What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OSCARS - 88th. Leo finally. Spotlight = best movie. (1 Viewer)

Don't be surprised if you start to see white roles being cast with blacks.  Seriously.  I saw Dickens Christmas a Carol at the Hartford Stage in December and there was a black actor in the troupe who played multiple different roles throughout the play, including mid 20's Scrooge.  It was ridiculous.
The Wiz

Annie

The Karate Kid

 
Don't be surprised if you start to see white roles being cast with blacks.  Seriously.  I saw Dickens Christmas a Carol at the Hartford Stage in December and there was a black actor in the troupe who played multiple different roles throughout the play, including mid 20's Scrooge.  It was ridiculous.
That's completely different.

 
Why were none of the bridesmaids in "Bridesmaids" black?  I realize it's set in Milwaukee but the bride was played by Maya Rudolph for heaven's sake.

Or so I've heard :bag:

 
Michael Brown said:
Leo is one of my favorite actors ever, but I wish he would have won for something else. He did a better job in most of the movies listed above, and just about all of them were more entertaining than The Revenant IMO. If I had a vote, I'd have chosen Cranston
You can never go wrong with Cranston... R.I.

 
Higgs said:
Don't be surprised if you start to see white roles being cast with blacks.  Seriously.  I saw Dickens Christmas a Carol at the Hartford Stage in December and there was a black actor in the troupe who played multiple different roles throughout the play, including mid 20's Scrooge.  It was ridiculous.
I would file this under "things that don't matter".

 
TobiasFunke said:
My understanding was that the complaint was about the lack of acting nominations, which was supposedly emblematic of or a product of the relative lack of good roles for minority actors.  I don't think it was about diversity in nominees in general, or even necessarily just about the acting nominations.  I think the idea is that unless a part specifically calls for a black character (or a Hispanic character or whatever) it almost always goes to a white person.

Out of curiosity I looked at the last 10 years of Best Actor nominees. About half of them were fictional characters, meaning they could have cast anyone.  Only one of those roles was given to a black actor (Denzel Washington in Flight).  On the women's side there's been two, but they were both roles that pretty much had to be given to a black actress- Precious and the girl from Beasts of the Southern Wild. 

So of all the Oscar-nominated lead roles over the last decade that could have gone to anyone, probably somewhere around 40-50, only one went to a black person.

Is that a problem?  If so, what's to blame?  Beats me. But that's the complaint.
The reality is, films have really become a global business, and several cultures globally have no problem and make no bones about THEIR racial bias.  

This is, at the end of the day, show BUSINESS.  And for all the lipservice you get on a night like last night, executives will be skittish to put their OWN career on the line by making a casting choice that might cost them global box office.  

Now, this is a step away from Oscar argument.   But its in the conversation.  

The irony is, per capitia, I think the black audience is the most dedicated and sees more movies than any other group.  Domestically they comprise a very solid core audience.  I mean, they made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.  

The trouble is, the palate may not be as select or sophisticated, as instead of supporting "art house" films, they have made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.

To each their own and viva la choice but Madea isn't exactly oscar bait

 
The reality is, films have really become a global business, and several cultures globally have no problem and make no bones about THEIR racial bias.  

This is, at the end of the day, show BUSINESS.  And for all the lipservice you get on a night like last night, executives will be skittish to put their OWN career on the line by making a casting choice that might cost them global box office.  

Now, this is a step away from Oscar argument.   But its in the conversation.  

The irony is, per capitia, I think the black audience is the most dedicated and sees more movies than any other group.  Domestically they comprise a very solid core audience.  I mean, they made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.  

The trouble is, the palate may not be as select or sophisticated, as instead of supporting "art house" films, they have made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.

To each their own and viva la choice but Madea isn't exactly oscar bait
Great post, and I was thinking about that a bit tonight. 

Exactly right that it is a business, and people have to make decisions based on what is more likely to sell the movie to the audience.  Also, how many people who are joining in on the outrage actually go out and support the movies already out there that have more black actors or made by black directors, etc?  It takes both sides - somebody to take a chance on the movie in first place and people to pay to watch it.  There is something culturally to what is going on.  As people have pointed out here, a lot of the movies that feature black actors that become popular and get the eye from the Academy still have a white central character helping them achieve their goals - The Help, 12 Years a Slave being recent examples. 

I don't follow other award shows, but is this exclusive to The Academy, or was this the case for other awards that were given out?

 
Higgs said:
Don't be surprised if you start to see white roles being cast with blacks.  Seriously.  I saw Dickens Christmas a Carol at the Hartford Stage in December and there was a black actor in the troupe who played multiple different roles throughout the play, including mid 20's Scrooge.  It was ridiculous.
Black people weren't invented in the 60s. 

 
The reality is, films have really become a global business, and several cultures globally have no problem and make no bones about THEIR racial bias.  

This is, at the end of the day, show BUSINESS.  And for all the lipservice you get on a night like last night, executives will be skittish to put their OWN career on the line by making a casting choice that might cost them global box office.  

Now, this is a step away from Oscar argument.   But its in the conversation.  

The irony is, per capitia, I think the black audience is the most dedicated and sees more movies than any other group.  Domestically they comprise a very solid core audience.  I mean, they made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.  

The trouble is, the palate may not be as select or sophisticated, as instead of supporting "art house" films, they have made Tyler Perry a near billionaire.

To each their own and viva la choice but Madea isn't exactly oscar bait
Totally agree with the first part of this. You're right, to some extent that have to market to global racial biases.  Why that's the case is another more complicated question, of course, and some might say Hollywood has the chance to lead instead of follow when it comes to changing that.  But if nothing else it's simply rational behavior to cast movies the way they do.

But you know what else is rational behavior?  For black actors and others supportive of their cause to call them out for it publicly and repeatedly and make them look bad for doing this. That's always been part of social change dating back to lunch counter sit ins and whatnot in the 50s at least- make the alleged discriminators look bad for doing so, and therefore make it less profitable to discriminate. Studios and executives aren't the only ones who get to hide behind the "we're just doing what's in our best interests" argument. 

I disagree with the second part of the argument about Tyler Perry.  Sure, black people made him a near billionaire, but white people can't get enough of Adam Sandler.  When someone makes a good movie with a mostly black cast, black people (and white people) will see it.  The complaint is that the studios don't do it enough.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally agree with the first part of this. You're right, to some extent that have to market to global racial biases.  Why that's the case is another more complicated question, of course, and some might say Hollywood has the chance to lead instead of follow when it comes to changing that.  But if nothing else it's simply rational behavior to cast movies the way they do.

But you know what else is rational behavior?  For black actors and others supportive of their cause to call them out for it publicly and repeatedly and make them look bad for doing this. That's always been part of social change dating back to lunch counter sit ins and whatnot in the 50s at least- make the alleged discriminators look bad for doing so, and therefore make it less profitable to discriminate. Studios and executives aren't the only ones who get to hide behind the "we're just doing what's in our best interests" argument. 

I disagree with the second part of the argument about Tyler Perry.  Sure, black people made him a near billionaire, but white people can't get enough of Adam Sandler.  When someone makes a good movie with a mostly black cast, black people (and white people) will see it.  The complaint is that the studios don't do it enough.
That would be interesting and if I know actors, something that would never happen, but a truly fascinating gambit.  They're almost by nature a fantastically self motivated creature across the board, thats why I would love to see the option to renounce their nominations to put their money where their mouth is.  I saw Mark Ruffalo before the oscars opining that "we have a problem we need to solve".  Well Ruffalo gave a pretty paint by numbers performance in Spotlight, not bad but in no way Oscar worthy.  Would he have given up his seat at the table if this is a problem?

You are right about Sandler, fair comparison.  But whether its through population or a market in place, there is probably a more rounded spectrum of films the current white audience will embrace.  

Sandler, play virtually the same character, or Madea is a cinematic character lineage you can trace back to Chaplin.  Now was Chaplin a transcendent media figure at the time, or was it simply a matter of the most people wanted to see him so he did very well in his d... well enough to co-found his own studio.  

I've had dealings with Perry and he is an absolute beast of work ethic.  But he also is very keenly aware of his market and demo.  He is a black guy that OWNS a studio.  But he also knows owning a studio is a hard thing to not make personal about vanity projects if you want to be successful.  

Oprah, likewise a titan, has, if I'm counting correctly produced 4 movies in her life:  Beloved, The Great Debaters, Precious and Selma.  All were concieved as Oscar bait and Precious connected.  In the industry, a 250 batting average in terms of nominations and wins is pretty successful.  Did she or should she expect more?  Not really on the merits with regard to Selma and Beloved, haven't seen the others (and i believe Beloved did get noms).  

Its funny, the other audience, again pro rated, per captia, whatever you want to say, that is fiercely dedicated to the movies, is senior citizens.   You can not go to an arthouse and not see a good chunk of them comprising the audience of absolutely anything.   They will see ANYTHING.  Based on their dedication, I would also argue that they're an underserved audience.  Best Marigold Hotel did well, well enough for a sequel, but its not like we've seen a slate of senior stories being told.  Now in that case, I don't think anyone argues thats bias, its understood to be business.  

 
I would file this under "things that don't matter".
In the middle of the play there is a confusing flashback to Scrooge's younger days. When a black man comes out, and the older Scrooge is white mind you, the entire audience is looking around like wtf is going on here.  What character is this?  It took me about 5 minutes to figure it out.  Just dumb.

 
12814155_526092930884986_785792397606350044_n.png


 
Didn't Dope and Straight Outta Compton do pretty well?  Those are a far cry from the Tyler Perry stuff.

As to the point about execs feeling business pressure to cast white people in roles that have no racial requirement, it's not like The Force Awakens bombed because they cast a black guy as one of the leads.  I agree that execs feel the way you've described, but I'm not sure it matters as much in practice anymore as they think it does.

 
Didn't Dope and Straight Outta Compton do pretty well?  Those are a far cry from the Tyler Perry stuff.

As to the point about execs feeling business pressure to cast white people in roles that have no racial requirement, it's not like The Force Awakens bombed because they cast a black guy as one of the leads.  I agree that execs feel the way you've described, but I'm not sure it matters as much in practice anymore as they think it does.
Dope is dope. :thumbup:  Definitely not a Tyler Perry flick.  

 
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/29/the-great-wall-china-film-matt-damon-whitewashed


Asian Americans decry 'whitewashed' Great Wall film starring Matt Damon




https://mobile.twitter.com/jenyamato

jen yamato– Verified account ‏@jenyamato


 



1700 years to build, just for Matt Damon to come save it. How problematic is #TheGreatWall? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/29/matt-damon-whitewashes-chinese-history-in-the-great-wall.html …
Ridiculous to be casting yet another white lead for this movie...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/29/the-great-wall-china-film-matt-damon-whitewashed


Asian Americans decry 'whitewashed' Great Wall film starring Matt Damon




https://mobile.twitter.com/jenyamato

jen yamato– Verified account ‏@jenyamato


 



1700 years to build, just for Matt Damon to come save it. How problematic is #TheGreatWall? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/29/matt-damon-whitewashes-chinese-history-in-the-great-wall.html …
Ridiculous to be casting yet another white lead for this movie...
Ridiculous unless your goal is to make money

 
Ridiculous unless your goal is to make money
Sadly, this is correct.  These people always get their panties in a wad about the studios casting like this, but we are the ones that are consuming these movies and deciding what they are doing by voting with our $ too.  We love to see our white heroes. 

 
Sadly, this is correct.  These people always get their panties in a wad about the studios casting like this, but we are the ones that are consuming these movies and deciding what they are doing by voting with our $ too.  We love to see our white heroes. 
I call BS on this excuse.

i think there is a huge untapped market out there, that people trapped in their old ways don't see.  Their mindset is still trapped in an outdated racial model...

 
can movie guys give me an update on the blacks that will be considered in February 2017.  are we in for unrest and outrage?

asking for a friend.

 
can movie guys give me an update on the blacks that will be considered in February 2017.  are we in for unrest and outrage?

asking for a friend.
Summer has been abysmal, Star Wars is set to own Christmas...a few interesting films between now and the end of the year but 2015 was a weak class of films, extremely weak as nothing won much of anything last year. 

We're in a bad run of films right now. Disney is dominating when you look at what is actually making money at the box office. The Jungle Book, Finding Dory, Capt America, Zootopia...that's big budget stuff.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top