Next thing you know, he'll start drinking and voting for Trump.
Bill Mumy dismissed as a member of the Motion Picture Academy
- Thread starter Shaka Zulu
- Start date
Next thing you know, he'll start drinking and voting for Trump.
Theh took mah jahb!
It's important to note a distinction here: Mumy did not lose his status as a member in good standing of the Academy. He and other members lost their voting privileges because they've been largely inactive for an extended period of time.
It's harsh in a way, but I also understand the rationale behind it. Something similar was a huge issue with the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame voting until recently, in that until a change in the BBWAA's bylaws was enacted, as soon as you earned a Hall vote (by covering professional baseball for ten years), you had it for life. So you had a ton of voters who hadn't covered the sport in literally decades who were still voting -- a couple of guys covered baseball in the '50s and '60s but had covered golf since the '70s and even ran a golf news website, and they kept their Hall votes. It was a nonsensical situation, and I'm glad the BBWAA changed the eligibility rules (now you only keep your vote for ten years after you stop actively covering the sport).
It's harsh in a way, but I also understand the rationale behind it. Something similar was a huge issue with the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame voting until recently, in that until a change in the BBWAA's bylaws was enacted, as soon as you earned a Hall vote (by covering professional baseball for ten years), you had it for life. So you had a ton of voters who hadn't covered the sport in literally decades who were still voting -- a couple of guys covered baseball in the '50s and '60s but had covered golf since the '70s and even ran a golf news website, and they kept their Hall votes. It was a nonsensical situation, and I'm glad the BBWAA changed the eligibility rules (now you only keep your vote for ten years after you stop actively covering the sport).
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's just a trophy, for crying out loud. These people make a lot of money for what they do.
I'd think that, and the media attention they already get, should be validation enough. Apparently not. Waaah.
I'd think that, and the media attention they already get, should be validation enough. Apparently not. Waaah.
Okay, thank you for the clarification on that point.
A
Amaris
Guest
At the same time, it was just a bus seat, just a lunch counter. We may not be facing the same issues as civil rights advocates did decades ago, but discrimination should be stomped out in all quarters, not just in places we deem "deserving."I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's just a trophy, for crying out loud. These people make a lot of money for what they do.
I'd think that, and the media attention they already get, should be validation enough. Apparently not. Waaah.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Missing out on an Oscar is not the same as having to give up a bus seat or having to drink from a separate fountain.
I'm not saying there isn't any bias, but in the grand scheme of things this ain't a priority.
Diversity has been needed on the Academy for sometime. However, removing people's voting privileges, who were in good standing before the rule change, is wrong also. Adding people is the best thing, then start the new rules.
The Academy has always been a bit, um...stupid. I mean was Around The World In 80 Days really better than The Ten Commandments, The King And I, or Giant?
My real question is, with this new diversity, what happens if, another year comes along and there are no Blacks, or Hispanics, or Asians, in the Top 6 awards? I don't mean to throw gas on a fire, but would the Smiths have boycotted the Awards if no Hispanics or Asians were nominated?
The Academy has always been a bit, um...stupid. I mean was Around The World In 80 Days really better than The Ten Commandments, The King And I, or Giant?
My real question is, with this new diversity, what happens if, another year comes along and there are no Blacks, or Hispanics, or Asians, in the Top 6 awards? I don't mean to throw gas on a fire, but would the Smiths have boycotted the Awards if no Hispanics or Asians were nominated?
Getting the trophy bumps some actors income to a new level.
That's not going to happen to the Smiths, most of the Smiths, but there are other black actors who might be interested in going from 20 grand a movie to 200 grand, just for being nominated for an Academy award.
If Bill gets off his ass and gets a speaking part in a new movie, he gets back in for another ten years.
Now that the rules have changed, there's going to be buddy systems, and movies made by collections of almost hasbeens trying to keep their academy voting privileges.
Old actors who'd thunk'd they'd retired, will be forced to do the least amount of work possible to keep basically an annoying chore to shape the world as we know it.
That's not going to happen to the Smiths, most of the Smiths, but there are other black actors who might be interested in going from 20 grand a movie to 200 grand, just for being nominated for an Academy award.
If Bill gets off his ass and gets a speaking part in a new movie, he gets back in for another ten years.
Now that the rules have changed, there's going to be buddy systems, and movies made by collections of almost hasbeens trying to keep their academy voting privileges.
Old actors who'd thunk'd they'd retired, will be forced to do the least amount of work possible to keep basically an annoying chore to shape the world as we know it.
I'm not putting an Oscar nomination on the same level as (what turned out to be), iconic civil rights events you mention above, but I would be willing to bet that MANY people said the same thing you're saying about those events when they happened, as what you're saying about an Oscar nomination today.
No one knew until many years later how important those "little" events turned out to be.
Maybe so, but today is not 50 years ago, or 150, or 400.
I wouldn't mind another It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or Scavenger Hunt.
I think people are too fast to jump to the conclusion that the racial disparities in Iscar winners are a direct result of racial bias by the voters.
I think it's more funding bias for black directors and casting bias of black actors in the sort of role that wins Oscars.
And I think some people's racial outrage is populist outrage in disguise. People get mad about films like Winter's Bone and Room being nominated because 'Noone saw them'. But if there were an artistically amazing film with black actors nobody saw and it got nominated, the same people would be complaining.
People are angry every year that the films THEY liked didn't get nominated, and the fact that one of them this year is Straight Outta Compton gives them the race card as an option they don't normally get.
I think it's more funding bias for black directors and casting bias of black actors in the sort of role that wins Oscars.
And I think some people's racial outrage is populist outrage in disguise. People get mad about films like Winter's Bone and Room being nominated because 'Noone saw them'. But if there were an artistically amazing film with black actors nobody saw and it got nominated, the same people would be complaining.
People are angry every year that the films THEY liked didn't get nominated, and the fact that one of them this year is Straight Outta Compton gives them the race card as an option they don't normally get.
Sylvester Stallone is nominated for playing Rocky Balboa for the seventh time.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
Right dismantling the legal barriers only revealed that the racist institutional and structural barriers still existed up to this day. But we all get to make jokes about it because it's funny /s.
Last edited:
By all accounts, deservedly so, but neither Michael B. Jordan nor Ryan Coogler are, which probably adds to the perception of bias.
Or alternatively they're actually mad at what they say they're mad at, which is the extremely glaring lack of diversity at the Oscars. One of the most annoying things for people who point out problematic behaviour is being told what they're 'really' cross about. I see no evidence to second guess their motives here.
We may think 'it doesn't matter' but perhaps we could imagine our own professions. The top flight jobs, the awards and recognition going only to people who didn't look like us - would we be OK with that? Would we sit back and say 'hey, it's only a trophy, nobody's getting lynched'?
Institutional racism can't just be ignored or glossed over as not that bad. And history has generally shown that boycotts are a successful non violent protest tactic when it comes to racism. So if those affected want to do so, I fully support it.
So, are you saying that because it I "today" and not many, many, years ago, that there is no chance that fighting for equality in recognition for filmmaking and film acting could ever have a major impact on civil rights?
If this is what you're saying, how do you know that? As I pointed out, 60 or so years ago many people said about Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus, what you are saying about the Oscar controversy; "it's just a seat on a bus. What's the big deal? In 50 years, no one will remember this little incident or Rosa Parks".
I wish that Mumy, Furst and others affected by this would have paid attention to the discontent over the disparities in nominations (in particular for animated features) and did something about it years ago, but they didn't and now, this happens and they got fucked. At least they didn't lose a lot, just voting privileges.
Last edited: