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.
