Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OneManFreakShow t1_jadz3tw wrote

Such a dumb fucking idea. Think of all of the discourse around the Best Director category ever year and multiply that by a thousand. This should never, ever, ever be done.

As for non-binary actors, why not just nominate them in the category that’s best fitting for the character they’re portraying? There hasn’t even been a non-binary actor that I can think of that would ever even be up for an Oscar anyway, I don’t see why we should change nearly a hundred years of an awards category just for rare fringe circumstances.

20

Veszerin t1_jae382i wrote

>As for non-binary actors, why not just nominate them in the category that’s best fitting for the character they’re portraying? There hasn’t even been a non-binary actor that I can think of that would ever even be up for an Oscar anyway, I don’t see why we should change nearly a hundred years of an awards category just for rare fringe circumstances.

That's essentially what they do. For a lot of awards non-binary actors can choose which category they want to be considered for.

E.g. Emma D'arcy from HotD was submitted for best actress awards in the Emmys, Golden Globes, etc.

9

urgasmic t1_jae3u6u wrote

yeah i think what's likely to happen is that nonbinary people and women would then just be pushed out all together anyway.

Emma Corrin and Emma D'arcy would be two nonbinary actors that could definitely be nominated in the future.

5

SpideyFan914 t1_jae8hcv wrote

And many more will likely spring up. In fact, it's extremely likely that a non-binary actor has already been nominated but wasn't open about it, and we will never know.

2

ParlorSoldier t1_jae2r4v wrote

Do actors submit themselves as being eligible for nomination? Or do academy members just vote for whoever they want? Because I was going to say, just let the actor choose which category they want to be included in.

4

shy247er t1_jae4bel wrote

> Do actors submit themselves as being eligible for nomination?

Studios do with consultation with actors, I imagine.

For example, Fox Searchlight submitted The Favourite's Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz for supporting and pushed Olivia Colman as lead so she would have a bigger shot at winning. Even though, arguably, Stone is the lead in the movie.

2

mikeyfreshh t1_jadzt6t wrote

As long as people have internet connections, discourse is going to be terrible. I don't really think that's a good reason not to do this. The real reason not to do it is that you'd be removing two awards from the show. People watch the Oscars to see famous people win awards. They're struggling for ratings as it is. I don't think removing two famous people giving speeches is going to help that

3

stumpcity t1_jaex01j wrote

> The real reason not to do it is that you'd be removing two awards from the show. People watch the Oscars to see famous people win awards.

So don't remove two awards. Increase the number of people who get to win.

Basically, turn the acting awards into a top 5 instead of a top 1. Nominate 10 people for lead, and 10 people for supporting, and then reward the top 5 in both categories. Now you have 10 pretty and famous people all standing up and winning statues and smiling like the Prom Court they are.

Gender categories - removed

number of famous people being rewarded - increased.

0

mikeyfreshh t1_jaf0sdr wrote

5 speeches is a lot and and giving 5 acting awards for lead and supporting waters down the value of the award. I'd be into adding more acting categories, maybe separating drama and comedy like the golden globes do, but just awarding the top 5 seems dumb.

2

stumpcity t1_jaf1roh wrote

>5 speeches is a lot and and giving 5 acting awards for lead and supporting waters down the value of the award.

I disagree that it "waters down the value of the award" for a couple different reasons.

  1. The Oscars are self-marginalizing and self-devaluing in general. Hence our agreement that the reasoning people even show up has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with superficiality. We want to see pretty famous people get happy for being pretty and famous. That's the drive.
  2. Picking single winners has also, by this logic, "devalued" the award because if you fuck up and pick someone that shouldn't have won it, you end up making the award mean less. The evidence for this POV is seen by, once again, our shared recognition that people don't tune into this thing to see movies win things based on merit.

As it stands, the acting awards are the ONLY awards anywhere near as delineated as they are already. Not only are they split into Supporting/Lead categories, they're the ONLY awards split by gender role as well. If giving more people statues for being among the five best performances of that year is dilution of the award, then the decision to make "Best Acting" into four separate trophies was already dilution.

The awards are, themselves, an advertisement (and historically, an anti-labor union measure, LOL). Their status as a legitimate designator of merit has been in question longer than we've been alive. This is not an institution known for great judgment, and it's accepted for that.

The biggest hurdle isn't a supposed devaluing of awards whose key reason for existing is superficial advertising. It's just getting over the artificial "tradition" being changed going forward.

−1

saideeps t1_jaeheen wrote

>There hasn’t even been a non-binary actor that I can think of that would ever even be up for an Oscar anyway,

There was - and the main twist of the movie was spoiled by the oscar category they were nominated in. Check out The Crying Game.

1

OneManFreakShow t1_jaez7pv wrote

Jaye Davidson is not non-binary, or at least has never publicly identified as such.

5

theyusedthelamppost t1_jaeby72 wrote

>As for non-binary actors, why not just nominate them in the category that’s best fitting for the character they’re portraying?

that just delays the problems for the next generations to deal with when more roles feature characters who don't clearly fit in the box of 1 gender.

>I don’t see why we should change nearly a hundred years of an awards category just for rare fringe circumstances.

Because the cases will become less rare over time. Might be better to reform the system beforehand until waiting for the problem to spill over. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

0