The Oscars controversy surrounding the lack of diversity

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 334 comments
  • 15,323 views
Hollywood is massively Jewish.

This is true, but sadly idiots like Tavis Smiley don't seem to get this. Anyhow I find this blog post quite interesting:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/chrisi...pay-attention-to-the-oscars-diversity-problem

My question is, why should the church pay attention to hollywood's diversity problem when the industry has a bad history of being hostile to towards christians and muslims. In fact the like the music industry, the movie-making is literally a place where one has to hide their religiosity.

continuing along, this statement doesn't make any sense:

article
I don’t think Oscar voters are necessarily racist. I think studio executives, who are largely white, gravitate toward stories that reflect their lifestyle. I think many older Oscar voters — who make up a large number of the Academy’s membership — tend to prioritize films where the hero looks like them unless it’s a story where race specifically comes into play.

While its true that the Oscar's aren't racist, studio executives aren't gravitating towards projects that are reflective of their lifestyle but rather what would keep their investors happy given the risk taken, this when you consider the fact that : (a) the global movie-going market account for the vast majority of the box office tickets sold as oppose to the domestic market and (b) a majority of the financing for film and tv projoect these days are coming from foreign investors. In fact Legendary Pictures is a prime example of how entrenched foreign investors are in America's movie market.


GITS, there's really no big reason for the characters to remain Japanese. The milieu in which the movie is set doesn't necessarily require ethnically pure characters. As opposed to something like Mulan... where they went to great pains to cast Chinese talents for the voices...

As an Anime watcher personally I don't think character of Major Kusanagi necessarily need to be Japanese, but I would prefer said individual taking on the role to be of eastern asian(non-Indian) background, that unless Masamune Shirow were to totally rewrite the character as being a caucasian.

Interesting though when looking at a show like Hawaii Five-0, while I somewhat found it a bit annoying that Alex Kurtzman made Kono character a woman at least the show stayed faithful to the source material without compromises.
 
The underlying themes of identity and transcendence in GITS are not necessarily culture dependent, unlike in other American adapatations of Asian cinema, such as in the horror boom of the past two decades, wherein the movies featured a uniquely oriental take on horror and the supernatural, which often came across as clunky and jarring on the screen.

the industry has a bad history of being hostile to towards christians and muslims. In fact the like the music industry, the movie-making is literally a place where one has to hide their religiosity.

Have you been watching the award shows? This isn't like the NFL where everyone takes a crack at Tebow for kneeling in prayer. Almost every single acceptance speech includes the word "God" in it.

While obsessively evangelical Christian films have done poorly in Hollywood, this is because they're often poorly made and narrowly targetted at a specifically fundamentalist demographic. And they're judgmental, preachy as hell and often pretty bigoted.

While you do have movies like "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Golden Compass" targeted directly against the Church, these are attacks on the organization, rather than the religion itself.

The majority of Hollywood movies are either neutral on the topic of religion, or even pro-religion, reflecting the overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian values of writers, directors and producers.

Stuff like "Field of Dreams", "City of Angels", and "Always" stand out. "Life of Pi" was drippingly religious. There are horror-fantasy movies like "Jacob's Ladder", "The Shawshank Redemption" and the "Green Mile" with very overt themes of faith, repentance and redemption. Then there's sci-fi/fantasy/hero movies like "Dune", "Dark City" and "The Matrix" that have very overt Messianic themes (The Matrix obsessively so). I'd include "2001", though Clarke is more Buddhist spiritualist than Christian... and Kubrick's symbolic treatment has more spiritual overtones than the book did. Then there's the Messiah complex Zack Snyder gave to the Man of Steel...

There are, of course, movies from books written specifically as religious allegories, like the Narnia series and The Lord of the Rings, movies which talk about temptation, salvation and the rather black-and-white delineation between "Good" and "Evil". While Tolkien's world isn't quite as directly symbolic of Christianity as Lewis', his mythological pantheon has a distinctly Christian structure and hierarchy.

Even the Fundamentalists' favorite whipping boy, Harry Potter, has very, very distinctly Christian undertones... which would be immediately obvious to anyone who's read the books rather than bemoaned the promotion of "witchcraft". At its core, it's a story about Ultimate Good versus Ultimate Evil, temptation, the acceptance of the "natural order" of life and death, death, resurrection and salvation. Rowling admitted the connections after she finished the series, stating she didn't want to talk about religion before it was done, otherwise she'd be giving the ending away... whoops.

Then you have the hundreds of films that teach you to "have a little faith", "just believe" or "Don't Play God."(Jurassic Park, and, oh, about every single sci-fi-horror film out there...) If there's anyone who should feel hard-put by Hollywood, it's scientists and rationalists... magical thinking and Deus Ex Machina are the order of the day on the silver screen.

Even completely unreligious blockbusters like the Avengers affirm this Judeo-Christian outlook. Quoth Captain America: " There's only one God, Ma'am." And don't get me started on Star Wars. It's a common Catholic joke to answer "May the Force Be With You" with an "Also With You." Of course, Lucas admits that the religious connotations are quite intentional. Also take time to look at other films in Lucas' catalogue, such as "Raiders" and "The Last Crusade".

Now if you're talking anti-Islamism, yes, it's there. But it's often tied up in the bigoted, xenophobic outlook of older writers/producers/directors, as seen in stuff like "The 300" (basically a neo-con's wet dream) or "American Sniper"... not the typical fare of "liberal" Hollywood, but rather stuff that appeals directly to the conservative US demographic. These aren't modern Hollywood viewpoints, and far removed from typical Hollywood fare.

-----


Uh... should the Church care about racism in Hollywood?

Eh.
 
@niky

You completely miss my whole point about how religiosity is viewed in entertainment industry, but starters here are a few example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/entertainment/mayim-bialik-religious-thr-feat

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/20/kevin-sorbo-why-is-hollywood-so-afraid-god/

And the list goes on and on of musicians and actors who have experienced the hostility of some sort of simply being religious.


Anyhow sagas continues, and and native americans are the new focus of the "racist oscars"


http://www.highbrowmagazine.com/5548-why-do-oscars-ignore-actors-color
 
@niky

You completely miss my whole point about how religiosity is viewed in entertainment industry, but starters here are a few example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/entertainment/mayim-bialik-religious-thr-feat

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/20/kevin-sorbo-why-is-hollywood-so-afraid-god/

And the list goes on and on of musicians and actors who have experienced the hostility of some sort of simply being religious.


Anyhow sagas continues, and and native americans are the new focus of the "racist oscars"


http://www.highbrowmagazine.com/5548-why-do-oscars-ignore-actors-color

I've hardly missed any points. I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong.

-

Anti-semitism is different from anti-religion in general, it's partially racist, and partially an issue of the public image of Israel. Gal Gadot is not overtly religious, but has taken flak for standing in defense of her country, as well. What you're not telling us with this article is whether the flak came from within Hollywood or from the fans, who are a truly awful, rabid bunch. Or maybe Mel Gibson (who isn't an atheist... far from it... but who is a certified looney).

Of course, the point kind of becomes moot when you consider that a majority of the producers in Hollywood over the decades have been Jewish...

-

As for Sorbo's complaint... nobody is hostile towards Christians per se. Beyonce even sang a Gospel song at the last Grammy's for Chris'sake.

What people are hostile against is aggressive evangelism, as I explained in my previous post. And "God's Not Dead" is one of the premiere examples of that kind of film.

Painting non-believers as caricaturish bad guys, inventing an alternate universe in which atheists can flunk you out of a course for not disavowing God (no, they absolutely cannot) and in which atheists and anti-theists are in a stark majority in Louisiana (which is 90% Christian in real-life), this was a movie that was panned even by some of the few Christian reviewers who bothered to see it.

Once you create an "US versus THEM" paradigm, you're pretty screwed, because a lot of people out there aren't Christian, or are not your particular brand, sect or denomination of Christian. I've already pointed out what successful religious movies in Hollywood are doing: projecting the message of their religion without berating the audience or creating an exclusionary atmosphere that turns off both non-believers and casual-believers alike.

-

Kevin Sorbo's problem is not that he appeared in a religious movie or that he's conservative. It's that he appeared in a pretty bad religious movie (after appearing in many, many badly made features), at a time when he cannot count on his looks and charisma to carry his career much further.And because he isn't that great an actor, in the first place (though he does have a lot of charisma... I quite enjoyed his run on Hercules).

Chris Pratt is similarly religious, and also a conservative (possibly libertarian, I'm not quite interested enough to dredge it up), and he gets friction because of his views... but only because he's a hunting advocate... which is a big no-no in vegan-land. Otherwise, he's about as successful as an actor can be in today's liberal Hollywood.

-

Again, nobody gives a rat's behind if you believe (and a lot of Hollywood is out there in terms of belief... Kabbalah, Scientology), but when you choose to go on the offense "defending" your faith, you're creating friction that's not really necessary, and only hurting yourself.
 
Last edited:
Racial quotas are never fair. They're unjust towards people who should have been nominated.

That is not to say that everyone who deserved nominations this year got one... but personally... the issues with the Oscars run much much deeper than simple racism or sexism.

I think the straw that broke this camel's back... and possibly the lowest point for the Oscars, was when Palthrow won for Shakespeare in Love... a movie in which she was not at all bad, but not an Oscar-worthy movie or performance at all. The sheer backroom politics involved is absolutely sickening.

This right, here, simply change the thread title and quit making this a political grandstand on demographics. When in reality it isn't as I've already said in this thread, and clearly Niky and others keep trying to pound it out. Why others want to keep going about the sexism or racial route to this all is beyond me. It simply doesn't exist as an outright but rather a mainstay reason to why a person like say (for no particular reason :sly:) Will Smith don't get a nomination.

The last line of the post I'm quoting basically sums up the reality of the juggernaut that is the Oscars and will always be the Oscars.
 
Why others want to keep going about the sexism or racial route to this all is beyond me.

Its quite simple, as Tom Woods rightly said in one on his best speech its all about power and a superiority complex. In the end these people to understand that movie making is more than just art, but this also a business and a business where consumers decide which performers succeed or not.

BTW, the speech I'm talking about...

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-508-are-racially-disparate-outcomes-caused-by-discrimination/
 
Its quite simple, as Tom Woods rightly said in one on his best speech its all about power and a superiority complex. In the end these people to understand that movie making is more than just art, but this also a business and a business where consumers decide which performers succeed or not.

BTW, the speech I'm talking about...

http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-508-are-racially-disparate-outcomes-caused-by-discrimination/

Race and sex have nothing to do with that, the quote and the speech have more in line with what I'm saying than the small caveat you cling to.
 
All I'm gonna say is that they messed up not nominating Edris Alba for his role in Beasts of no Nation. I mean he just played that role of a child soldier commander to 100%.

I haven't seen the film, but it is on my short list to watch. I have loved most of his work. But it's my understanding that there was some question about the release of Beasts that prevented him from being nominated. I may very well be wrong, but that is my understanding.
 
All I'm gonna say is that they messed up not nominating Edris Alba for his role in Beasts of no Nation. I mean he just played that role of a child soldier commander to 100%.
By post #158 there was plenty enough content to learn if you didn't know already that these awards are far from given out based purely on quality of performance. People get sympathy awards, long service awards, racial balance awards, back scratch awards, etc, etc. Whatever sells, or appeases someone rich and powerful, but doesn't look completely on the nose and corrupt (ie. has at least some credibility).

Yes, the awards are racist...... they must be, because they're everything-ist.
 
Spielberg says it's not racism

I don't believe that there is inherent or dormant racism because of the amount of white Academy members. I'm also not 100 percent sure that taking votes away from Academy members who have paid their dues and maybe are retired now and have done great service — maybe they've not won a nomination, which would have given them immunity to the new rules, but they have served proudly and this is their industry, too — to strip their votes? I'm not 100 percent behind that."
 
Spielberg also thought Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a good idea.

the typical fare of "liberal" Hollywood
I always found "liberal Hollywood" and "the liberal media" to be hilariously misguided, given that most of the private money bankrolling them comes from the likes of Murdoch.

Besides, any liberal bent that comes from the films tends to be critical of political, rather than religious issues. Paul Haggis' In the Valley of Elah is a prime example; as was Quantum of Solace, where Daniel Craig questions western intervention (and interference) in South America.
 
Probably the only high-profile movie that even comes close to criticizing religion this year is Spotlight, and that's more political than religious in nature.

This by far the most flawed study done on Hollywood. In fact the study should be discredited on the basis that it doesn't take demand into consideration:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hollywoods-diversity-problem-goes-deeper-than-the-oscars/

Also, Furious 7 should never be used as barometer and I point to the fact that movie success is mainly attributed to the fact it was built on a already successful franchise as oppose to diversity.

Why should it be discredited? The conclusions are suspect, but the statistics are pretty relevant. In that they show the balance of speaking roles roughly matches the ethnic mix of the audience.

-

As for Furious Seven, while it may be building on a successful franchise, it builds on a franchise that started with a fully multi-racial cast (and an arguably multi-racial lead, in Vin Diesel) that tapped into the rich cultural background of the street scene at the time. No token ethnicities here... these people were here because this was a culture they belonged in. Granted, the first movie was dreck, the second was even worse dreck... but from there, the series really took off.

The two lead characters may be 3/4 white, but that doesn't change the fact that ethnic diversity makes the movies accessible to many international audiences.

None of the other "street racing" movies have incited the imagination like the franchise, and it's partially because of this relatability and the lack of it in the clones.


The argument that they won't film it because nobody will watch it is pretty much a wash. Producers are conservative... they refuse to take chances with things they are unfamiliar with. As I pointed out earlier in this thread... they are willing to take more chances on traditional white-male led franchises that bomb than anything else. Only when the hit:miss rate equals out for male:female led movies and white:non-white movies can you state that we've hit the demand-led limit for non-white or non-male centric Hollywood movies.
 
Spielberg also thought Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a good idea.
The most successful director in history makes one bad movie so his opinion must be invalid amiright?
Probably the only high-profile movie that even comes close to criticizing religion this year is Spotlight, and that's more political than religious in nature. As for Furious Seven, while it may be building on a successful franchise, it builds on a franchise that started with a fully multi-racial cast (and an arguably multi-racial lead, in Vin Diesel) that tapped into the rich cultural background of the street scene at the time. No token ethnicities here... these people were here because this was a culture they belonged in. Granted, the first movie was dreck, the second was even worse dreck... but from there, the series really took off.

The two lead characters may be 3/4 white, but that doesn't change the fact that ethnic diversity makes the movies accessible to many international audiences.

None of the other "street racing" movies have incited the imagination like the franchise, and it's partially because of this relatability and the lack of it in the clones.


The argument that they won't film it because nobody will watch it is pretty much a wash. Producers are conservative... they refuse to take chances with things they are unfamiliar with. As I pointed out earlier in this thread... they are willing to take more chances on traditional white-male led franchises that bomb than anything else. Only when the hit:miss rate equals out for male:female led movies and white:non-white movies can you state that we've hit the demand-led limit for non-white or non-male centric Hollywood movies.
The FF series has a multi-racial cast =/= multiracial cast is responsible for it's success just like white male lead =/= white male lead is responsible for it's success. Isn't it possible that movie going audiences are just entertained by fast cars, tough guys, hot chicks, danger etc....you know...all the things that entertained movie goers in the past?
 
The FF series has a multi-racial cast =/= multiracial cast is responsible for it's success

Which is a fine enough argument to make so long as you don't continue that point to say that (multi-racial cast =/= multiracial cast is responsible for it's success) = success would occur without multiracial cast; like A2K78 keeps insisting to be the case and which is implied by all of the arguments that Hollywood has already filled any and all market niches and still decided that only white movies with white guys make money.
 
Last edited:
The most successful director in history makes one bad movie so his opinion must be invalid amiright?
The FF series has a multi-racial cast =/= multiracial cast is responsible for it's success just like white male lead =/= white male lead is responsible for it's success. Isn't it possible that movie going audiences are just entertained by fast cars, tough guys, hot chicks, danger etc....you know...all the things that entertained movie goers in the past?

I don't know that you can separate the two. As I said, the ethnicity of the cast was simply proper given the setting in which the movie operates. It's a believable cast... which is part of why the movie works so well.

I'm not arguing that the ethnicity of the cast is responsible for the success of the movie... rather, if you want to make a movie in a specific setting, you've got to populate it with characters that audiences will believe exist in those settings. No whitewashing. No tokenism (which, honestly, is just as bad)

Which is part of why "Gods of Egypt" is bombing horribly at the box office. Gerard Butler may pass for a Greek... but no way in hell is anybody going to believe he's an Egyptian. The whole thing comes off as just lazy casting.

-

As I've said previously... what it points to is that producers simply aren't taking as many chances on films that don't have white male leads... and even in films that demand non-white non-male leads, like Stonewall or 47 Ronin, they insert them anyway... for... uh... insurance.

As I've said previously, also... it's only when the hit-to-bomb ratio equalizes that you can actually say that Hollywood has reached its saturation point for movies with other ethnicities or female leads.

Not that the producers are beholden to fund movies they don't want to fund. It's their money they're gambling with, they have a right to be picky. But again, as I've said before and as @Tornado points out: They're leaving a lot of money on the table by not chasing those niches and audiences.
 
I don't know that you can separate the two. As I said, the ethnicity of the cast was simply proper given the setting in which the movie operates. It's a believable cast... which is part of why the movie works so well.

I'm not arguing that the ethnicity of the cast is responsible for the success of the movie... rather, if you want to make a movie in a specific setting, you've got to populate it with characters that audiences will believe exist in those settings. No whitewashing. No tokenism (which, honestly, is just as bad)

Which is part of why "Gods of Egypt" is bombing horribly at the box office. Gerard Butler may pass for a Greek... but no way in hell is anybody going to believe he's an Egyptian. The whole thing comes off as just lazy casting.

-

As I've said previously... what it points to is that producers simply aren't taking as many chances on films that don't have white male leads... and even in films that demand non-white non-male leads, like Stonewall or 47 Ronin, they insert them anyway... for... uh... insurance.

As I've said previously, also... it's only when the hit-to-bomb ratio equalizes that you can actually say that Hollywood has reached its saturation point for movies with other ethnicities or female leads.

Not that the producers are beholden to fund movies they don't want to fund. It's their money they're gambling with, they have a right to be picky. But again, as I've said before and as @Tornado points out: They're leaving a lot of money on the table by not chasing those niches and audiences.
Sounds a bit like your projecting the outcome with your feelings instead of facts. How on earth does a bunch of guys running around with accents from the British Isles make for convincing Greeks?

I simply don't buy the whole "leaving money on the table argument". Most of big budget Hollywood isn't about sending messages or supporting some philosophy, they are about making money. They make movies they think can sell based on their experience and what they think will click with audiences. I have zero doubt that most or all of them will churn out whatever garbage happens to be popular at a given time and could care less who is in it and who is getting paid, so long as their pockets are getting lined. If these opportunities actually existed someone would capitalize on them. Anyone with money can throw up the funds as executive producer and get a movie made.
 
I'm probably going to get set ablaze for saying this: I don't mind (infact I support) two or three mentions on how Hollywood could make changes for more diversity, but this constant almost obsession with mentioning or hinting of race in numerous host segments is getting old.
 
Last edited:

I didn't realise we'd started talking about whether or not Hollywood was racist, I thought this was about the Oscar selection cohort?

What the above links say (in short) is that films are re-cut with additional characters for the Chinese market (old news) and that sequels do better outside the US (old news, and they spelt Narnia wrong). You conclude that it's impossible for "black" films to succeed globally because nobody wanted to make Red Tails, of course that may actually be because it's a terrible, terrible film pitched by a notoriously difficult "rock star" director... and you neatly ignore the huge box office takes across Africa.

To confuse things you then show that blind casting led to some films not being pulled until the casts' colour was known. I didn't think Hollywood was racist at the start of your post but, if the stories you provided are genuine, now I wonder.
 
I simply don't buy the whole "leaving money on the table argument".

The hit-miss data points to it. At the very least, it points to producers wasting money on very specific films that don't work, instead of spreading it around.

Now does that point to a hollywood that is racist? clearly not.

From your very own link:

EW
But as the success of Smith’s The Pursuit of Happyness (pictured) or Tyler Perry’s films (or, in the case of female-driven movies, The Devil Wears Prada)shows, those fears are misguided, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the studiosmade more high-quality dramas with African-Americans, rather than broadgenre films, maybe international audiences would be interested. The industry certainly won’t know if it doesn’t try.

George Lucas
They don't believe there's any foreign market for it and that's 60 percent of their profit...I showed it to all of them and they said 'No. We don't know how to market a movie like this.'

And the third article you cited on the black conundrum basically pointed out what I explained several pages ago... and again on this page... that Hollywood producers are perfectly okay with gambling money on movies that don't make money... but not okay on gambling on pictures with ethnic casts, whether or not they might.

And that's the only point I've been trying to make. I don't care if they produce nothing but white movies, nothing but black movies or nothing but sequels to "The Birdcage" or "Priscilla Queen of the Desert" (Just not "To Wong Foo", that was a disaster, and Wesley Snipes and Patrick Swayze should never wear dresses again. Ever. John Leguizamo was the only one who really made it believable). But Hollywood obviously is not trying to fill certain niches.

I'm not bothered enough by it to call it racism. Just as I don't see the Oscar selection as racism. It's simply part of a bigger problem which sees more and more money going into tentpole sequels and little else... Hollywood doesn't like to gamble. They're only going to make things they know work. This is why Deadpool was so shocking to producers... because it's something they didn't think would work so well... because it was different... and why there's suddenly a rush to copy the formula... without understanding why it worked in this case.

----

At least Leo finally got his Oscar. And all he had to do was make out with a bear. :D
 
Last edited:
And obviously any opportunity to bash the catholic church (and I am not a catholic) is worthy of an oscar. There were better movies nominated this year that was worth a closer look in the Best Picture race.
 
Coming from a country that has suffered the iron grip of the RCC, it's a well-deserved bashing.
 
@niky In "American Sniper", there are scene where Arab Family got tortured by extremists near their house before being prevented by US forces.

Just pointing out ;) There are American Patriotism but saying that said movie is fully portrays anti Islamic or Arab isnt quite correct.
 
They should have given one to the bear.

And obviously any opportunity to bash the catholic church (and I am not a catholic) is worthy of an oscar. There were better movies nominated this year that was worth a closer look in the Best Picture race.

Going by most critics' analysis, there were three front-runners in the race, Spotlight, Revenant and The Big Short, with Spotlight and Revenant the most possible winners. And given that Oscar judges are more likely to vote for pictures that cover social issues, Spotlight's chances were pretty good, if Revenant was its biggest competitor.

Too bad for Mad Max. But being a tentpole movie, despite being a critics' favorite, it had a snowball's chance in hell.
 
Back