WWTBAM Bored

Joseph Fiennes plays Michael Jackson in British TV 'road-trip' comedy

Gobsmacking news out of London Wednesday: British actor Joseph Fiennes plays the late Michael Jackson in a forthcoming British TV comedy about a story involving Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando widely considered an urban myth in the USA.

Fiennes, 45, is a well-regarded actor, a BAFTA winner and a SAG nominee, and best remembered as Shakespeare in Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love. But he was born 12 years after Jackson and is way more pale than Jackson was even at the height of his vitigilo skin-blotching condition.

Abigail Tye, a spokeswoman for Sky Arts, which is making Elizabeth, Michael & Marlon, confirmed Wednesday what had been reported in London the night before: Fiennes plays Jackson in a "lighthearted look at a reportedly true event" to be broadcast on Sky later in 2016.

What event? Allegedly, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Taylor, Brando and Jackson were stuck in New York and wanted to go home but all flights were grounded. So the trio hopped in a car and took to the road, getting as far as Ohio after frequent stops so that Brando could feast on fast food.

Full story

Probably the same people who cast the lead role in that Lifetime TV movie about Aaliyah.

Pastor Fireball wrote:Probably the same people who cast the lead role in that Lifetime TV movie about Aaliyah.

Or that newest Annie.

For what it's worth, Stockard Channing is playing Taylor and Brian Cox is playing Brando.

I would say the producers of this show are either desperate for attention or completely devoid of judgment in announcing this casting at this particular time. Unless, of course, the matter of Jackson's skin pigmentation was a topic of discussion on the show, in which case casting a white actor as Jackson might be exactly the point the producers were trying to make. Certainly, Taylor and Brando had their own personality quirks that a comedy could exploit for laughs (such as outfitting either or both of them in ridiculously fat suits).

And in regard to BiT's comment, considering that this version of Annie is set in the present day, it would be rather surprising if a group of orphans was not racially mixed, if not almost entirely minority.

BackInTex wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:Probably the same people who cast the lead role in that Lifetime TV movie about Aaliyah.

Or that newest Annie.

Annie is a fictional character. Michael Jackson, as strange as he was, was a real person.

Why conservatives should support #OscarsSoWhite (aka The Eddie Redmayne Problem):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... e-diverse/

silverscreenselect wrote:Why conservatives should support #OscarsSoWhite (aka The Eddie Redmayne Problem):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... e-diverse/

Conservatives IF they support anything Oscar related would be let the votes fall where they may based on worth and not skin color. And if sometime the representation of various skin colors is different that the mix of actors, etc., well that is statistics. I'm sure there are years where non-white nominees exceed their allocated 10-20%. But Hollywood is void of conservatives and this is the "scandal of the year". Black Lives Matter was soooo 2015.

Conservatives don't really notice skin color. Liberals do. All the time.

BackInTex wrote: Conservatives don't really notice skin color. Liberals do. All the time.

If you believe that, then you probably believe all those e-mails you get from Nigerian oil princes and Ukranian beauties.

BackInTex wrote:
Conservatives IF they support anything Oscar related would be let the votes fall where they may based on worth and not skin color.

I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the article, or if you did, you probably couldn't get past the picture at the top of Eddie Redmayne wearing a dress. But I'll quote the key part that I found interesting, which, by the way came from commentary by a Fox News reporter:

Still, as TV’s Andy Levy notes, conservatives — who have largely been critical of the #OscarsSoWhite campaign — shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the African American community’s frustration. After all, they lodge many of the same complaints:

“How often do conservatives talk about being underserved and overlooked by Hollywood? How often do conservatives complain that movies they like — ‘Lone Survivor,’ ‘American Sniper,’ ’13 Hours’ — don’t get enough recognition from the Academy?” Levy asked last week. “Don’t conservatives say ‘I’m not watching the Oscars because the movies that get nominated don’t represent me?’ And don’t conservatives argue that the Oscars aren’t even the real problem — that the real problem is the people who run the studios being liberal and making liberal movies?”

That's a fairly bad comparison, though. You can tell with some accuracy what ethnicity a person is by looking at them. How is a conservative supposed to know that the political mix is changing? What, is Hollywood going to do an anonymous survey and announce the results at the next SAG meeting? Do actors have to be registered Republicans? Is it enough if they donate money to conservative causes? Do they have to make political speeches? The few conservatives that are aligned under the banner Friends of Abe keep a veil of secrecy precisely because they know that coming out as a Republican could well be more damaging to your career in the present day than coming out as gay. With so little benefit on the actors' side, I just don't see a flood of open conservatives coming at any point in the future. Meanwhile, Rowan Blanchard, the 14-year-old star of Disney's Girl Meets World, said that she was "queer" on Twitter and hardly anyone batted an eyelash. Hollywood is not for conservatives. Period.

This boycott movement is so stupid. The people complaining won't even consider the possibility that maybe the five Caucasian actors nominated did a better, more convincing, more impactful portrayal than the black actors that year. They run straight to racism. It's a neat little double standard the Black community has. Whenever a Black person wins, it's because they deserve it, and if you question it, you're a racist. If a Black person loses, it's because of racism, and if you question that, you're a racist. The article said that overall, the proportion of Black Oscar winners was in keeping with the population in America. So the past couple of years could well be a fluke, but that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? That doesn't get you trending on Twitter, does it? Truth is not the currency of our modern, social media-obsessed society. Outrage is. We didn't hear any of that outrage a couple of years ago when 12 Years a Slave won over Gravity and Wolf of Wall Street. It's just so nakedly opportunistic.

What's so funny to me is that none of this crap addresses what I think is the main problem most non-movie buffs have of the awards: Their almost pathological refusal to recognize any movie that a normal person might actually see. Think about the most recent Best Picture winners. 12 Years A Slave and Argo were popular enough, but by no means blockbusters. But then it gets weird. The Artist? Birdman?? And now Spotlight, a movie that didn't even make $40 million is the favorite. Almost nobody hears about these films until "Oscars season" starts after Telluride, and most people hear about it for the first time when they get nominated. Even though the names change, most people know the types of movies that get nominated. Am I surprised that the favorite makes the Catholic Church look bad and makes journalists, an overwhelmingly liberal group, look good? No, not really. I thought things would change after the controversy over Dark Knight being passed over led to more Best Picture nominees. Instead, it's just led to token slots for popular titles. Does anyone honestly expect The Martian to win? Did anyone really think American Sniper had a chance? Or Gravity? Or Toy Story 3?

Oh, and Tex? They're doing the same thing to Nancy Drew. That's how modern society works. When White actors play Black roles, it's racebending. When Black actors play White roles, it's progress. Funny how that works.

CarShark wrote:That's a fairly bad comparison, though. You can tell with some accuracy what ethnicity a person is by looking at them. How is a conservative supposed to know that the political mix is changing? What, is Hollywood going to do an anonymous survey and announce the results at the next SAG meeting? Do actors have to be registered Republicans? Is it enough if they donate money to conservative causes? Do they have to make political speeches?

The problem the article was addressing wasn't with conservative actors being nominated or not nominated, but with films that might be said to have a conservative bent, like American Sniper and 13 Hours.

CarShark wrote:What's so funny to me is that none of this crap addresses what I think is the main problem most non-movie buffs have of the awards: Their almost pathological refusal to recognize any movie that a normal person might actually see. Think about the most recent Best Picture winners. 12 Years A Slave and Argo were popular enough, but by no means blockbusters. But then it gets weird. The Artist? Birdman?? And now Spotlight, a movie that didn't even make $40 million is the favorite. Almost nobody hears about these films until "Oscars season" starts after Telluride, and most people hear about it for the first time when they get nominated. Even though the names change, most people know the types of movies that get nominated. Am I surprised that the favorite makes the Catholic Church look bad and makes journalists, an overwhelmingly liberal group, look good? No, not really. I thought things would change after the controversy over Dark Knight being passed over led to more Best Picture nominees. Instead, it's just led to token slots for popular titles. Does anyone honestly expect The Martian to win? Did anyone really think American Sniper had a chance? Or Gravity? Or Toy Story 3?

Popular doesn't necessarily mean good. Nobody thinks McDonald's is one of the best restaurants in the country. I did not think that Birdman was the best film of the year, but I do think Spotlight is. And it did not "make the Catholic Church look bad." Thirty years of child abuse and coverups made the Church look bad. Those reporters merely brought the story to light.

silverscreenselect wrote:The problem the article was addressing wasn't with conservative actors being nominated or not nominated, but with films that might be said to have a conservative bent, like American Sniper and 13 Hours.

And who decides what has a "conservative bent"? Whether it's actors, directors, reviewers, or the Academy, it's still a group of liberals.

Popular doesn't necessarily mean good. Nobody thinks McDonald's is one of the best restaurants in the country.

...but it doesn't necessarily mean bad, either. I don't expect any Pixar film to win, even if it's the best movie made ever, simply because of the biases of the Academy.

And it did not "make the Catholic Church look bad." Thirty years of child abuse and coverups made the Church look bad. Those reporters merely brought the story to light.

I'm just saying that a movie about people in the Catholic Church being awesome wouldn't get made, let alone recognized for an award. That's just not what that liberal industry would do.

CarShark wrote:I'm just saying that a movie about people in the Catholic Church being awesome wouldn't get made, let alone recognized for an award. That's just not what that liberal industry would do.

How soon you forget 4 Oscar wins!

CarShark wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The problem the article was addressing wasn't with conservative actors being nominated or not nominated, but with films that might be said to have a conservative bent, like American Sniper and 13 Hours.

And who decides what has a "conservative bent"? Whether it's actors, directors, reviewers, or the Academy, it's still a group of liberals.

Well, in this case, it's conservatives who decide what has a "conservative bent" because they are the ones complaining about these movies not getting any recognition.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/conserv ... st-oscars/

So, one year after Breitbart feels the Oscars are too "racist," now they're fine.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/ ... us-racist/

And you might consider a course in reading comprehension. You've misrepresented the original article I cited on two separate occasions now, despite the fact that it was written by a Fox News commentator, which means it really shouldn't be too sophisticated for you to understand.

silverscreenselect wrote:Well, in this case, it's conservatives who decide what has a "conservative bent" because they are the ones complaining about these movies not getting any recognition.

Not true. What about movies that aren't political, but get drawn into the political sphere, like Zero Dark Thirty? The main political argument was that it was a sop to the Obama administration, but there was a pretty sizable group of lefties that were calling for a boycott, saying that the movie either glorified or excused "enhanced interrogation techniques" common during the Bush administration. By no means is that argument settled on either side of the aisle. So maybe political identification isn't as cut-and-dried as you want to portray it? Just because one side has claimed or shunned a movie doesn't mean it's automatically right to do so. The only real clue we have to go on is the stated politics of the directors and producers, which again in Hollywood, means liberal.

So, one year after Breitbart feels the Oscars are too "racist," now they're fine.

Well, if Breitbart is like most conservatives, they're just tired of the process being consumed by race and little else. They're also tired of being called racists, unsurprisingly, just for honestly holding their beliefs. It's leftists like you that started the stupid hashtag which has completely hijacked the entire conversation to the point that the Academy is making changes that will freeze out its older members (who are likely White) under the assumption that they're all racists. The only two considerations should be whether they are knowledgeable about movies and whether they see all the nominees. Everything else is just a way push out "unwanted" members.

And you might consider a course in reading comprehension. You've misrepresented the original article I cited on two separate occasions now, despite the fact that it was written by a Fox News commentator, which means it really shouldn't be too sophisticated for you to understand.

I can comprehend just fine. I can also read between the lines. I also understood the concern trolling nature of your post. You don't give a damn whether conservatives are represented or not. You just wanted a cute, novel argument, just like all the "A Conservative Case for...(insert liberal policy)" articles that dot the internet landscape. So I expanded to the other Oscars categories to make a point (a valid one that you haven't addressed, nor do I expect you to be able to) that it's easy for Hollywood leftists to satisfy cries that there aren't enough of (insert minority here) by simply taking out a White person and putting aforementioned minority person in their place. Conservatives have no such assurance.

And then you have the nerve to finish with another insult. Sure, Fox News (mostly conservatives) is stupid, and its watchers (mostly conservatives, again) are all stupid. Well done. How original.

CarShark wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Well, in this case, it's conservatives who decide what has a "conservative bent" because they are the ones complaining about these movies not getting any recognition.

Not true. What about movies that aren't political, but get drawn into the political sphere, like Zero Dark Thirty? The main political argument was that it was a sop to the Obama administration, but there was a pretty sizable group of lefties that were calling for a boycott, saying that the movie either glorified or excused "enhanced interrogation techniques" common during the Bush administration.

I have to say that your powers of reading comprehension make one wonder whether you should be allowed out in public.

I'll repeat it again.

The article ( which quotes from a commentary by a Fox News commentator) noted that conservatives have complained that the Oscar voters were not representative of the movie going public and for that reason films like American Sniper, Lone Survivor, and 13 Hours. Let me quote again:

“How often do conservatives talk about being underserved and overlooked by Hollywood? How often do conservatives complain that movies they like — ‘Lone Survivor,’ ‘American Sniper,’ ’13 Hours’ — don’t get enough recognition from the Academy?” Levy asked last week. “Don’t conservatives say ‘I’m not watching the Oscars because the movies that get nominated don’t represent me?’ And don’t conservatives argue that the Oscars aren’t even the real problem — that the real problem is the people who run the studios being liberal and making liberal movies?”

Nothing in there about Zero Dark Thirty. The point is that conservatives have complained about the makeup of the Oscar voters for several years, as have blacks, as have a number of other groups. The Oscar voters aren't representative of the people who are making movies anymore. They never have and never should be representative of the people who go to the movies. They have their own award; it's called the People's Choice Awards. The Academy members are liberal for the most part, but they are a particular type of old school liberal that's uncomfortable with more cutting edge films. That explains how "safe," uplifting Brit films like The King's Speech keep winning Oscars.

The fact that you said the following shows that you don't understand the problem:

It's leftists like you that started the stupid hashtag which has completely hijacked the entire conversation to the point that the Academy is making changes that will freeze out its older members (who are likely White) under the assumption that they're all racists. The only two considerations should be whether they are knowledgeable about movies and whether they see all the nominees. Everything else is just a way push out "unwanted" members.

The changes are not designed to push out older members because they are presumably racist but because they haven't been involved in the movie industry in years. Under the rules being phased out, once you became a member of the Academy, you were in for life even if you hadn't seen a movie in decades. And the new requirements aren't all that strenuous either:

-- Voting membership in the Academy is now for 10 years, not lifetime.
--If a member is active (meaning involved in the industry in some capacity, such as making one single movie), they get renewed for a second 10-year term and then, similarly, for a third.
--After three ten year terms, they become lifetime members.
--Oscar nominees automatically become lifetime members.

The changes are retroactive so some people will be out in 2017 if they don't get involved this year (they become emeritus members which entitles them to other benefits but not voting). The Academy will also loosen up the rules form becoming members (although they are still working on this). Now, to become a member, you have to be sponsored by an existing member. So, cinematographers sponsor other cinematographers, and costume designers sponsor other costume designers. Obviously, that leads to a "good old boy" network that makes it difficult for any outsiders, minority or not, to get in.

Ironically, Breitbart (or whoever writes for that blog) is just as consumed with the issue of race at the Oscars as Spike Lee. Otherwise, how can you explain them tweeting during last year's Oscars how often people applauded the mention of Selma.

silverscreenselect wrote: Ironically, Breitbart (or whoever writes for that blog) is just as consumed with the issue of race at the Oscars as Spike Lee. Otherwise, how can you explain them tweeting during last year's Oscars how often people applauded the mention of Selma.

So noticing and commenting on someone's apparent racism is racist?

silverscreenselect wrote:Nothing in there about Zero Dark Thirty. The point is that conservatives have complained about the makeup of the Oscar voters for several years, as have blacks, as have a number of other groups. The Oscar voters aren't representative of the people who are making movies anymore. They never have and never should be representative of the people who go to the movies. They have their own award; it's called the People's Choice Awards.

Great. So instead of being a bunch of white liberals, it'll be a diverse mix of liberals...and that's supposed to get conservatives on board? As I said before (not that you read it), I was expanding to movies in general. If there are few conservative actors or directors or producers, who's supposed to be making these films "with a conservative bent" to get nominated in the first place? The Academy can add more Blacks, Hispanics and Asian, and as long as they're all liberal, it will still mean those films will get screwed. The aforementioned changes won't fix that, so there's no reason for conservatives to get behind them. Again, it's not like there's a way to check to make sure. Your willful ignorance either shows your ideological blinders or your staggering idiocy. I'd be surprised if you could eat without drooling on yourself. You see, I can be mean, too.

The Academy members are liberal for the most part, but they are a particular type of old school liberal that's uncomfortable with more cutting edge films. That explains how "safe," uplifting Brit films like The King's Speech keep winning Oscars.

Oh! So the Academy just wants different kinds of liberals. That makes sense. They already have plenty of champagne socialists and new wave hippies. Now they'll add some BLM race baiters and illegal alien advocates, and all will be well.

The changes are not designed to push out older members because they are presumably racist but because they haven't been involved in the movie industry in years.

Who cares if they're actively making movies? I said that the only requirement should be to see all the movies that were nominated. If you aren't watching the movies, how can you judge them in any meaningful way?

CarShark wrote: If there are few conservative actors or directors or producers, who's supposed to be making these films "with a conservative bent" to get nominated in the first place?

There are lots of conservative actors and directors and producers out there and they regularly make movies (a lot of them are religious conservatives). Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, and Jerry Bruckheimer don't have difficulty getting films made (and Clint is one of the most respected directors in Hollywood). Robert Downey, Jr., Bruce Willis, and Adam Sandler don't have trouble finding acting jobs. The problem is that the kind of movies they make (with the exception of Eastwood) aren't likely to get Oscar nominations. Downey is a very respected actor who has chosen to get rich making comic book movies instead of films that might earn him another Oscar nod.

It doesn't take much to get the types of movies made that actually can get Oscar nominations in creative categories. Spotlight wasn't a big budget film. Neither were The Big Short, Room, Carol, The Danish Girl, or Brooklyn. The problem is that conservative writers and black writers alike aren't producing scripts that can attract quality actors and directors.

CarShark wrote:Who cares if they're actively making movies? I said that the only requirement should be to see all the movies that were nominated. If you aren't watching the movies, how can you judge them in any meaningful way?

How many of the Oscar nominated movies have you seen?

The Oscars are supposed to be awards given by people in the film industry to honor their peers. Not a vote of fans or critics or people who made a movie at one time and got grandfathered into the Academy but don't have squat to do with making movies currently. And someone who's actually involved in making movies has a better idea of how easy or difficult particular types of work are.

silverscreenselect wrote:How many of the Oscar nominated movies have you seen?

Two. Fury Road and The Martian.

The Oscars are supposed to be awards given by people in the film industry to honor their peers. Not a vote of fans or critics...

I know, that's why I said earlier that normal people don't take it as seriously. Why watch when it's just going to be an indie liberal circle jerk?

...or people who made a movie at one time and got grandfathered into the Academy but don't have squat to do with making movies currently. And someone who's actually involved in making movies has a better idea of how easy or difficult particular types of work are.

...but you get a lifetime membership just for getting nominated now. That means that when 41-year-old Leo DiCaprio gets nominated again next year for whatever Oscar bait movie he does, he can vote every year for the next 40 or 50 years, even if he doesn't make another movie. How is that better? What's to stop someone from just hiring on as a glorified advisor every ten years and then locking in a permanent membership? And I don't buy that filmmaking has changed so much that you have to kick older voters out.

CarShark wrote:

The Oscars are supposed to be awards given by people in the film industry to honor their peers. Not a vote of fans or critics...

I know, that's why I said earlier that normal people don't take it as seriously. Why watch when it's just going to be an indie liberal circle jerk?

Last year, which was an off year for the Oscars, 36 million people watched the show. I'd venture that at least some of them were "normal."

This article is a few years old, but the same logic still applies. It shows that an Oscar win for Best Picture is worth an extra $14 million at the Box Office. That would indicate that more than a million people took the Oscars seriously enough (figuring $10 for admission prices) to go see a movie they hadn't seen before because it won the Oscar (and obviously that doesn't include increases in video revenues as a result).

http://boxofficequant.com/the-value-of-an-oscar/

And these people aren't "indie liberal circle jerk" participants like myself for the simple reason that most of us had already seen the movie that won the Best Picture Oscar well before the awards. No, these were your so-called normal people.

And I really like Mad Max (which I felt was one of the three or four best films of the year) and I hope that George Miller wins the Oscar. I also like The Martian, and it's very well made popcorn entertainment but it's not in the same league as a film like Spotlight.

silverscreenselect wrote:Last year, which was an off year for the Oscars, 36 million people watched the show. I'd venture that at least some of them were "normal."

How many, though, really? Ratings are based on Nielsen's sampling, which at last count are about 25,000 homes. (LINK) With almost 320 million people in the United States, that's just .00008% of the population. Only a few hundred households could tell the tale, and Nielsen added hundreds in New York and Los Angeles. (LINK) So while I'm sure that millions of regular people do enjoy the Oscars ceremony, I'm not fully convinced that ratings alone are indicative of the widespread love and acceptance The Academy may believe.

This article is a few years old, but the same logic still applies. It shows that an Oscar win for Best Picture is worth an extra $14 million at the Box Office. That would indicate that more than a million people took the Oscars seriously enough (figuring $10 for admission prices) to go see a movie they hadn't seen before because it won the Oscar (and obviously that doesn't include increases in video revenues as a result).

I'd be curious to see if that was still the case.

And these people aren't "indie liberal circle jerk" participants like myself for the simple reason that most of us had already seen the movie that won the Best Picture Oscar well before the awards. No, these were your so-called normal people.

Again, I doubt it. There are over 8 million people in New York City. There are over 18.5 million in the Greater Los Angeles area. It's very plausible that this surge is just coming from lefty enclaves. Not everybody in those places gets as into "awards season," but I imagine some might get curious after hearing who won. Also, if a film is in limited release before winning, how exactly are we supposed to tease out how much of an increased box office take is due to the wider release or the award?

CarShark wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Last year, which was an off year for the Oscars, 36 million people watched the show. I'd venture that at least some of them were "normal."

How many, though, really? Ratings are based on Nielsen's sampling, which at last count are about 25,000 homes. (LINK) With almost 320 million people in the United States, that's just .00008% of the population. Only a few hundred households could tell the tale, and Nielsen added hundreds in New York and Los Angeles. (LINK) So while I'm sure that millions of regular people do enjoy the Oscars ceremony, I'm not fully convinced that ratings alone are indicative of the widespread love and acceptance The Academy may believe.

NBC's Sunday Night Football is the highest rated show of the current television season. Last season, it averaged a little over 21 million viewers. So, I guess by your logic,those aren't normal people either. As far as entertainment in programming is concerned, NCIS and The Big Bang Theory had the most total viewers for the 2014-15 season, again, a little over 21 million weekly on average.

Not everyone is as proud of their ignorance as you seem to be.

silverscreenselect wrote:25,000 homes...320 million people....that's.....0.0008% of the population

You might want to check both your math and logic.

1st, 25,000 is 0.008% of 320 million, 2nd, the average home has 2.5 people so 25,000 homes represents 0.02%, or about what Jeb Bush got in Iowa...give or take a bushel.