Bill Mumy dismissed as a member of the Motion Picture Academy

[JirinPanthosa]

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.

Yet the evidence suggests otherwise. If lack of racial diversity is their real problem, why'd they wait till this year to make it an issue? I'm sorry, but this isn't an isolated case, people attribute their anger to something other than the real cause all the time. It's just Attribution Theory. If a populist film was the frontrunner nobody would complain, and if films with black actors were the frontrunners but were not populist films, everyone would still be complaining.

There are a few people who are honestly angry about racial diversity, but most people just project their existing anger about not having seen the nominees onto the racial issue. How many people have you met in real life who say what they're actually mad about when attributing it to something else is more popular?

Can you honestly tell me there are films with black casts that are similar to the kind of films that tend to win Oscars? There were populist films with black actors, but populist films rarely win Oscars. The bias here is a funding bias and a casting bias, not a voting bias.

In my profession a disproportionate amount of jobs go to Indians. This isn't bias, a greater percentage of Indians enter the industry.

Black actors and black directors do not have equal opportunity to make the sort of films that win Oscars. Equal opportunity is what's important, not arbitrary racial quotas.

 

[Guy Gardener]

1. Most of the Academy do not watch "Black movies"?

2. Most of the Academy did not care for the "black movies" that they had watched?

3. Isn't this segregation?

4. Most of the black actors that won before this, were they in black movies or white movies? Don't you feel off that white movies are not just called movies, and then feel guilty that white movies are just called movies?

5. White moves have diversity forced on them from above to appeal to the largest multi-racial audience, black movies identify by zero diversity and now cry Havoc that Chinese Americans have no interest in identifying with black movies.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

No, I don't think so. It's not just Will Smith, not a single black man or woman has been nominated in any of the major categories, not for acting, directing or writing, it's pretty much a white people event. And it was the same last year.

Maybe there should be more movies worthy of an Oscar nomination featuring minorities, rather than demanding that any movie featuring them be nominated just to fill some meaningless quota other than to appease a bunch of angry Californian assholes who don't have anything better to do in their lives than be outraged over nothing.

I can't think of a single movie prominently featuring minorities that are more deserving than the movies that were nominated. What exactly did Will Smith do, for example? Focus is the only movie I can think of off the top of my head, and it was a shit movie.

And considering how many times prominently-minority oriented films and actors have won Oscars in the past, saying that they're somehow racist is just effin' ridiculous.

Or what, do people really expect minorities to get special treatment just because of the color of their skin? I'm pretty sure that's far more racist than anything going on here.

 

[Timby]

And considering how many times prominently-minority oriented films and actors have won Oscars in the past, saying that they're somehow racist is just effin' ridiculous.

Until about 25 years ago, roughly speaking, it was incredibly rare that a minority actor received a nomination. Beyond that, even as short a time ago as the late '90s were pretty sparse. So currently we're in a growing pains period, but getting zero nominations for the 2015 year is not really something that should have been conceivable. Like, Sylvester Stallone -- renowned for his limited acting range -- gets a supporting nomination, and Michael B. Jordan doesn't get squat? Seriously?

It's not unreasonable to accept that institutional racism is A Thing.

 

[Guy Gardener]

For what he did in Creed, not for what he did in Fantastic Four?

(I have seen every Fantastic Four movie ever made, and I have seen no Rocky movies. Seriously what, Michael beats up a 60 year old?)

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Like, Sylvester Stallone -- renowned for his limited acting range -- gets a supporting nomination, and Michael B. Jordan doesn't get squat? Seriously?

How about this. For all the actors in a leading role, after having seen all of their performances, who was Michael B. Jordan more deserving than? DiCaprio? Fassbender? Cranston? (I never saw The Danish Girl, so I can't comment on that one) These guys all act circles around Jordan, regardless of their flesh tone. Even Damon, who I'm not generally too sold on and who is the weak person on that list, owned The Martian and it wouldn't have been half the movie it was without him. I never got that feeling with Jordan, as good as he was. Though in time, who knows, he's got an upward trajectory, even with F4 on his resume. He'll be knocking our socks off.

And for the record, Will Smith doesn't belong on that list, either. And I would think a majority would agree with that.

 

[Tim Thomason]

(I have seen every Fantastic Four movie ever made, and I have seen no Rocky movies. Seriously what, Michael beats up a 60 year old?)

I have yet to see Creed, but my understanding and a quick readthrough of the plot synopsis online, tells me that Rocky is serving as the mentor and trainer to Adonis Creed, not actually boxing himself.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Thank you.

 

[gblews]

How about this. For all the actors in a leading role, after having seen all of their performances, who was Michael B. Jordan more deserving than? DiCaprio? Fassbender? Cranston? (I never saw The Danish Girl, so I can't comment on that one) These guys all act circles around Jordan, regardless of their flesh tone. Even Damon, who I'm not generally too sold on and who is the weak person on that list, owned The Martian and it wouldn't have been half the movie it was without him. I never got that feeling with Jordan, as good as he was. Though in time, who knows, he's got an upward trajectory, even with F4 on his resume. He'll be knocking our socks off.

And for the record, Will Smith doesn't belong on that list, either. And I would think a majority would agree with that.

You sound like you would have fit right in as an Academy voter this year. 8^) (couldn't find the emoticons).

As much as I tend to agree with Timby's point, the point of the controversy isn't really certain individuals getting and not getting nominated, meaning Will, Michael, Leo, etc. It is about the dearth of anything other than members of the dominant culture in America, and not so coincidentally, the same culture as 90% of the Academy, getting nominations in acting categories.

This is the reason the Academy's supposed remedy is of course not aimed at individuals, (cause that would be wrong and just plain silly), and is aimed at changing the make up of it's member culture. They aren't even asking Billy Mumy to change. They realize, he probably can't and if you read his letter, it sounds (to me) like he doesn't even understand the problem. It is about changing the Academy's member culture in a bold experiment that will take time to bear the kind of fruit for which they are hoping.

 

[Guy Gardener]

They're getting rid of old people.

Old black people and old white people.

(The thing about old people is that maybe they're obsessed with a routine that this is something they do every year, but they're also so damn grumpy and dotty (act one of cocoon) that they might fail to see a point in continuing to vote for movies they probably haven't seen. Was the academy that disconnected that thousands of 70 year old (older?) actors and crew were just filling out nomination/voting forms at random or to a design that was alien to having seen the movies they were voting for, or did they not vote at all, even though abstention in itself sometimes affects the shape of a vote sometimes depending on how this stuff is counted?)

Probably the rest of the races as well, so long as they're old.

Anyone who hasn't been in a movie in the last 10 years.

All under the belief that the youth of the Academy is more representational of a true cross section of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

(This data is from 2010. Accurate data about today will be available in 5 to 10 years.)

America is 12 and a half percent black.

Without putting your thumb on the scales bad movies staring black people shouldn't be in the same league as good movies staring or made by black people and good movies starring or made by anyone else either.

If people of one colour only vote for movies made by or starring the same colour that they are, then black movies would NEVER win or get nominated because 12.6 percent is less than %87.4.

Surely the real issues here is that black movies should try better to engender a broader audience, and why is Jada such a whiny punk?

I have no idea what movie Will was in, that this snubbing was an affront of?

(google, google.)

Concussion?

Concussion had a good interview on The Daily Show and was mentioned in a sketch on SNL last night.

I haven't seen it.

It's been on my hard drive for a month.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Even though I agree with the implementation of the new Academy rules, I briefly felt bad for Mumy losing his voting status. Then he started talking and made it clear that he had completely missed the point and had zero empathy for the position of the people making the complaint, so I didn't feel as bad for him any more.

No one has suggested anything as ridiculous as saying that Academy voters get together in groups and maliciously conspire to exclude black actors. One doesn't need to be an overt racist to carry an implicit bias, and an organization can on the whole be outwardly friendly toward black actors yet still be subject to institutional soft racism. That's why the rules change was so important, to try and shake up the disproportional power long inactive actors and industry professionals hold on the voting process. And that's not just important for recognizing up and coming black actors, but to also address the gender wage gap in Hollywood.

Nor is removing the voting status (but not the other benefits) of Academy members who have been inactive for over ten years "Ageism." It would only be ageism if it specifically excluded people by age and said their votes were no longer desired because they're old, but that's not what it's doing. It's biased toward ongoing activity in the field to ensure frequent changeovers in the ranks of voters and keep the voting body fresh and reflective of those currently working in the industry, rather than those who worked in the industry years ago and haven't remained active. There's no shame in that, but there's no reason why someone who hasn't remained up to date in the industry should have indefinite voting status either.

I also find it pretty hypocritical on Mumy's part to accuse actors claiming racial bias of having a baseless complaint and being "whiners," only to then immediately turn around in the same letter and claim ageism is at play. Doesn't that make him a whiner too by his own standard? Shouldn't his claims be immediately dismissed just as he has done to others? He could have disagreed with the people proposing a boycott in a reasonable manner without being flippant and insulting.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I couldn't care less about the Oscars, or any other awards, and I have no idea if these reforms by the Academy are the right thing to do or will make a difference. All I can say, as an old Hippie who was around during the Civil Rights Era, is that I find it horribly disgusting that we're in 2016 and people still think in terms of "White" movies and "Black" movies (et cetera). This was supposed to be over by now. It's very discouraging.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Jada started it.

She said whitey hates black movies.

Therefore whitey loves white movies.

Yin and yang.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I couldn't care less about the Oscars, or any other awards, and I have no idea if these reforms by the Academy are the right thing to do or will make a difference. All I can say, as an old Hippie who was around during the Civil Rights Era, is that I find it horribly disgusting that we're in 2016 and people still think in terms of "White" movies and "Black" movies (et cetera). This was supposed to be over by now. It's very discouraging.

So you have nothing to actually contribute on the topic, you just decided to drop by to tell us how enlightened you were in the past (we know, because you never fail to praise yourself for it) while dismissively shitting on the concerns of minorities or women today in typical fashion. Always a pleasure, RJ.

 

[Vanyel]

One thing I don't understand, was Mummy dismissed as a voting member under the new rules, or the old rules. If he was dismissed as a voting member under the old rules, then he has no reason to complain. If he was dismissed under the new rules then he does have reason to complain. The new rules shouldn't be applied retroactively; nor should we have to wait 10 years to start dismisses members from voting status. The current body should be enlarged to include old, middle aged and young actors, of all races, creeds, sex and sexual orientation who meet the new criteria. Then at the end of 2017, before voting begins, remove all who do not meet the rules and add in those who do.

The problem is Hollywood, above all other criteria I mentioned, is a young person's game. 60+ year old women have been talking about the lack of roles for them for as long as I can remember. Same for men, but edging closer to 70. Soon there would be no one over age 65 voting. Is that fair?

It'll take some time for the Academy to adjust it's voting membership to reflect a better cross section of the USA. Even then it won't guarantee that what happened over the last two years won't happen again.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Bill hasn't been in a (major) motion picture in the last ten years. Bill didn't work in at least three movies over the course of three consecutive decades to earn life time membership under the new rules.

Hes out.

(If he's in a movie tomorrow, and then wades through some paper work, Bill is back in.)

The answer is almost exclusively white men. According to a recent survey conducted by The Los Angeles Times, Oscar voters are on average 63 years old. 76% of them are men, and 94% of them are white.

Bill is out, but why does Bill really want back in?

I don't think that Academy Members pay to see movies (There's only just over 6000 of them).

Either there are viewing parties (which brings up the question of racial collusion again, if there are 40 white old people in a room yelling about what they like and dislike) or VIDEO TAPES (It can't be hard to gift a 70 year a 12 dollar dvd player side by side with thousands of dollars of comp/free movies?) are mailed to the homes of the Academy members. Financial restriction to the nominated movies means that voting will be unfair and disproportionate if the Academy is multiguessing their votes because they're 80, can't drive and on a fixed income to strict to allow trips to the movie theatre to know why they're voting on what they're voting. So logically the Academy must provide free viewing access to it's members so that the Academy members can place an informed vote. Over the course of a year, they get 10 to a hundred free dvds of movies they're expected to vote on and that's... No, their DVDs will be watermarked with a serial number or the name of the voter, this is probably not how Internet piracy begins.

So that's Bills real problem? He hasn't had to see a movie with the unwashed, or buy a video, dvd or Bluray since 1975 when they first let him into their little club, which must work out to be worth thousands and thousands of (imaginary) dollars worth of savings per year from not having to pay for complementary films if he really works the system?

Yup, if that was me, I'd be livid too.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This paragraph struck me in Mumy's letter linked to in the OP.

Some of the producers, directors and fellow actors I've had the privilege of working for and with include: Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Jimmy Stewart, Shirley Jones, Gene Kelly, Rod Serling, Lucille Ball, Steve McQueen, Dustin Hoffman, Stanley Kramer, John Cassavetes, Judy Garland, Martha Coolidge, Jack Palance, Burt Lancaster, Jack Klugman, Ed Wynn, Brigitte Bardot, Cloris Leachman, Claude Reins, Franklin Shafner, Irwin Allen... The list goes on and on and on. My point is: I learned my trade from Masters and I strongly feel that I'm still qualified to view films and share my opinions on them via an Academy ballot.

My reaction to that is, well, that's all fine and good, that's a very respectable bunch there, and I know Mumy can act, but most of the people mentioned there are from a previous era. Mumy seems to suggest that he's going to weigh performances according to respected practices of that earlier era. If the Academy wants performers to be judged more by present-day criteria than by criteria used in the past, then someone saying something like, "I learned acting the right way back in the day, and that's the way it should always be done," that isn't who they want voting in the here and now.

From all accounts, it sounds like the Academy is trying to get rid of an entrenched old guard, and that paragraph suggests that Mumy is a part of that old guard.

The passage also comes off as resentful, which I think is a shame.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I walked with Giants, I am a giant, I deserve my seats in the hall of heroes.



That's basic shit.

"The Immortal Britney Spears!!"

The point of these awards (I've always assumed) is to decide upon timeless excellence, which really should be an unchanging criteria, that Spike Lee could be making superb ground breaking movies in the 1940s as easily as Orson Welles might blow us away today.

 

[RJDiogenes]

So you have nothing to actually contribute on the topic, you just decided to drop by to tell us how enlightened you were in the past (we know, because you never fail to praise yourself for it)

Yeah, gee whiz, my disappointment with the 21st century can't possibly compare with the awesome profundity of your disappointment with Billy Mumy.

while dismissively shitting on the concerns of minorities or women today in typical fashion.

Lying about me doesn't make you one of the kewl kids. It just makes you a liar.

Always a pleasure, RJ.

Ditto. You're as charming as ever.

And, yes, I am disappointed with the rampant racism and sexism of the 21st century. And, yes, I will continue to express my disappointment. But feel free to turn this thread into yet another showcase for your petty grudges.

(If he's in a movie tomorrow, and then wades through some paper work, Bill is back in.)

He's in Marc Scott Zicree's Space Command. It doesn't get any more major than that!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah, gee whiz, my disappointment with the 21st century can't possibly compare with the awesome profundity of your disappointment with Billy Mumy.

Lying about me doesn't make you one of the kewl kids. It just makes you a liar.

Ditto. You're as charming as ever.

And, yes, I am disappointed with the rampant racism and sexism of the 21st century. And, yes, I will continue to express my disappointment. But feel free to turn this thread into yet another showcase for your petty grudges.