- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Remember the attacks on those asserting that "12 Years A Slave" won...
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:52 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:52 am
because of race?
Perhaps there's a basis for the argument
Perhaps there's a basis for the argument
quote:
The film's distributor anchored its awards campaign around the line "It's time," easily interpreted as an attempt to exhort members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences into voting for the movie because it was the right thing to do.
quote:
All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn't see "12 Years a Slave," thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film's social relevance, they felt obligated to do so.
20
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:58 am to udtiger
Or maybe it won because it was the best picture among the group of nominations.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:00 am to udtiger
I think certain subjects are more likely to win the award than others.
Slavery
The Holocaust
Are just more moving subjects than a lot of things, and movies about them tend to be extremely moving which is what Oscar voters look for. Also social relevance sure.
Personally i like comedies, so i think the Oscars are just horses hit all around.
Slavery
The Holocaust
Are just more moving subjects than a lot of things, and movies about them tend to be extremely moving which is what Oscar voters look for. Also social relevance sure.
Personally i like comedies, so i think the Oscars are just horses hit all around.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:01 am to Tactical1
quote:
Or maybe it won because it was the best picture among the group of nominations.
Apparently not everyone felt that way
Two Oscar Voters Picked '12 Years A Slave' Without Watching It
quote:
The surprising revelation comes via the Los Angeles Times: "All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn't see '12 Years a Slave,' thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film's social relevance, they felt obligated to do so."
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:04 am to Tactical1
quote:
Or maybe it won because it was the best picture among the group of nominations.
i know you are used to providing nothing to this board, but do you really think it was necessary to post the above when there is a direct quote in the OP of two people voting for a film they admit to not seeing? come on man.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:06 am to Tactical1
I thought "lone Survivor" was pretty good to.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:06 am to jamboybarry
quote:You would think there would be some type of formal or informal requirement that a voter would have to see all of the nominated movies in order to be able to cast a vote at all.
two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn't see '12 Years a Slave,' thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film's social relevance, they felt obligated to do so."
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:10 am to SammyTiger
quote:
I think certain subjects are more likely to win the award than others.
The Academy tends to pick dramatic films over other genres.
I doubt that two voters swung the nomination toward 12 Years a Slave.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:10 am to jcole4lsu
quote:
but do you really think it was necessary to post the above when there is a direct quote in the OP of two people voting for a film they admit to not seeing? come on man.
Can't really put much stock into a "direct quote" when its private.
Not saying it didn't happen, but not much to confirm that this actually did.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:13 am to Tactical1
quote:
Not saying it didn't happen, but not much to confirm that this actually did.
You're trying too hard.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:14 am to jamboybarry
there are 6000 voting members. I do agree that the subject weighed heavily on the voting.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:14 am to Tactical1
quote:
Can't really put much stock into a "direct quote" when its private
You think 2 voters, separately, would lie about the same thing?
What benefit do they have in saying this if it's not true?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:15 am to Tactical1
quote:
Can't really put much stock into a "direct quote" when its private.
Not saying it didn't happen, but not much to confirm that this actually did.
im sure you hold all "anonymous" quotes to the same level of scrutiny.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:16 am to Quidam65
quote:I agree......as long as voter fraud doesn't change the outcome it's no big deal.
I doubt that two voters swung the nomination toward 12 Years a Slave.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:17 am to udtiger
And the Right wing constantly bashes Hollywood as irrelevant in our 'political' lives , but the poli board is now concerned with the Oscars?
They actually care about who wins Hollywood's most prestigious award?
Sorry the film isn't revisionist drivel Southerners (Right wingers) would prefer.
They actually care about who wins Hollywood's most prestigious award?
Sorry the film isn't revisionist drivel Southerners (Right wingers) would prefer.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:19 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:19 am to udtiger
did you see it?
or, are you just continuing a racist thought b/c you are racist?
or, are you just continuing a racist thought b/c you are racist?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:19 am to jamboybarry
quote:
You think 2 voters, separately, would lie about the same thing?
What benefit do they have in saying this if it's not true?
All I am saying is that it would be really easy for anyone to report that they had direct quotes from two individuals that would rather remain anonymous.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:24 am to Tactical1
quote:
All I am saying is that it would be really easy for anyone to report that they had direct quotes from two individuals that would rather remain anonymous.
why would the LA Times do that?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:26 am to jcole4lsu
quote:
why would the LA Times do that?
Why not name the voters? Pretty in depth article not too. Clearly someone knows who they are.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:26 am to blackjackjackson
quote:
did you see it? or, are you just continuing a racist thought b/c you are racist?
Next time, try "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Dumbass.
I freely admit I did not see ANY of the nominated films, so I can't speak to whether 12YAS was, or wasn't, deserving. I only posted this because anyone that dared broach the subject on TD Sunday night/Monday morning was automatically branded a racist (sort of like you implied in your post)
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News