Calls for boycott of Oscars grow over diversity of nominees

[sebastion]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Movies are in the business of making money. They want blockbusters and don't give a crap who makes it or stars in it as long as it makes money.

Her husband knows this and he has been apart of many blockbusters but hardly an acting heavyweight. He was good in Ali and was nominated for the award.

The movie Straight out of Compton is a documentary about some rap group. Does that appeal to the box office masses? No so doesn't get the exposure but the blacks say it's a racial thing.

It's a money thing.

If it was all about the money then the Oscars would be synonymous with box office takings and your comment about Will Smith would be redundant.

Of course the oscars is about money. The event itself makes a lot of money for the network hosting it.

Box office takings is a by-product of oscar success. If a movie wins then people rush to see it if they haven't already. It's the form of marketing by winning an award.

Producers and studios lobby behind the scenes and vote for their movies to be nominated. You think Steven Spielberg isn't voting for his own movies and people in his studio don't vote for his movies? It's a sycophantic business.

Industry heavyweights control it all. Its common knowledge and Jada and Spike know this.

If they colored/minorities are so passionate about the "art" then there is always Sundance festival for independant films where budgets aren't a factor.

[pedro01]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

[pedro01]

[lostboy]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

Your first sentence boded well. Unfortunately you have no idea about the film and television business and merely impose an ideological fantasy based on some sophomoric view of capitalism on the industry. Film and Television production companies world wide have access to a wide range of financial instruments and other programs offered by governments and industry associations to attract and develop the industry. Tax breaks, credit enhancements, direct grants and many other inducements and incentives are offered to encourage the industry. None of these disincentivises your ridiculously fabricated non-white production companies from making money. This is just a shallow disguise for the old blacks are lazy argument of the Right. The old trope of minorities are poor because they want to be poor and giving the money will just keep them lazy.

The film and television industry is not about studios pushing out franchise movies to an uncritical public. Naturally someone with a superficial, idealogical interpretation of an industry about which they know nothing will reject the idea of any deeper issue. The nexus of the film and television industry is creativity and expression meeting money and technical skills. It has nothing to do with some assumed socialistic distribution of resources. Any grist to the Right Wing mill is ok for some I guess.

[pedro01]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

Your first sentence boded well. Unfortunately you have no idea about the film and television business and merely impose an ideological fantasy based on some sophomoric view of capitalism on the industry. Film and Television production companies world wide have access to a wide range of financial instruments and other programs offered by governments and industry associations to attract and develop the industry. Tax breaks, credit enhancements, direct grants and many other inducements and incentives are offered to encourage the industry. None of these disincentivises your ridiculously fabricated non-white production companies from making money. This is just a shallow disguise for the old blacks are lazy argument of the Right. The old trope of minorities are poor because they want to be poor and giving the money will just keep them lazy.

The film and television industry is not about studios pushing out franchise movies to an uncritical public. Naturally someone with a superficial, idealogical interpretation of an industry about which they know nothing will reject the idea of any deeper issue. The nexus of the film and television industry is creativity and expression meeting money and technical skills. It has nothing to do with some assumed socialistic distribution of resources. Any grist to the Right Wing mill is ok for some I guess.

Someone got out of bed the wrong side today.

Like I say - making movies is a business. So what if the moving industry has different ways to get funding? So do many other business. Hell, I got an 8 year tax break here in Thailand for opening a software business. Grants are quite normal in all industries - that does not preclude them from being businesses OR from being financially motivated. This movie industry even got involved with pushing forward a Futures market based on cinema ticket receipts. That was turned down on the basis that is was spurious.

Of course grants are available to give people a foothold in any industry - but their motivation is success.

Of course on there is a small element of 'movies for art' in the industry - but it is a very small percentage of the industry. Same can be said for baking cakes. 99% of it is for making money and 1% for the art of it. That still makes bakeries businesses.

As for "blacks are lazy" - that appears nowhere in my post and you are being disingenuous trying to play the race card and take offence on the behalf of a group of people that are not even offended.

Why are white liberals always so keen to be offended on the behalf of others that aren't?

Jada Smith is just pissed that here little Willy didn't get a Gong and Spike is an institutional racist.

[DM07]

You guys are -as always- ridiculous!

"Straight outta Compton" was praised by almost every critic and got nothing!

The Academy has the option of putting up 5 to 10 movies in the "Best movie" - category and they nominated 8!

Go figure!

[pedro01]

You guys are -as always- ridiculous!

"Straight outta Compton" was praised by almost every critic and got nothing!

The Academy has the option of putting up 5 to 10 movies in the "Best movie" - category and they nominated 8!

Go figure!

There is a thing called "cause and effect"

You are seeing the effect - that a movie you think was good, didn't get nominated.

Now you are looking for cause.

There is no evidence that race is the cause - it is merely a knee-jerk reaction by a miffed wife and a serial racist.

[sebastion]

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/01/oscar-voters-racist

Voters are offended that race is even considered an issue and rightly so.

[Pimay1]

The liberal MSM eats this up. It isn't even news worthy.

[lostboy]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

Your first sentence boded well. Unfortunately you have no idea about the film and television business and merely impose an ideological fantasy based on some sophomoric view of capitalism on the industry. Film and Television production companies world wide have access to a wide range of financial instruments and other programs offered by governments and industry associations to attract and develop the industry. Tax breaks, credit enhancements, direct grants and many other inducements and incentives are offered to encourage the industry. None of these disincentivises your ridiculously fabricated non-white production companies from making money. This is just a shallow disguise for the old blacks are lazy argument of the Right. The old trope of minorities are poor because they want to be poor and giving the money will just keep them lazy.

The film and television industry is not about studios pushing out franchise movies to an uncritical public. Naturally someone with a superficial, idealogical interpretation of an industry about which they know nothing will reject the idea of any deeper issue. The nexus of the film and television industry is creativity and expression meeting money and technical skills. It has nothing to do with some assumed socialistic distribution of resources. Any grist to the Right Wing mill is ok for some I guess.

Someone got out of bed the wrong side today.

Like I say - making movies is a business. So what if the moving industry has different ways to get funding? So do many other business. Hell, I got an 8 year tax break here in Thailand for opening a software business. Grants are quite normal in all industries - that does not preclude them from being businesses OR from being financially motivated. This movie industry even got involved with pushing forward a Futures market based on cinema ticket receipts. That was turned down on the basis that is was spurious.

Of course grants are available to give people a foothold in any industry - but their motivation is success.

Of course on there is a small element of 'movies for art' in the industry - but it is a very small percentage of the industry. Same can be said for baking cakes. 99% of it is for making money and 1% for the art of it. That still makes bakeries businesses.

As for "blacks are lazy" - that appears nowhere in my post and you are being disingenuous trying to play the race card and take offence on the behalf of a group of people that are not even offended.

Why are white liberals always so keen to be offended on the behalf of others that aren't?

Jada Smith is just pissed that here little Willy didn't get a Gong and Spike is an institutional racist.

This entire thread is about race. Duh! The childish accusation of 'playing the race card' is the last refuge of the classic bigot. You assume I am white? How do you know that I am not part of a minority group? Your whole thesis of a levy to 'force diversity' smacks of the standard anti-redistribution and minorities as lazy tropes pushed by the alpha dog capitalist types. You know - poor people are 'takers' and all that BS. If you are aware of the variety of funding arrangements in the film and television industry, why then do you assume that such funds create a dependency cultural. There is nothing disingenuous about my accusation. It was clear in your post. Nothing insincere about what I said at all.

Commenting on the outputs of the film and television industry as creative expression is subjective and all views are valid. Commenting on the film and television business is completely different. There is a body of knowledge and experience abut how this industry works. There is absolutely no corollary to the baking business. Identity politics applies in creative industries. People have the legitimate right to express their views.

Spike Lee is an African American. His comments on systemic racism in America is not racism. White people don't get to call non-whites racist. The whole concept of racism clearly evades you. Why are minority voices so threatening to you? Why do you need to try and trivialise them with puerile, childish insults? Clearly you will never walk a mile in their shoes. Enjoy your white privilege. While it lasts.

Edited January 22, 2016 by lostboy

[pedro01]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

Your first sentence boded well. Unfortunately you have no idea about the film and television business and merely impose an ideological fantasy based on some sophomoric view of capitalism on the industry. Film and Television production companies world wide have access to a wide range of financial instruments and other programs offered by governments and industry associations to attract and develop the industry. Tax breaks, credit enhancements, direct grants and many other inducements and incentives are offered to encourage the industry. None of these disincentivises your ridiculously fabricated non-white production companies from making money. This is just a shallow disguise for the old blacks are lazy argument of the Right. The old trope of minorities are poor because they want to be poor and giving the money will just keep them lazy.

The film and television industry is not about studios pushing out franchise movies to an uncritical public. Naturally someone with a superficial, idealogical interpretation of an industry about which they know nothing will reject the idea of any deeper issue. The nexus of the film and television industry is creativity and expression meeting money and technical skills. It has nothing to do with some assumed socialistic distribution of resources. Any grist to the Right Wing mill is ok for some I guess.

Someone got out of bed the wrong side today.

Like I say - making movies is a business. So what if the moving industry has different ways to get funding? So do many other business. Hell, I got an 8 year tax break here in Thailand for opening a software business. Grants are quite normal in all industries - that does not preclude them from being businesses OR from being financially motivated. This movie industry even got involved with pushing forward a Futures market based on cinema ticket receipts. That was turned down on the basis that is was spurious.

Of course grants are available to give people a foothold in any industry - but their motivation is success.

Of course on there is a small element of 'movies for art' in the industry - but it is a very small percentage of the industry. Same can be said for baking cakes. 99% of it is for making money and 1% for the art of it. That still makes bakeries businesses.

As for "blacks are lazy" - that appears nowhere in my post and you are being disingenuous trying to play the race card and take offence on the behalf of a group of people that are not even offended.

Why are white liberals always so keen to be offended on the behalf of others that aren't?

Jada Smith is just pissed that here little Willy didn't get a Gong and Spike is an institutional racist.

This entire thread is about race. Duh! The childish accusation of 'playing the race card' is the last refuge of the classic bigot. You assume I am white? How do you know that I am not part of a minority group? Your whole thesis of a levy to 'force diversity' smacks of the standard anti-redistribution and minorities as lazy tropes pushed by the alpha dog capitalist types. You know - poor people are 'takers' and all that BS. If you are aware of the variety of funding arrangements in the film and television industry, why then do you assume that such funds create a dependency cultural. There is nothing disingenuous about my accusation. It was clear in your post. Nothing insincere about what I said at all.

Commenting on the outputs of the film and television industry as creative expression is subjective and all views are valid. Commenting on the film and television business is completely different. There is a body of knowledge and experience abut how this industry works. There is absolutely no corollary to the baking business. Identity politics applies in creative industries. People have the legitimate right to express their views.

Spike Lee is an African American. His comments on systemic racism in America is not racism. White people don't get to call non-whites racist. The whole concept of racism clearly evades you. Why are minority voices so threatening to you? Why do you need to try and trivialise them with puerile, childish insults? Clearly you will never walk a mile in their shoes. Enjoy your white privilege. While it lasts.

The onus is still on you and all others making racism accusations to prove race was a factor in the Oscar nominations this year.

Yoy can write all the 2000 word essays you want - but you still have no proof.

As for how I know you are white, it is quite obvious. Your faux indignation for one.

[KarenBravo]

Whites can't call non-white people racist?

Bullshit!

[lovelomsak]

Makes me wonder. What if the Oscars said we donot care if you boycott. Life goes on around you.If people of colour donot wish to paticipate it is free country and their choice but they are invited to join,but up to them what they do.. But thank you for all the extra publicity. In a couple of years of boycott they would all be back begging to get recognition.

How important are they too the film industry. Can it not go on without them

Edited January 22, 2016 by lovelomsak

[pedro01]

Whites can't call non-white people racist?

Bullshit!

Exactly - I don't see anyone complaining that the NBA doesn't have enough white people in it.

In the past 30 years there have been 3 white people in the NBA Most Valuable Player awards.

Where is the outrage?

[pedro01]

Let's boycott the racist Olympics (2012 Mens' 100 metres)

Edited January 22, 2016 by pedro01

[thaibeachlovers]

Reading more about this, what's behind it, I'm discovering the protests are about much more than the award voting and selections, but rather approaching a DEEPER issue. That more diverse films aren't even funded in the first place! I'm much more inclined to support that issue be seriously looked at. But I still think the "boycott" the awards thing projects a sour taste.

Making movies is a business.

They make the movies to make money. Django made good money and that had plenty of African Americans in it. Great director, cool story - made money. In this day & age nobody really cares about the color of the actors.

If movies with white people make more money, then there will be more movies with white people in them. End of story.

Anyway - let's say you 'force' diversity onto Hollywood - perhaps by taxing them to give money to minority production companies (who obviously will choose based on race). All that will happen is that these funded companies, with no real incentive to make money as they haven't risked anything, will produce crap movies.

There is no DEEPER issue - Hollywood is simply making the movies that make money. I think they call it Capitalism.

Your first sentence boded well. Unfortunately you have no idea about the film and television business and merely impose an ideological fantasy based on some sophomoric view of capitalism on the industry. Film and Television production companies world wide have access to a wide range of financial instruments and other programs offered by governments and industry associations to attract and develop the industry. Tax breaks, credit enhancements, direct grants and many other inducements and incentives are offered to encourage the industry. None of these disincentivises your ridiculously fabricated non-white production companies from making money. This is just a shallow disguise for the old blacks are lazy argument of the Right. The old trope of minorities are poor because they want to be poor and giving the money will just keep them lazy.

The film and television industry is not about studios pushing out franchise movies to an uncritical public. Naturally someone with a superficial, idealogical interpretation of an industry about which they know nothing will reject the idea of any deeper issue. The nexus of the film and television industry is creativity and expression meeting money and technical skills. It has nothing to do with some assumed socialistic distribution of resources. Any grist to the Right Wing mill is ok for some I guess.

Given that Hollywood makes crap films, and making films with a minority cast is no guarantee of better, perhaps government should stop giving them money- then they might start making decent films again. As an example of how rubbish Hollywood has become, I noticed that Mad Max, Fury Road was nominated for best movie. As that is just a totally garbage film, I have to assume it is just a joke ceremony, Star wars, which will likely do well next year was just average, Jurassic Park was awful.

No doubt you will accuse me of knowing nothing about films, but what I do know is that a film has to entertain to be successful, and many films now are just about destroying stuff. Maybe that appeals to the target audience of teenage boys, but it's not excellent film making with an actual plot, and characters you can get invested in. Star wars had 2 dimensional characters. Avatar did well because you cared about the characters. American sniper was moving at the end because we cared about him. Both good films.

Last movie I walked away feeling up was Spectre, but the garbage that was spouted about it was unbelievable. I even read one female commentator saying this Bond was better because be had an older woman one night, never mind that she was just a one night stand and meant nothing to him. End of the day, it was just a movie, not the word of God.

[mopar71]

Makes me wonder. What if the Oscars said we donot care if you boycott. Life goes on around you.If people of colour donot wish to paticipate it is free country and their choice but they are invited to join,but up to them what they do.. But thank you for all the extra publicity. In a couple of years of boycott they would all be back begging to get recognition.

How important are they too the film industry. Can it not go on without them

You're right, like this isn't the first time Hollywood has been threatened with a boycott. Controversy is good for business and I wouldn't be surprised if this year won't have the highest ratings in years.

At the end of the day, people won't give up their movies.

[KarenBravo]

Charlotte Rampling.........my hero.

[geriatrickid]

You guys are -as always- ridiculous!

"Straight outta Compton" was praised by almost every critic and got nothing!

The Academy has the option of putting up 5 to 10 movies in the "Best movie" - category and they nominated 8!

Go figure!

Uhh, you mean reviews like these?

- N.W.A film 'Straight Outta Compton' starts fast but runs out of gas - LA Times

- NINE TRUTHS CUT FROM 'STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON,' THE N.W.A MOVIE - Village Voice (The review identified the multiple falsehoods used especially the defamation of Jerry Heller.

You laud a film who's producers Dr. Dre and Ice Cube intentionally left out any reference to the multiple claims of female abuse by Dre and glossed over Suge Knight. The Academy did the right thing by ignoring Straight out of Compton as it was a dishonest celebration of violence and criminality. There was no artistic merit in the film, and it certainly didn't make a positive contribution with the way it has laughed off violence against women. Had the film been nominated, the Academy would have been criticized by celebrating a man accused of violence against women.

I saw the film. It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It certainly did not represent the Afro American community.

[lostboy]

Whites can't call non-white people racist?

Bullshit!

You have some frame of reference for this sophisticated argument? You have some understanding of the experience of minorities that enables you to counter my argument? Is so, please share.

Racism is not an individual's uncomfortableness with difference. The idea that someone is threatened by someone of a different look, culture or way of life is an issue for that person. Their stereotyping of minorities plays to their ignorance, prejudice or other phobia. Racism and other stereotyping of minorities is a systemic expression of cultural chauvinism. Those minorities oppressed by that system have a legitimate right and duty to expose and fight against that oppression. That is the principle of universal human rights. Racial minorities, females, LGBT people and others who have suffered institutionalised bigotry cannot be assigned the same pejoratives as their oppressor.

Non-whites expressing views against whites is not racism. It is a legitimate response to oppression. You are not comfortable with that. Deal with it. The amount of racism on this thread is appalling. Unthinking comments that by any definition are racist because they identify racially articulated stereotypes, mostly against African Americans in this case and they have the gall to say 'I am not racist'. If your speech identifies a racial characteristic, it is by definition racist. This may or may not be a bad thing. If that speech then goes on to stereotype that racially identified group, then this is a bad thing. it is an expression of systemic, institutionalised racism and is part of what is called white privilege.

In my career, I have had to confront my own racism which is a consequence of my heritage. It is not a comfortable process. White people seem to have difficulty in coming to grips with the meaning and reality of racism in their defensive reaction to any challenge to their privilege. Whether the comments about the Academy nomination process are valid or not, such expressions by African Americans are legitimate, valid and not racist.

Don't like it? Then deal with your own racism honestly. Not many of the grumpy old white mean demographic have the courage. They just sit and whine about how it used to be when blacks, gays and women knew their place.

[Ulysses G.]

You guys are -as always- ridiculous!

"Straight outta Compton" was praised by almost every critic and got nothing!

The Academy has the option of putting up 5 to 10 movies in the "Best movie" - category and they nominated 8!

Go figure!

Uhh, you mean reviews like these?

- N.W.A film 'Straight Outta Compton' starts fast but runs out of gas - LA Times

- NINE TRUTHS CUT FROM 'STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON,' THE N.W.A MOVIE - Village Voice (The review identified the multiple falsehoods used especially the defamation of Jerry Heller.

You laud a film who's producers Dr. Dre and Ice Cube intentionally left out any reference to the multiple claims of female abuse by Dre and glossed over Suge Knight. The Academy did the right thing by ignoring Straight out of Compton as it was a dishonest celebration of violence and criminality. There was no artistic merit in the film, and it certainly didn't make a positive contribution with the way it has laughed off violence against women. Had the film been nominated, the Academy would have been criticized by celebrating a man accused of violence against women.

I saw the film. It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It certainly did not represent the Afro American community.

My feelings exactly. It was not Oscar worthy.

[Ulysses G.]

I noticed that Mad Max, Fury Road was nominated for best movie. As that is just a totally garbage film, I have to assume it is just a joke

This is the first time that you and I have ever agreed on ANYTHING.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[lostboy]

Given that Hollywood makes crap films, and making films with a minority cast is no guarantee of better, perhaps government should stop giving them money- then they might start making decent films again. As an example of how rubbish Hollywood has become, I noticed that Mad Max, Fury Road was nominated for best movie. As that is just a totally garbage film, I have to assume it is just a joke ceremony, Star wars, which will likely do well next year was just average, Jurassic Park was awful.

No doubt you will accuse me of knowing nothing about films, but what I do know is that a film has to entertain to be successful, and many films now are just about destroying stuff. Maybe that appeals to the target audience of teenage boys, but it's not excellent film making with an actual plot, and characters you can get invested in. Star wars had 2 dimensional characters. Avatar did well because you cared about the characters. American sniper was moving at the end because we cared about him. Both good films.

Last movie I walked away feeling up was Spectre, but the garbage that was spouted about it was unbelievable. I even read one female commentator saying this Bond was better because be had an older woman one night, never mind that she was just a one night stand and meant nothing to him. End of the day, it was just a movie, not the word of God.

I think I have been quite clear in my criticism of others expressing outrage at Blacks accusing the Academy of bigotry that I am commenting on issues related to the film industry and not to any assessment of the creative quality of individual productions. Your assessment of the quality of some Hollywood movies is as subjective as mine. I too enjoyed Spectre. Many didn't. It neatly wrapped up a cycle in the phase of Bond movies. I didn't accept the selection of Daniel Craig as Bond at first but I now appreciate his character and the way that cycle of four movies played out.

In my view, this has nothing really to do with this particular issue. For some decades now, movie producers have been producing movies on black issues and black themes with African American actors, both on TV and Film. Some of them get nominated for awards and some of them don't. Again, assessment of creative worth is subjective. I argue however that racism and bigotry is institutionalised and systemic and responses against systemic oppression are legitimate. The film and television business is an industry. There are structural flaws in that industry that perpetuate what is called White Privilege. This has been recognised by the Academy through their vote on Thursday to increase minority representation among members. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/business/media/oscars-diversity-academy-voting-rules.html?_r=0 This is a response to institutionalised or systemic structures that sustain privilege based on stereotyping and oppression of minorities. The complaints agains the industry don't stope with the Academy. There are claims that the Studio system does not adequately represent diversity. Some of these claims are valid, some are superficial and need more thought. However, the immediate response of the privileged group is to lash out and attack the individuals making these observations, to denigrate their work, to be outraged at the uppityness of such people to challenge the status quo.

I do not accuse you of not knowing the film and television business. If you have not worked in the industry or studied it, then it is natural for you to take it at face value i.e. your experience is with the product of that industry as a consumer. You have every right to watch films that you like and to not like every production made. However, I do not focus on that element. I focus on the way systems are used to oppress minorities and the way such systems can be changed. Naming and shaming is a tried and tested way of bringing about change. It has worked in the case of the Academy. Well done Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee. Well done the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science.

[lostboy]

The onus is still on you and all others making racism accusations to prove race was a factor in the Oscar nominations this year.

Yoy can write all the 2000 word essays you want - but you still have no proof.

As for how I know you are white, it is quite obvious. Your faux indignation for one.

It is very difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn't even bother to pay attention to what is being debated. You merely want to spout off your silly old man outrage. Well keep on with that but don't presume to tell others what to do or say.

Where did I ever talk about racism in the Oscar nomination process? Where, in fact did I even talk about the Oscar nomination process. My argument is based on the institutionalised oppression of minorities in the film and television industry and how your silly idea of a levy to fund minority productions causing laziness among minorities is an expression of your bigoted mind. You then to proceed to make slurs about my writing style. What's next, telling me about my medication?

My indignation is real. I identify with a minority group. I have been attacked and stereotyped my whole life. My outrage is entirely real. You do not get to say who has what responsibility for proving what. Particularly when I never even said anything remotely connected to that subject. Do you even bother to read for understanding or do you just write crap in response to anything that is said?

Old man outrage. Talk about stereotypes.

[chuckd]

Whites can't call non-white people racist?

Bullshit!

Well said, KB.

Succinct, to the point and considerably less wordy than others are capable of producing.

[thaibeachlovers]

Whites can't call non-white people racist?

Bullshit!

Some people of colour that I have known are far more racist than any whitey I have known.

Racism is subjective. If one hasn't been subject to it, it is a non issue. If, as happened to a white friend of mine, one is beaten up merely for being white, by persons that are not white, then that is racist and one is concerned about it.

What about the racism of people of colour towards people of a different colour?

As far as the film industry goes, there are sufficient numbers of people of colour in the industry to be able to stand up for themselves, without complaining that they are being discriminated against merely because they didn't get a silly statue this year.

I used the term people of colour, as it isn't just about black people in the US.

[7by7]

[pedro01]

The onus is still on you and all others making racism accusations to prove race was a factor in the Oscar nominations this year.

Yoy can write all the 2000 word essays you want - but you still have no proof.

As for how I know you are white, it is quite obvious. Your faux indignation for one.

It is very difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn't even bother to pay attention to what is being debated. You merely want to spout off your silly old man outrage. Well keep on with that but don't presume to tell others what to do or say.

Where did I ever talk about racism in the Oscar nomination process? Where, in fact did I even talk about the Oscar nomination process. My argument is based on the institutionalised oppression of minorities in the film and television industry and how your silly idea of a levy to fund minority productions causing laziness among minorities is an expression of your bigoted mind. You then to proceed to make slurs about my writing style. What's next, telling me about my medication?

My indignation is real. I identify with a minority group. I have been attacked and stereotyped my whole life. My outrage is entirely real. You do not get to say who has what responsibility for proving what. Particularly when I never even said anything remotely connected to that subject. Do you even bother to read for understanding or do you just write crap in response to anything that is said?

Old man outrage. Talk about stereotypes.

The onus is still on you to prove racism.

As it is, you are just attacking me personally to cover the lack of proof.

[lostboy]

The onus is still on you and all others making racism accusations to prove race was a factor in the Oscar nominations this year.

Yoy can write all the 2000 word essays you want - but you still have no proof.

As for how I know you are white, it is quite obvious. Your faux indignation for one.

It is very difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn't even bother to pay attention to what is being debated. You merely want to spout off your silly old man outrage. Well keep on with that but don't presume to tell others what to do or say.

Where did I ever talk about racism in the Oscar nomination process? Where, in fact did I even talk about the Oscar nomination process. My argument is based on the institutionalised oppression of minorities in the film and television industry and how your silly idea of a levy to fund minority productions causing laziness among minorities is an expression of your bigoted mind. You then to proceed to make slurs about my writing style. What's next, telling me about my medication?

My indignation is real. I identify with a minority group. I have been attacked and stereotyped my whole life. My outrage is entirely real. You do not get to say who has what responsibility for proving what. Particularly when I never even said anything remotely connected to that subject. Do you even bother to read for understanding or do you just write crap in response to anything that is said?

Old man outrage. Talk about stereotypes.

The onus is still on you to prove racism.

As it is, you are just attacking me personally to cover the lack of proof.

Very effective way of winning arguments. Just don't bother to read what someone says and just repeat the same idiocy over and over again.

There is no onus on me to prove racism. I have not even discussed the topic of racism with you. You made the nonsensical claim that minority film producers would be too lazy to produce movies if they were given money as a result of a levy on other fit producers. It is, in fact, your onus to demonstrate any evidence, provide any data or information that your stupid claim is true. Now I will use the term racism. You slur on minorities and their response to subsidies is racist. No need for me to prove anything. You are hoist by your own petard. Now prove you aren't.

Your retreat into victimhood is also a poorly executed feint. I attack your inability to take any relevant point in my text. I attack your racist allegation against minority film producers. I attack your unthinking and foolish accusation of faux indignation. What personal attack?

What style you have. I guess you win debates by others just giving up in response to dumb insolence.

[Scott]

I very, very strongly suggest staying on topic and stop baiting other members.