Forum - View topicAnswerman - What Do The Changes To Oscar Rules Mean For Anime?
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cherukuri Praharsha
Posts: 2 |
|
|||||
|
probably less disneyness which always win like last year they gave it to big hero six which should be sea of song or any other i think even they would
give to flipping disney if tokyo godfather relesed now |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Savion
Posts: 40 |
|
|||||
|
The academy is dry and rigid and will remain so for a long time. There would have to be some substantial changes for it to catch up to the social demographics it wants and NEED to stay relevant. Countless films, actors and directors snubbed because they were too out the "norm" for the academy.
Honestly I doubt animated films let alone anime films will be headlining any nominations any time soon and most don't deserve to either. From what I've seen the academy recently has been TERRIBLE in its choice of animated film winners. It also seems to have a small pool to choose from in its choices for animated film . It's sad so many people just can't take animation seriously. Anyways If I could nominate a film from last year for an award it'd be Miss Hokusai. |
||||||
|
||||||
Go Mifune
 Posts: 63 |
|
|||||
|
Good article.
This shows the double bind that foreign animations is up against in the academy. (and I know it isn't a "true" double bind.) First is to get nominated one has to please a cadre of technically knowledgeable western animation professionals who have a particular look and technique that they expect, regardless of how well the studio does within its limitations. (This is greatly compounded by western 3D animation technologies.) Then these are passed on to generally ignorant general membership which many often abstain, vote for ones they enjoy with their children (or grandchildren), or other (often irrational) reasons for their choices (like loving dogs and being a story about dogs.) Anyone serious about animation doesn't take the Academy seriously.
IG didn't even submit it-- probably partly to Giovanni's Island didn't get a nomination last year. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Utsuro no Hako
Posts: 1034 |
|
|||||
|
I wonder if anime would be better off competing in the foreign film category? I think Hosoda and Shinkai would appeal more to the general Academy voters than elderly animation professionals.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Go Mifune
Posts: 63 |
|
|||||
There has been much written about the Academy's poor record on animation. One would think that the general population may be better, but in reality they are actually far worse. Many don't even watch the screenings-- anyhow, a couple years ago the Hollywood Reporter started the “Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot” series which shed some light on the selection process. Cartoon Brew narrowed that to animation with a few articles, such as this one. http://www.cartoonbrew.com/award-season-focus/proof-that-oscar-voters-are-clueless-about-animation-109456.html |
||||||
|
||||||
|
H. Guderian
Posts: 1255 |
|
|||||
|
I hadn't heard what the rules changed are/were. As I read I was like 'they should make sure they've worked recently!' which is shown to be part of the new rules.
It can't change overnight, but weeding out inactives is a good first step. And yeah, the style of consuming anime is rarely a quality-first endeavour, so it is an especially uphill battle when a couple people get the idea we should compete in these venues. |
||||||
|
||||||
EricJ2
 Posts: 4016 |
|
|||||
Some who've been around anime longer remember the big push to nudge the Academy to recognize Japan's entry of Princess Mononoke for the '99 Foreign Language category. (For context, this was during Disney's infamous "no more US Ghibli" phase after the movie blew up in theaters, and we were desperate to sell the studio back on Ghibli films again by hook or crook.) They didn't. I remember hearing from one friend-of-an-insider on the movie boards that not only was the 90's committee royally fed to the teeth with fans hounding the Oscars to nominate another animated Best Picture after Disney trumpeted their Beauty & the Beast nomination to the skies, the Foreign committee didn't really consider Mononoke very good--Painfully dry and didactic, ITO, and overbearingly one-dimensional compared to the better real political movies coming out that year from Spain, Sweden and eastern Europe. (Not to mention some fans trying to nudge them for Pon Poko, the year that one did make the list.) --- As for which change (did they change them back, or is this the new "Creed would have been nominated if they weren't so old and white!" changes?), the timeline of animated rules as I understand it: - 1992-2000: Disney fans think it so neato that Beauty & the Beast was nominated for Best Picture--partly due to a delayed reaction of finding themselves grownups who liked the new 90's Disney Renaissance, and wanted to make it "important" with a real Oscar so that people wouldn't look at them funny--they hound the Oscars with fan movements to nominate something else for Picture: Aladdin, Lion King, a few diehards for Hunchback, and even Dreamworks' Chicken Run. - 2001-2008: After the sniffles over Toy Story 2 started our grownup love affair with Pixar, the Academy decided to silence the fan movements by giving them limited recognition: The Best Animated Feature category was created, with the tradeoff that Animated films would not compete for Picture. This did fine for a while (and created Dreamworks' green-eyed jealousy at losing to Pixar every year after manias caused Shrek to win the first year), until-- 2009-2014: Everyone began complaining that BAF was an "insult" to Pixar, which were better than most live-action films, and was unfair to the other entries, putting a whale with guppies. When Slumdog Millionaire won Picture and Wall-E was shut out, this was only added to the comic fans whining about why The Dark Knight hadn't been recognized for Best Picture (  ), and whether the Academy "had something against" hit mainstream films. The Ten-nomination rule (jealously trying to copy the Golden Globes' two more mainstream categories of Best Pictures) was created, allowing more votes for mainstream films, including a limited number of animated films, and Up and Toy Story 3 were eventually recognized with nominations.
2015-2016: After the gripping, nailbiting competition between Boyhood and Birdman caused the most disastrous TV ratings for the ceremony in history, the Academy announced they were returning to their pre-08 rules of five nominations. Later, in fall, they reversed their stand, saying that the multi-nomination rule would be kept for one more year, and a change would be considered in '16-'17. Why the reverse? Some suspect it might have had something to do with allowing Best Picture competition for an animated movie that had come out over summer. 
(Which never eventually happened, the ungrateful bums, because the Golden Globes still forbid animated movies to compete for Picture, and when headlines screamed "What? No Globes for Inside Out??", and the NBOR also had their rules of keeping animateds in Best Animated, the Oscars believed them completely, with their new policy of believing everything the Globes and NBOR nominate like gullible zombies who can't think up their own. We gotta fix something, fast, before someone else throws another tantrum.) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
SilverTalon01
Posts: 2401 |
|
|||||
|
The issue of black actors getting overlooked for oscars has been grossly exaggerated and focusing on black actor representation is rather dishonest to any actual problem. Ok, yes, the last 2 years do seem a bit odd, but look at the chart with this article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race That tells a very, very different story. There certainly should be more diversity, but the most vocal group complaining about the lack of diversity has actually been doing relatively well in the last decade+. Whites are certainly disproportionately represented, and that is a valid complaint. However, Latinos and Asians are the ones that should be upset about this. Those are the most excluded groups that have the largest problem. Yet, for some reason, black actors getting excluded is getting all the attention. Anyway, my relevant point is that Asians are probably the most excluded in terms of award winners which is where an anime winner would fall. And I haven't really seen anything at all about addressing the issue of the lack of Asian winners. Last edited by SilverTalon01 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:35 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Fenrin
 Posts: 693 Location: SoCal |
|
|||||
|
What's wrong with The Danish Girl? I haven't seen it but it looks well put together.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Snakebit1995
 Posts: 842 |
|
|||||
|
You're right about the Academy having specific styles they like
There's a FIlm Theory about what movie to make to maximize the odds of winning and Oscar. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Posts Sometimes
Posts: 38 |
|
|||||
Alternatively, they might wait be waiting until next year to submit it. Rushing to get a quick English release out for eligibility purposes won't help a film when almost nobody in the English-speaking world has had a chance to see it.
Foreign language submissions are chosen by industry voters in each country. Since only one submission is allowed per country and nominations for animation in that category are almost unheard of, it's very unlikely the Japanese voters will decide to start picking anime over more traditional choices. For what it's worth, Pom Poko and Princess Mononoke were chosen as Japan's submission in their release years and failed to even get nominated for the award. |
||||||
|
||||||
residentgrigo
 Posts: 2416 Location: Germany |
|
|||||
|
@Fenrin I would have nominated the fascinating The Danish Girl (8,5/10) but on with the topic:
“Oscar Bait” is real as "The Passion of the DiCaprio" proves, the AMPAS tries to appear way too artsy for their own sake (they also aren´t) and i never watch the ceremonies but the awards themselves are a (mostly) respectable inside the industry institution. Their prestige tends to matter so i genially care and watched / continue to watch the majority of the winners throughout the ages and i have seen 98% of the nominees in the big categories from the past few decades. What i also know is how these worked: You need to be invited to the academy to vote and they are divided into internal wings as writers or actors. Winners and nominees all enter the inner circle but even Kevin Smith, who also lamented our very topic, is part of the gang. The Oscar Screeners (the studios send these out to campaign) tend to appear on the web around Christmas and are what voters get to watch and they can view all (impossible) or none to go on voting for their favorite horses. Some of the wings even “democratically decide” who is most deserving this year if they want to acknowledge someone after years of snubbing which is problematic as hell. The main problem though is that ¾ of the academy are old white men and another one is that members couldn´t age out after retiring from working or after having a long gap since the last time they worked in films. Another joke is that the voting members just have their maids watch the screeners and then vote for them which has a grain of truth to it  .
This lead to incredible tunnel vision and is a reason why Father and Son sap stories as Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close occasionally show up. Or why some winners smell of male prestige, white guilt or just tell the Hollywood comeback story as the admittedly great Birdman from last year. “Rebel” / genre films will also have a hard time to get recognition so don´t expect a “high concept” Nolan film to win and the days where something as boundary pushing as Midnight Cowboy or The Deer Hunter are long gone ...and arguably never existed. What the academy managed to do this year though is THE definition of a racism hyper combo as the same thing happened last year too and they promised to do better yet then went whiter and brighter like never before in recent memory. Everyone who was up in arms about it has a point and we are talking about a lot of actual academy members (!) too and not an ill-informed twitter witch hunt. All my inside the industry podcasts as Keepin' It Reel Ep.312 went over the topic in detail and the academy well-deserved the shit storm. A lot of the this year´s nominees are safe choices and i can see the reasoning for most but you can´t tell me that a bunch of white breads were the most deserving of recognition amount a wide pool of talent inside an immigrant county for 2 years in a row. We obviously don´t need a quota and this isn´t just a debate about black vs. white as i pointed out in the previous sentence. Hollywood further has a lot of well documented problems in regards to equality in general but such films and actors need to get an equal chance to even enter the race. I am also utterly unwilling to even acknowledge a half cooked defense to how thing were and social equality need to always get the attention the topic deserves if there is a case to be made as here. BUT things now changed due to the unanimous vote. It will still remain hard to land a proper/lasting job within the industry without being a straight white male which is murdering creativity and thus art on a high budget yet i still see the upcoming reforms or some of the other industry reactions (the Lack of Ray toys) after well deserved public beatings as a great sign. Someone as important as the academy needs to be at the forefront of the continuous fight for equality. Such high profile ceremonies need to set an example! To be a shining beacon for film which is an important export of the US and not for bigotry and segregation. And about anime: Ghibli is currently dead and the OVA/film side of the industry is in a deep slump so these factors need to be fixed first before anyone will walk away with another Oscar OR even a nomination. Last edited by residentgrigo on Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||
|
30 years is a pretty long time, so I can't see those changes amounting to much in the end. Maybe on the order of a few percentage points here and there for things, but not a grand sweeping drastic upheaval.
Also, what would qualify as working in the showbiz? Just having a name attached somewhere to the credits of a film in some capacity? Last edited by walw6pK4Alo on Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
WingKing
Posts: 617 |
|
|||||
That's what the Baseball Hall of Fame just did - instead of baseball writers getting lifetime voting privileges like in the past, now they lose their vote if they've gone more than 10 years without actively writing about baseball - so the gardening columnist for some small-town paper who used to work a baseball beat in the 80's but hasn't watched a game in 20 years is now getting weeded out of the voter pool. And what do you know, it worked - with fewer voters and a voting bloc that actually pays more attention to the sport, most of the Hall-worthy candidates saw their ballot percentages go up significantly this year.
Or Asian nominees, really (and you can also add Native Americans to that list too). The biggest problem is opportunity, as there are so few roles made available to lead actors of color in any given year, and even fewer that are for movies aimed at general audiences, as opposed to audiences of that one specific ethnicity. The fact of the new Star Wars filling one of its lead roles with a black actor was even a topic of discussion (regardless of what anyone's opinion on it is) just kind of reinforces the point. This article has an excellent rundown on the situation, with lots and lots of statistics about both past Oscar winners and the non-diversity of both Academy voters and studio executives. The most damning comments to me are the stories shared by Salma Hayek, and that's coming from a pretty respected actress. You can just imagine what it's like for someone who's even further down the ladder. http://mashable.com/2016/01/20/oscars-diversity-2016/#vODHphe.Faqa |
||||||
|
||||||
Stuart Smith
 Posts: 1298 |
|
|||||
Generally when it comes to issues of representation, if you point out things like "well X only represents 10% of the population, so asking for an even billing seems unreasonable" you generally get frowned upon. Personally I find it weird to talk about representation in the issue of awards when the idea is to award the top performances. Shoehorning in diversity for diversity sake seems like people who are undeserving of awards will get the just to fill a quota and undermine the entire point of awards. Not that award shows weren't all politics and jokes to begin with, but it'll be a lot more blatant. I agree with the Hispanic and other comments though. Whenever the talk of diversity comes up it's almost always about black people. Hispanics, Asians, Natives, and others are generally ignored. I'm Italian myself, and I kind of laugh when I get lumped in with white people given the view Italian Americans had in America a few decades ago. Even among 'whites' there's plenty of different subgroups. Though I've seen Hispanic and Asian people also lumped in under white when it comes to certain issues, so in those cases it's just "blacks VS not blacks" Anime still has the whole animation thing holding it back from being recognized at award shows. Even if Asians are suddenly more prevalent in Hollywood, the fact anime are cartoons i.e for children will still hold it back, and Disney/Pixar will usually get the award just because it's easiest on the voters and they may not care enough to watch animation to begin with when there's real films to be watched. -Stuart Smith |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group