Best Picture Goes To....

3,118 Views | 97 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Canon
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.
In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.

The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


I think the rules to be nominated are incredibly stupid, more than a little racist and not good policy. That has nothing to do with the movie we are talking about though.

This is no different than people looking for racism everywhere and finding it.

I don't even understand their argument.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Busy....have you know idea that Francis McDormand is one of the best actresses of my generation. Oh, and she is happily married to one of the Coehn Bros. Oh, and the film was really, really good.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Busy....have you know idea that Francis McDormand is one of the best actresses of my generation. Oh, and she is happily married to one of the Coehn Bros. Oh, and the film was really, really good.


Well, with a referral from the great JR then I really want to see it
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

J.R. said:

Busy....have you know idea that Francis McDormand is one of the best actresses of my generation. Oh, and she is happily married to one of the Coehn Bros. Oh, and the film was really, really good.


Well, with a referral from the great JR then I really want to see it
well, Mikey , get your backwards ass up to date. Obviously, you are an ardent student of film. Fast and Furious doesn't count!
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.
In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.

The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


I think the rules to be nominated are incredibly stupid, more than a little racist and not good policy. That has nothing to do with the movie we are talking about though.

This is no different than people looking for racism everywhere and finding it.

I don't even understand their argument.
You don't understand the point of the Academy's diversity rules, or the point of the OP and mine?

If you don't understand the point of the OP and mine, you are as clueless as quash. The OP clearly was talking about the "intersectionality" of a film being a concept that is created BY the Academy due to the very process of only awarding films based on it meeting diversity requirements in key roles ("identities") of the film, including the director, writer, editor, music, costume design, etc. in addition to the leading and supporting actors in the film. The OP even provided the list of requirements by the Academy to explain the point. The fact that the Academy Awards is a ceremony based on awarding these other "identities" behind a film should have clued you in. Yet it still went over your and quash's heads. You limited your thinking to only what was shown in the movie onscreen, or the film's subject matter (which had nothing to do with the point) and despite it being clearly explained in this thread, both you and quash had some sort of mental block and doubled, maybe tripled down on it. All in all, a real low point for you two.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Busy....have you know idea that Francis McDormand is one of the best actresses of my generation. Oh, and she is happily married to one of the Coehn Bros. Oh, and the film was really, really good.
I like Francis McDormand, and as I said before I'm not doubting that the movie is good. But this was really beside the point about the diversity and inclusion requirements of the Academy in order for a film to be nominated for Best Picture.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For what I believe is the 4th time; those rules are asinine. We have zero disagreement there.

That has nothing to do with why Nomadland was chosen as best picture. There are two different discussions going on here.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

For what I believe is the 4th time; those rules are asinine. We have zero disagreement there.

That has nothing to do with why Nomadland was chosen as best picture. There are two different discussions going on here.
It is the OP's opinion that it was. As for me, I do not know. I merely suggested that it could have been.

If there was no disagreement over the stupidity of the rules, there's no reason to repeat it, much less for a 4th time.

But you clearly did not grasp the intersectionality point.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

nein51 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.
In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.

The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


I think the rules to be nominated are incredibly stupid, more than a little racist and not good policy. That has nothing to do with the movie we are talking about though.

This is no different than people looking for racism everywhere and finding it.

I don't even understand their argument.
The OP clearly was talking about the "intersectionality" of a film being a concept that is created BY the Academy due to the very process of only awarding films based on it meeting diversity requirements in key roles ("identities") of the film, including the director, writer, editor, music, costume design, etc. in addition to the leading and supporting actors in the film.
If that was the point, it was wrong. There are no such requirements in effect.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Busy, don't bother. They know the points. They know the points are valid. They are just being pedantic.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need a remake of The Warriors, Titanic, Blazing Saddles, ... thinking about it, every movie ever made except To Kill a Mocking Bird. I think that one is safe.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Busy, don't bother. They know the points. They know the points are valid. They are just being pedantic.


"You only got admitted/hired/promoted because of affirmative action."

This is the result of the Academy adopting their intersectional scorecard.

And why we have this ridiculous argument being made that Nomadland wasn't worthy of Best Picture.

An argument made by two people who never saw it.
But just know that if there was any diversity in the crew then the award is bogus.

The inevitable result of using anything but merit to decide awards based on merit.


“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

J.R. said:

Busy....have you know idea that Francis McDormand is one of the best actresses of my generation. Oh, and she is happily married to one of the Coehn Bros. Oh, and the film was really, really good.
I like Francis McDormand, and as I said before I'm not doubting that the movie is good. But this was really beside the point about the diversity and inclusion requirements of the Academy in order for a film to be nominated for Best Picture.
I really don't give 2 ****s about the Academy. I'm interested if the movie is good or not!
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


It was a good movie with an interesting story. It's my undestanding that several good movies were held back to be released when the box office opens back up.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...


If there's condescension it's for the way you persist in these threads in bad faith or with alarming incompetence.

It's the Academy's rules which reduce directors to their gender and ethnicity, not my reasoning. Yet another miss of or attempt to misrepresent my point due to bad faith or failure of comprehension. The condescension is deserved.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funny, there are more replies to this thread than people that actually watched the Oscars
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...


If there's condescension it's for the way you persist in these threads in bad faith or with alarming incompetence.

It's the Academy's rules which reduce directors to their gender and ethnicity, not my reasoning. Yet another miss of or attempt to misrepresent my point due to bad faith or failure of comprehension. The condescension is deserved.



My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of intersectionality in Nomadland.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...


If there's condescension it's for the way you persist in these threads in bad faith or with alarming incompetence.

It's the Academy's rules which reduce directors to their gender and ethnicity, not my reasoning. Yet another miss of or attempt to misrepresent my point due to bad faith or failure of comprehension. The condescension is deserved.



My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of intersectionality in Nomadland.




You were espousing your inaccurate view that it wasn't an embodiment of the exact intersectional rules adopted by the academy. It strains even credulity that anyone would suggest that such an extraordinary political policy adopted this year for next year's awards didn't shape this year's awards as well. If the policy is adopted as the ultimate necessary 'good' for year x+1, deducing the same rationale is applied immediately in year x is simply accepting human nature. A policy deemed good and necessary won't rationally be delayed by those who established that policy.

You can disagree, but you are disagreeing with human nature...which, for all time, is a constant. We don't burn witches because we decided there are no witches. The human drive that led to burning witches was simply reapplied to things we now believe exist. The academy believes in the new fantasy of intersectionality. They aren't going to delay burning the new 'witches'.

Does this mean some films and directors selected may not be good? No. The box office (the market you love) demonstrates that. Regardless, they will always love that which the average person doesn't...it reinforces their unearned superiority complex.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...


If there's condescension it's for the way you persist in these threads in bad faith or with alarming incompetence.

It's the Academy's rules which reduce directors to their gender and ethnicity, not my reasoning. Yet another miss of or attempt to misrepresent my point due to bad faith or failure of comprehension. The condescension is deserved.



My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of intersectionality in Nomadland.




You were espousing your inaccurate view that it wasn't an embodiment of the exact intersectional rules adopted by the academy. It strains even credulity that anyone would suggest that such an extraordinary political policy adopted this year for next year's awards didn't shape this year's awards as well. If the policy is adopted as the ultimate necessary 'good' for year x+1, deducing the same rationale is applied immediately in year x is simply accepting human nature. A policy deemed good and necessary won't rationally be delayed by those who established that policy.

You can disagree, but you are disagreeing with human nature...which, for all time, is a constant. We don't burn witches because we decided there are no witches. The human drive that led to burning witches was simply reapplied to things we now believe exist. The academy believes in the new fantasy of intersectionality. They aren't going to delay burning the new 'witches'.

Does this mean some films and directors selected may not be good? No. The box office (the market you love) demonstrates that. Regardless, they will always love that which the average person doesn't...it reinforces their unearned superiority complex.
Wrong. I started down this road with you (well before you posted the new rules) by pointing out the lack of intersectionality.

You are as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine: intersectionality had nothing to do with Nomadland's win. As one of the handful of people who saw it I thought it was good. Having seen none of the other films I am not prepared to say it was better than field. But at least I have more to go on than someone who never saw it but would prefer to virtue signal the culture warriors here.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Canon said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

quash said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nomadland was really good. Nothing particularly woke or intersectional about it.
Female lead, Asian female director.

In order to even be considered for Best Picture, a movie must meet the Academy's Diversity and Inclusion requirements.


The director didn't appear, but okay, you have a really broad definition of intersectionality.


The director is a huge part of a film's identity. I'm literally shaking my head in disbelief at your and nein51's failure to understand the OP's point. It went clear over your heads. Limiting your thinking to only what "appeared in the movie" with regard to the concept of a film's intersectionality shows a ridiculous and alarming level of cluelessness and one-track-mindedness. Especially since the OP even explained it. I don't know what's worse, your inability to grasp the intersectionality point, or your failure to read and comprehend the thread to see that the explanation you were constantly harping for had already been given by both the OP and me.


I'm having a hard time understanding your condescension. By your reasoning an excellent director like Cloe Zhao is reduced to her gender and ethnicity..
Back to John Wayne I guess...


If there's condescension it's for the way you persist in these threads in bad faith or with alarming incompetence.

It's the Academy's rules which reduce directors to their gender and ethnicity, not my reasoning. Yet another miss of or attempt to misrepresent my point due to bad faith or failure of comprehension. The condescension is deserved.



My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of intersectionality in Nomadland.



You were espousing your inaccurate view that it wasn't an embodiment of the exact intersectional rules adopted by the academy. It strains even credulity that anyone would suggest that such an extraordinary political policy adopted this year for next year's awards didn't shape this year's awards as well. If the policy is adopted as the ultimate necessary 'good' for year x+1, deducing the same rationale is applied immediately in year x is simply accepting human nature. A policy deemed good and necessary won't rationally be delayed by those who established that policy.

You can disagree, but you are disagreeing with human nature...which, for all time, is a constant. We don't burn witches because we decided there are no witches. The human drive that led to burning witches was simply reapplied to things we now believe exist. The academy believes in the new fantasy of intersectionality. They aren't going to delay burning the new 'witches'.

Does this mean some films and directors selected may not be good? No. The box office (the market you love) demonstrates that. Regardless, they will always love that which the average person doesn't...it reinforces their unearned superiority complex.
Wrong. I started down this road with you (well before you posted the new rules) by pointing out the lack of intersectionality.

You are as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine: intersectionality had nothing to do with Nomadland's win. As one of the handful of people who saw it I thought it was good. Having seen none of the other films I am not prepared to say it was better than field. But at least I have more to go on than someone who never saw it but would prefer to virtue signal the culture warriors here.
And you were wrong about the lack of intersectionality, as was clearly shown.

One has just as much to go on to say the film's intersectionality fulfillments helped it win, as does someone who merely saw the film and liked it, but did not see the other films to be in a position to judge. Probably even more so, because the Academy put it in actual writing what their mentality and intent is, codifying it in their future diversity rules. And as was explained, it isn't a big reach to think this mentality played a big part this year.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes. And reading headlines gives you more information than clicking through...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Yes. And reading headlines gives you more information than clicking through...

Provided that you're able to read and comprehend once you've clicked through, though. You didn't do a good job demonstrating that here.
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't see Nomadland because it sounded boring. I never watch the Oscars because I think award shows are self-aggrandizing garbage.

That being said, I did see Sound of Metal and thought is was a great movie.
Sic Everyone.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

I didn't see Nomadland because it sounded boring. I never watch the Oscars because I think award shows are self-aggrandizing garbage.

That being said, I did see Sound of Metal and thought is was a great movie.
Was that the one where Ironman plays a nun in Austria?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

FormerFlash said:

I didn't see Nomadland because it sounded boring. I never watch the Oscars because I think award shows are self-aggrandizing garbage.

That being said, I did see Sound of Metal and thought is was a great movie.
Was that the one where Ironman plays a nun in Austria?
Nah, think more Edelweiss with power cords and a sick 15 minute drum solo.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.