|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 11, 2020 6:04:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jun 12, 2020 5:32:12 GMT
They are pretty hot in that pic but they are kind of homely on Billions. Why are they going to such effort to appear feminine in real life? So just 2 acting categories? What would the categories be called? Would most of the nominees be men or since the trend now is grrrrrl power would women get most of the slots?
More importantly would you have sex with them and if so would you give them head no matter what was in their panties or boxers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jun 12, 2020 16:26:53 GMT
I don't think it's a form of discrimination, but I've never seen the relevance. Same with lead vs supporting. I mean, if the issue is screen time, they can create categories specifically for that (like Viola Davis in DOUBT), and have the "longer" supporting performances compete with the leading ones.
Separating dramatic and comedic performances makes more sense to me.
Then again, since Best Picture is the only category that doesn't round up/down the number of nominees (for now), turning the 4 acting categories into 2 or even into 1 would make people complain even more about those who don't make the cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 15, 2020 8:26:11 GMT
I don't think it's a form of discrimination, but I've never seen the relevance. Same with lead vs supporting. In both cases, probably to keep things fair. It'd be basically impossible to make sure men and women are equally represented in gender-neutral categories, and the second there's more male acting nominations than female. I guarantee "#OscarsSoMale". I don't know where that leaves gender-neutral people. Honestly, I think they should just shut up and pick one, but that'd probably go down like a fart in church. As for the second thing, I've seen firsthand people use more screentime to judge one performance as better than another. Supporting Actor guarantees the idea that "there are no small parts". |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 22, 2020 16:25:55 GMT
Everything moviebuffbrad said. This proposition sounds more like what the right-wing would propose so that only men would win Oscars. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 24, 2020 17:57:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 25, 2020 10:31:09 GMT
Why not just end all awards and then nobody would feel left out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 25, 2020 11:02:22 GMT
Why not just end all awards and then nobody would feel left out? The transgenders might. They could always create an award or two if that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 25, 2020 11:53:27 GMT
Why? Trans actors have been nominated in certain ceremonies and they're always listed as the gender they identify with. Who is going to play a woman better than a woman and who is going to play a man better than a man? Ummm... Who said anything about trans actors playing cis characters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 25, 2020 12:11:04 GMT
They could always create an award or two if that helps. It seems like the virtue signallers want to disregard gender altogether when it can’t help but define who one is. It even means something to a trans who is born physically a singular gender, but choose to identify as the opposite. Who is going to play a woman better than a woman and who is going to play a man better than a man? Linda Hunt managed to win best actress awards for playing a man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 26, 2020 7:46:25 GMT
Thing is, best actor and best actress is by and large for gender specific characters. How do you figure? Hunt barely looked liked a woman anyway that is why she was cast What about Cate Blanchett in I'M NOT THERE? she was Australian in an Australian production and ideal size for Gibson to cart around on his shoulders. So most acting nominees since the 70s have been Australian?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 26, 2020 12:50:08 GMT
Because the nominated roles where a gender has played an opposite sex and to be taken literally as that opposite sex could be considered negligible due to the minuscule percentage. Even Lemmon and Hoffman who have been nominated and played women, have only been in drag within' the context of the films narrative. They were still male as a whole representation. Maybe you're overthinking it. What matters is how the actor identifies themselves. Felicity Huffman has played a trans female, but was female anyway, so does that even count? I haven't seen it, but I read that the character hadn't completed the sex change when the movie began.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 26, 2020 13:29:00 GMT
Linda Hunt managed to win best actress awards for playing a man. Hunt barely looked liked a woman anyway that is why she was cast, plus she was Australian in an Australian production and ideal size for Gibson to cart around on his shoulders. That helped. Apparently she has Turner Syndrome, a genetic condition in which a female is partly or completely missing an X chromosome. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 26, 2020 13:39:06 GMT
The main point is, eliminating gender specific categories seems like an absurd idea, when by and large for the bulk of the human population, male and female are distinguished by their physical biology and have always been. The idea behind this isn't to encourage people to dismiss their own labels; it's that a performance is good/bad regardless of gender. In acting, the bulk of actors will also be playing a character within the entity of their real gender. That is an undisputed fact. Wanting to change something to appease to a snowflake minority is ludicrous. Changing these categories won't mean trans actors will play cis characters. The dynamic of Huffman's character is still that of a female presence, in which the character identifies as. Huffman already being female, already had that identity to begin with. This may have been an ideal opportunity to put a genuine transfemale actor in the role. That's true. That's why we see less and less cis actors playing trans characters. People spoke up. If this was to happen and be worthy of a nomination, within the conventions of the 2 gender "specific" acting categories, male is still determined by natural born physical biology. Say, why don't you let each award organization classify people the way they feel like? a psychological mind disorder
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 26, 2020 14:06:54 GMT
They could always create an award or two if that helps. It seems like the virtue signallers want to disregard gender altogether when it can’t help but define who one is. It even means something to a trans who is born physically a singular gender, but choose to identify as the opposite. Who is going to play a woman better than a woman and who is going to play a man better than a man? It's coming down to the usual business of a very small, but highly vocal minority demanding that everything be upended to appease them. And even when everything has been upended they're still not appeased because they can always find other and ever more arcane and esoteric reasons for why they're being 'marginalized' and 'excluded'. And as Germaine Greer wisely pointed out, most trans are far from about abolishing gender roles and gender identities: male to female go to great lengths in most cases to make themselves over into the most absurdly stereotypical images of the 'female' as defined by a male-dominated culture, and many female-to-male trans are not above going the same route to hyper-identify with those same stereotyped images of the masculine. And neither can ever, as you note, really capture the essence of inborn gender identity in those masquerades--the saddest aspect of the whole trans paradigm is embodied (literally) in the attempt to mimic what can't be satisfactorily reproduced outside of innate gender identity, which continues to exist no matter how hard one tries to wish it away. As to abolishing categories, I'm more in line with the opinion of those who feel we'd do well to just eliminate these sorts of inane competitive awards altogether. Artistic endeavor was never meant to be a competitive sport, and these awards just serve to cheapen the arts involved in film production terribly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 27, 2020 8:26:08 GMT
how do you classify a Transgender performance into a gender category where none exists, unless it is a Trans award show or something? The major awards like Oscars and Globes do classify as they feel like and that is actor and actress, in other words, gender specific cis gendered actors. Why should they bend to suit a whining minority? If the actor identifies as male, Best Actor. If the actor identifies as female, Best Actress. Simple as that. The Emmys have done that a bunch of times. The WHO is pandering only to avoid being labelled bigots. If that was true, why did it take them so long to do it, when pro-trans activism has been a thing for years? Anyone who chooses to mutilate, or wants to mutilate their body to become a phony gender DOES have big psychological issues. That is a No Brainer. How ironic that you use that term, since only a person with no brain would express so much unwarranted hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 27, 2020 9:34:20 GMT
If the actor is biologically male or female, that is the identity with award categories. Is that stated in the Academy's rulebook? virtue signalling pcness sjw Wow. Seeing all these toxic terms within the same post is truly something to marvel. logical and rational facts No, you said theories and conspiracies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 27, 2020 10:32:37 GMT
forced fed propagated and projected as a "norm". No one is telling people "You should all have a sex change." I can't be expected to understand others psychological mind aberration. Understanding isn't the same as accepting. You can feel whatever way you like while keeping it to yourself. Or least express yourself without insulting anyone. While I think it is nice to be honored, the politics behind these award shows are now way too transparent and the films are no-longer the original and ground-breaking social statements they used to be. You were OK with the movies with powerful political messages winning awards in the past, but you're not OK with the social statement movies that are winning today? you want to conflate what you see as toxicity, when that is exactly the same thing that is projected by the Trans movement What exactly about it is toxic? a phony gender that is supposed to be accepted as the real thing. real thing, actually. Well, now you used terms like "lefty" and "snowflake," so...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 27, 2020 11:07:29 GMT
This is typical lefty snowflake stance, of not liking what they are hearing, so others have to keep quiet so they don't melt. Said the guy who's so against the idea that he prefers to bury the subject without even trying the idea out. I just have my own way of perceiving it and it is not one born out of fear of hurting a Trans feelings. By calling them "phony whining snowflakes with psychological issues and a mind disorder"? I also believe they are hurting the sexuality movement of gay and lesbian people. How?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Aug 27, 2020 12:06:21 GMT
get a little bit over yourself. Said the guy whose every argument has a "What I'm telling you is the absolute truth" tone. You know how I feel, sorry if that triggers you. No, as I said before, the issue is how you express how you feel. The difference is in the context.
|
|
