
It's also a business that has a long history of skewing extremely conservative until a maverick-type gets enough clout to try something new. Looks at some of the landmark movies of the past fourty years. The real influential/remembered tentpole flicks like Star Wars, Jaws, Back to the Future, The Godfather, Superman, Lord of the Rings, and Die Hard. A somewhat common theme among breakout movies along those lines is that there usually was only one or two people who stood up for the projects from start to finish against immense studio pressure, and the risk paid off handsomely.


That isn't to say that that conservatism is wrong, of course, because there is a lot of money on the line and there are plenty of examples of weird movies that cost a lot of money that bombed; but there are a lot of documented cases of studios trying to shut out untapped markets in favor of playing it safe, especially when it comes to the expensive big movies who spwan immitators when they succeed.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
They don't make more female led movies because male led movies are more likely to succeed. You don't think if there was as much or more money to be made on average with female leads, that studios wouldn't be lining up for them? It's a business whose sole purpose is to make money, they'll hire whomever will make them the biggest pot of gold.
Click to expand...

Actually... looking at some financial reviews... male-led movies are far more likely to flop.

-

Granted, that's because American studios take many more risks on male-led movies in the first place. But still, that's there. We won't know if a female-led movie is more likely to flop until studios take more chances on female-led movies. And part of why they won't take chances is that possibly... possibly... they aren't quite in tune with female audiences.

The Hunger Games, and, to a lesser, but still suprising degree, the Divergent series... show that the audience is ready for female-targeted franchises. It has been ready for years, given the huge explosion of young adult fantasy targeted at females, inspired by the Twilight phenomenon. Perhaps the fan base is not as deep as for male-centric comic movies, where the vintage of the source material makes them more sellable overseas and to older audiences, but it's there. And seeing the success of these movies, it's an audience willing to pay for movie tickets.

-

That said... whether or not this is really the case, or whether audiences can only take so many female-led franchises will remain unknown until more studio executives actually get off their butts and take risks.
 
Last edited:
niky
Actually... looking at some financial reviews... male-led movies are far more likely to flop.

Granted, that's because American studios take many more risks on male-led movies in the first place. But still, that's there. We won't know if a female-led movie is more likely to flop until studios take more chances on female-led movies. And part of why they won't take chances is that possibly... possibly... they aren't quite in tune with female audiences.

The Hunger Games, and, to a lesser, but still suprising degree, the Divergent series... show that the audience is ready for female-targeted franchises. It has been ready for years, given the huge explosion of young adult fantasy targeted at females, inspired by the Twilight phenomenon. Perhaps the fan base is not as deep as for male-centric comic movies, where the vintage of the source material makes them more sellable overseas and to older audiences, but it's there. And seeing the success of these movies, it's an audience willing to pay for movie tickets.-

That said... whether or not this is really the case, or whether audiences can only take so many female-led franchises will remain unknown until more studio executives actually get off their butts and take risks.
Click to expand...
The Hunger games proves that people like the Hunger Games series, not that audiences in general ready for female targeted franchises. One or two anecdotal pieces of evidence don't make a trend and don't negate the fact that the successful Iron Man, Superman, Batman, Thor, Spiderman etc. outnumber the female lead movies many times over.

As I said, if money is to be made on female lead movies, the movies will be made. It's a business that revolves around big profits and whoever makes the most money wins.
 
Too many female-led films are aimed squarely at female audiences, which just alienates 50% of your potential market.

The Hunger Games, Alien franchise and to an extent the Twilight series have proven that films with a female lead can be universally accepted with both male and female audiences and do really well at the box office.
 
Johnnypenso
The Hunger games proves that people like the Hunger Games series, not that audiences in general ready for female targeted franchises. One or two anecdotal pieces of evidence don't make a trend and don't negate the fact that the successful Iron Man, Superman, Batman, Thor, Spiderman etc. outnumber the female lead movies many times over.

As I said, if money is to be made on female lead movies, the movies will be made. It's a business that revolves around big profits and whoever makes the most money wins.
Click to expand...

The statistics point to profits being left on the table, and a lot of money being wasted on non-profitable "for-the-guys" films. Sure, girl movies like Pitch Perfect won't make Avengers money, but they rake in lots of cash without gigantic effects budgets.

-

The Hunger Games is a female targeted franchise. One with a strong female protagonist. That it caught on with male audiences and readers is an indication that it has more general appeal, but that doesn't change the fact that it was written, ostensibly, for teenage girls. There's still a rich vein to tap there. Granted, other girl-targeted book series turned movies like "Mortal Instruments" and "Vampire Academy" didn't do so well... but that's partly because they were done so badly. Hit the right vein, however, and it'll go like gangbusters. I still don't get why people like the Divergent series, but they're watching it, anyway.

Turning the tables... you could say that Superman and Batman films don't prove that the audience want male-led movies... they want Superman and Batman movies. Of course, we'd then get into an argument over who the original comics were written for!

Even here, the possibilities for franchises based on female superheroes is there. The only problem is whether there is a will to make them. I think that the first big litmus test for the genre (Star Wars aside, because that isn't necessarily a female-led movie, being more of an ensemble movie) will be Wonder Woman.

Not holding out too much hope for that. Seems like it will be good, but without a big name, charismatic female lead, it probably won't do anywhere near as good as a Batman film.
 
niky
The statistics point to profits being left on the table, and a lot of money being wasted on non-profitable "for-the-guys" films. Sure, girl movies like Pitch Perfect won't make Avengers money, but they rake in lots of cash without gigantic effects budgets.
Click to expand...
You lose me when you go there. I can't believe that in all of Hollywood there isn't a handful of lefties and/or socialists that would love nothing more then to make a ton of money promoting movies prominently featuring women. In fact I can't believe that the rest of Hollywood would leave money on the table at all, ever.

In other news, a new poll is out naming the top ten favourite actors in America.

Just one poll and not the gospel (although more than 2000 people were polled), but interesting to note that 7/10 are men, 1 is an African American male and no women are in the top 5. Nice to see the Duke still in there, still enjoy watching some of his movies:)
 
One other thing I want to add, these celebrities complaining about pay and the lack of recognition really need to realize that the movie-making business it more than just about art, this is also a business.
 
I guess black people are about 15% of the US population. I do love that we can obviously ignore the 1%, but 15% is super-duper important. 17% of the country is Hispanic, shouldn't they be complaining? What about Asian? You know what this reminds me of...

taylor-swift-vma-2009-kanye-west.jpg
 

Similar threads

FoolKiller
Superman: The Man of Steel (First Look)
2 3
Replies
81
Views
9K
King1982
King1982
N
Cloud Atlas...The Movie
Replies
8
Views
2K
jeffgoddin
jeffgoddin
N
Why won't they leave Star Wars alone?
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
CodeRedR51
CodeRedR51
Famine
Who is at the Centre of the Universe? The EBS Game!
3 4 5
Replies
128
Views
16K
Barra333
Barra333
Gerarghini
The Race Cars of Gran Turismo 2
3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
90K
submaniac93
submaniac93

Latest Posts

Back