Page 1 of 3

OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:45 pm
by so sorry
Golden Globes last night....


Winners and losers

Quick highlights....

The Martian wins Best Musical or Comedy

Leo Decaprio wins best actor and best reaction to Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga wins best female actor (seriously)

Ricky Gervais was "edgy" and "a bad boy"

Denzel got a Lifetime Achievement Award, pretty cool segment of his movies

Jim Carey was funny

Every single winner made a comment about getting their speech cut off

Did I mention Ricky Gervais was "cheeky" and m"unpredictable"?????

Stallone won for Creed. Got a huge standing ovation

JLaw looked damned fine

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:41 pm
by TheBaxter
it's about time My Favorite Martian got the recognition it deserves. but those silly Golden Globes awarded it in the wrong category: it's a tv show, not a movie.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:56 pm
by Fievel
I missed the monologue, but read some of the jokes. Gervais makes me laugh. Apparently the big edited line he said to Mel Gibson was "what the fuck is sugartits?" I thought he was my hero of the night for asking that. But then he went and offered a parting shot when as the credits were rolling when he said "From myself and Mel Gibson - shalom!"

I thought Lady Gaga's shocked-to-win demeanor during her speech was complete bullshit. I also thought DiCaprio was being a dick. It was like the high school jock -vs- the theater girl. Fuck 'em both.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:26 am
by Al Shut
Fievel wrote: Fuck 'em both.


I prefer only one of them.

Which one remains my secret.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:24 am
by TheBaxter
i don't get what's the big deal about dicaprio, i keep hearing about it but when i finally saw it it was nothing. she bumped him, he jerked away with a surprised look, and the world kept spinning. it's not even like he knew who bumped him at first, he just flinched like anyone would if someone bumped them from behind. it could have been kathy griffin for all he knew. and as for his laughing: first of all, it's the golden globes, everyone's drunk to begin with. and it's a stretch to think he was laughing at anything related to lady gaga, maybe someone at his table just happened to make a joke at that very moment.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:52 am
by so sorry
TheBaxter wrote:i don't get what's the big deal about dicaprio, i keep hearing about it but when i finally saw it it was nothing. she bumped him, he jerked away with a surprised look, and the world kept spinning. it's not even like he knew who bumped him at first, he just flinched like anyone would if someone bumped them from behind. it could have been kathy griffin for all he knew. and as for his laughing: first of all, it's the golden globes, everyone's drunk to begin with. and it's a stretch to think he was laughing at anything related to lady gaga, maybe someone at his table just happened to make a joke at that very moment.


Personally I think what happened was the zoomed in picture of him smirking after she walked past him made became a stupid meme, and wasn't viewed in context of what happened. You described it perfectly: she bumped his arm as she walked past him, it startled him, he made a goofy face at that very moment, and that was that. It had zero to do with anything else.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:09 am
by Maui
so sorry wrote:JLaw looked damned fine


She did but she was a real jerk to that reporter. Not impressed.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:22 pm
by Fried Gold
You're supposed to call this thread "OSKAHS 2016" by the way.

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:10 pm
by Ribbons
Fried Gold wrote:You're supposed to call this thread "OSKAHS 2016" by the way.


Fixed

Re: Award Season 2015

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:52 pm
by so sorry
Ribbons wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:You're supposed to call this thread "OSKAHS 2016" by the way.


Fixed



Image

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:44 am
by Fried Gold
Oskah nominees: (the main categories)

Not sure why, but I'm surprised at the mix of the films nominated in some categories this year. The actor/actress categories are the standard fayre though.

Best Picture
The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room
Spotlight

Best Director
Lenny Abrahamson – Room
Alejandro G. Iñárritu – The Revenant
Tom McCarthy – Spotlight
Adam McKay – The Big Short
George Miller – Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Actor
Bryan Cranston – Trumbo
Matt Damon – The Martian
Leonardo DiCaprio – The Revenant
Michael Fassbender – Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne – The Danish Girl

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett – Carol as Carol Aird
Brie Larson - Room as Joy "Ma" Newsome
Jennifer Lawrence – Joy as Joy Mangano
Charlotte Rampling – 45 Years as Kate Mercer
Saoirse Ronan – Brooklyn as Eilis Lacey

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale – The Big Short
Tom Hardy – The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo – Spotlight
Mark Rylance – Bridge of Spies
Sylvester Stallone – Creed

Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Jason Leigh – The Hateful Eight as Daisy Domergue
Rooney Mara – Carol as Therese Belivet
Rachel McAdams – Spotlight as Sacha Pfeiffer
Alicia Vikander – The Danish Girl as Gerda Wegener
Kate Winslet – Steve Jobs as Joanna Hoffman

Best Original Screenplay
Matt Charman, Ethan Coen and Joel Coen – Bridge of Spies
Alex Garland – Ex Machina
Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley, and Ronnie del Carmen – Inside Out
Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy – Spotlight
Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge, and Alan Wenkus – Straight Outta Compton

Best Adapted Screenplay
Charles Randolph and Adam McKay – The Big Short
Nick Hornby – Brooklyn
Phyllis Nagy – Carol
Drew Goddard – The Martian
Emma Donoghue – Room

Best Animated Feature Film
Anomalisa
Boy and the World
Inside Out
Shaun the Sheep Movie
When Marnie Was There

Best Original Score
Thomas Newman – Bridge of Spies
Carter Burwell – Carol
Jóhann Jóhannsson – Sicario
John Williams – Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Ennio Morricone – The Hateful Eight

Best Cinematography
Carol
The Hateful Eight
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Sicario

Best Visual Effects
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:29 am
by TheBaxter
that's Best Picture Nominee Mad Max: Fury Road to you, good sir!

after winning the Golden Globe for best musical, it seems like a bit of a snub that not a single song from The Martian was nominated for Best Original Song.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:56 pm
by Fievel
My son and I were watching the nomination reading. He cheered out loud when The Force Awakens got the Best Original Score nod and had fingers crossed on both hands for a potential Best Picture nomination. When the nominations were done he said he was disappointed but didn't care - because he still thought it was a great movie. He's a good kid.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:33 pm
by Peven
so, the majority of Academy voters are white men over the age of 63.....and there are no nominees for Black actors in any major category AGAIN......FUCK the Oscars, fuck them right up their stupid asses :twisted:

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:22 pm
by Ribbons
Yeah, and they can't say there was a lack of good roles this time. Michael B. Jordan, Idris Elba and Benicio del Toro all could have and should have been nominated. But like you say, this is what happens when old white dudes cast most of the votes.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:33 am
by so sorry
Ribbons wrote:Yeah, and they can't say there was a lack of good roles this time. Michael B. Jordan, Idris Elba and Benicio del Toro all could have and should have been nominated. But like you say, this is what happens when old white dudes cast most of the votes.



For what movies? That's a serious question, not just flippantly commenting.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:34 am
by so sorry
Any chance Stallone DOESN'T win an Oscar?

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:51 am
by Spandau Belly
The general "snubbing" of SICARIO really surprises me, but I am especially surprised by Benicio del Toro in being omitted. I'm not just saying this because I really liked the film. I don't expect to see my own personal tastes reflected 100% in these types of award show thingies. It's just that SICARIO seemed like the perfect Oscar picture. Prestige cast. Topical subject matter. Flawless technical execution. Accessibly entertaining with enough action stuff. Serious tone to the drama stuff. Yadda yadda yadda.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:52 am
by Bloo
Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation (damn fine performance, serious movie, probably being a Netflix original that got released in theaters hurt it)

Michael B. Jordan for Fantastic Four...okay that was me being flippant but for Creed (a lot of people are bringing this up, I don't know. He was good, but Oscar good?)

BDT for Scicario (don't know if it's deserved, haven't seen it)

I'll also add that I was surprised that Tessa Thompson didn't get a BSA nom for Creed, since she was playing a handicapped artist, that's the kind of shit that gets the Academy hard.

A lot of other commentators are saying perhaps Will Smith should hve gotten a nom for Concussion (again, don't know haven't seen it) or perhaps someone from Straight Outta Compton (again good, don't know if it was Oscar worthy).

On the flip side to this, I thought all the performances that were nominated were very good and I don't know who I wouldn't have nominated in place of someone of color. MAYBE replace Fassbender with Idris Elba or Kate Winslet with Tessa Thompson?

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:08 am
by Spandau Belly
People are so starved for blockbusters aimed at anybody over the age of 10, that when one comes along it feels like a revelation to them.

If THE MARTIAN, or even FURY ROAD for that matter, were released in the 80's or 90's they would just be considered good summer popcorn movies at best. I think if FURY ROAD was released in the 90's it would probably have been seen as kinda lowbrow.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:10 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I kinda qestion when the non-colour nommeed artists bashers come out every year when there aren't enough black names on the list. I mean, maybe those people just weren't, you know, that good? Or suitable for the Oscar list? Or it was down to some other unfair political reason not attributed to colour? I read that Creed wasn't pushed that hard in the 'For you consideration' campaign for one reason.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:12 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Spandau Belly wrote:The general "snubbing" of SICARIO really surprises me, but I am especially surprised by Benicio del Toro in being omitted. I'm not just saying this because I really liked the film. I don't expect to see my own personal tastes reflected 100% in these types of award show thingies. It's just that SICARIO seemed like the perfect Oscar picture. Prestige cast. Topical subject matter. Flawless technical execution. Accessibly entertaining with enough action stuff. Serious tone to the drama stuff. Yadda yadda yadda.


It got the technical nommees it deserved. It just weren't that mesmerising overall. It's a great film, not that outstanding though. Del Toro has had enough supporting actor nominations and he's not that exceptional here to what he's done before. Just enjoy the film for what it is.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:15 pm
by so sorry
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I kinda qestion when the non-colour nommeed artists bashers come out every year when there aren't enough black names on the list. I mean, maybe those people just weren't, you know, that good? Or suitable for the Oscar list? Or it was down to some other unfair political reason not attributed to colour? I read that Creed wasn't pushed that hard in the 'For you consideration' campaign for one reason.


Yeah I kinda agree with this sentiment. Perhaps the oscar nominees are just better.

Here in the States, in our football league, there is a rule about hiring coaches: when a coaching position becomes available, that particular team MUST interview at least one "minority" coaching candidate. Doesn't matter if that candidate is actually qualified, it must be done. Its ridiculous actually. There have been plenty of successful minority coaches in our league that have earned their jobs based on performance, not color-requirements. Same should apply to the Oscars, and obviously on a much broader level, to every profession.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:29 pm
by Fried Gold

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:57 pm
by Ribbons
so sorry wrote:Perhaps the oscar nominees are just better.


That would be a first!

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:27 pm
by Maui
I think when you have a bunch of old farts on the Oscar committee you will generally see the same decision making every single year and it's unfortunate.
However, I do feel that there is a lot of unnecessary ranting and hoopla when nominees are announced.
Perhaps the Oscar committee should be handled like a jury selection - no bias.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 2:37 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Maybe because this is the first time I've seen her not play a robot (though she was damn good as that too), but Alicia Vikander totally knocked me out with her emotionally estranged work in The Danish Girl. Everything was all on the surface with her in such a dominant performance that even stole the show from Eddie Redmayne. If she's Best Support Actress I'd like to see her win, though I say that yet to see other contenders.

As for Kate Winslet she can bugger, orff! She falls into that really unfortunate but exceptional category where yes she's good looking and a great actress but for some reason I just find her just so dull to watch, no matter how good she is. For me she is the type of person who can do no wrong but also do no right, like she's all funny and hot at a nightclub out on the pull, but sorry sweetheart, the feeling ain't mutual I'm just not that into you no matter how much your push up bra shoves your boobs in my face and instead of you I'm going home with the skinny rough sort who even grunts when she has sex, there's nothing your sexy seduction can do about it.

I haven't seen any Best Support Actors either but PLEASE GIVE IT TO STALLONE ANYWAAAYYY WAAAHHH!!! :P :P :P :( :(

Woulda been nice to see Macbeth nommeed up for Best Cinematogs. Get those red fiery filters on the go yo.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:09 am
by Maui
I still need to see Creed so I have no opinion yet on Sly's performance. I've seen all the other best actor performances and so far Tom Hardy is the standout in this category. While Leo is getting most of the attention for this film because he ate raw meat and crawled inside a dead carcus, I very strongly feel that Hardy outshone him. Leo was very good but Hardy was superb in this.

I always find the actress categories interesting. Do we go with the new 'it girls' or do we go with the seasoned actress that has already garnered a few oscars.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:16 am
by caruso_stalker217
I'm in Sly's corner all the way. He made CREED. No Sly, no movie.

Tom Hardy was fine, but lacked the heart and authenticity, instead leaning on his usual tics and mannerisms.

I'd like to see FURY ROAD win Best Picture so danny_glovers_dickblood can spend the rest of his life bitching about it on Twitter.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:11 pm
by Maui
I saw Creed today. Sly is good in this however I'm not sure he deserves all this fuss right now about his performance. Parts of this film are downright corny.

I'm still going with Tom Hardy, tics and all.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:16 pm
by caruso_stalker217
Maui wrote:I saw Creed today. Sly is good in this however I'm not sure he deserves all this fuss right now about his performance. Parts of this film are downright corny.


Have you never seen a ROCKY picture? They all have a bit of a cornball quality. It's part of the charm.

The one part that stood out as a bit cheesy for me was when Michael B. Jordan runs with the dirt bike kids and then starts jumping up and down and yelling for five minutes for no particular reason. That was a bit odd.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:30 pm
by Fried Gold
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Maui wrote:I saw Creed today. Sly is good in this however I'm not sure he deserves all this fuss right now about his performance. Parts of this film are downright corny.


Have you never seen a ROCKY picture? They all have a bit of a cornball quality. It's part of the charm.

The one part that stood out as a bit cheesy for me was when Michael B. Jordan runs with the dirt bike kids and then starts jumping up and down and yelling for five minutes for no particular reason. That was a bit odd.

Even for a Rocky movie, the way that scene ends is ridiculous.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:39 pm
by Maui
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Maui wrote:I saw Creed today. Sly is good in this however I'm not sure he deserves all this fuss right now about his performance. Parts of this film are downright corny.


Have you never seen a ROCKY picture? They all have a bit of a cornball quality. It's part of the charm.

The one part that stood out as a bit cheesy for me was when Michael B. Jordan runs with the dirt bike kids and then starts jumping up and down and yelling for five minutes for no particular reason. That was a bit odd.


I only saw the very first Rocky and it was ages ago so I can't remember the level of corn.

Funny you mention that particular scene because that was the one that really stood out for me. It was both bizarre and ridiculous. It felt like it was turning into a musical for a few minutes. Then Sly waving out the window. HA!

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:28 am
by Fievel
Janet Hubert (aka the original Aunt Viv on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air) Rips the shit out of Jada Pinket Smith regarding her demand that blacks boycott the Oscars:


Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:38 am
by caruso_stalker217
Fievel wrote:Janet Hubert (aka the original Aunt Viv on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air) Rips the shit out of Jada Pinket Smith regarding her demand that blacks boycott the Oscars:



I knew shit was about to get real when she started clapping her hands.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:06 am
by Maui
Well this is very unfortunate that its come to this. Viral video face offs. I saw Jada's video and she remains calm, cool and collected. I do feel there is validity in what she is saying but her words are too confrontational against Jada. It's as if she wants to get into a pissing contest with Jada and Wil Smith. Seems to be some bad vibes there. I would have preferred no video at all, but if she wants to be taken seriously make your point intelligently without bashing other people in the process.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:25 pm
by Fried Gold
If you look at the MPAA's own marketing stats -

Frequent moviegoers by race:
Caucasian: 56%
Black: 10%
Hispanic: 25%
Other minority: 9%

That first group go to the movies the most, so they are the target audience and market for the vast majority of movies produced.

You will likely get (a) more white people starring in movies and (b) more white people working in the industry over time - hence more white people likely to get nominated at things like the Oscars.

It is racial problem? Yes, partly. A socio-economic problem too. However, it's more of a business strategy on the part of a industry which aims to make money. In the same way you tend not to see many white people in Bollywood movies or in Chinese movies, they make them based on what they think their target market wants.

If you'd you'd like to see the movie industry change the way it casts women, you change the source of the industry's income by changing the viewing audience's demographics. Make movies with female leads more profitable than movies with male leads and you'll see an increase of movies with female leads.

In fact, now that South-East Asia is a far bigger target audience you're likely to see more actors emerging from that sector. And with the US demographic shifting toward a greater hispanic population, you'll probably find movies shifting there too.

Because money.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:56 pm
by Peven
so sorry wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I kinda qestion when the non-colour nommeed artists bashers come out every year when there aren't enough black names on the list. I mean, maybe those people just weren't, you know, that good? Or suitable for the Oscar list? Or it was down to some other unfair political reason not attributed to colour? I read that Creed wasn't pushed that hard in the 'For you consideration' campaign for one reason.


Yeah I kinda agree with this sentiment. Perhaps the oscar nominees are just better.

Here in the States, in our football league, there is a rule about hiring coaches: when a coaching position becomes available, that particular team MUST interview at least one "minority" coaching candidate. Doesn't matter if that candidate is actually qualified, it must be done. Its ridiculous actually. There have been plenty of successful minority coaches in our league that have earned their jobs based on performance, not color-requirements. Same should apply to the Oscars, and obviously on a much broader level, to every profession.



wow, you really have NO clue about what white privilege is, do you? are you really that clueless as to how the real world works "here in the states" ? oh right, we have conquered that racism thing here, haven't we, that is just a thing of the past.... :roll:

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:15 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Fried Gold wrote:If you look at the MPAA's own marketing stats -

Frequent moviegoers by race:
Caucasian: 56%
Black: 10%
Hispanic: 25%
Other minority: 9%

That first group go to the movies the most, so they are the target audience and market for the vast majority of movies produced.

You will likely get (a) more white people starring in movies and (b) more white people working in the industry over time - hence more white people likely to get nominated at things like the Oscars.

It is racial problem? Yes, partly. A socio-economic problem too. However, it's more of a business strategy on the part of a industry which aims to make money. In the same way you tend not to see many white people in Bollywood movies or in Chinese movies, they make them based on what they think their target market wants.

If you'd you'd like to see the movie industry change the way it casts women, you change the source of the industry's income by changing the viewing audience's demographics. Make movies with female leads more profitable than movies with male leads and you'll see an increase of movies with female leads.

In fact, now that South-East Asia is a far bigger target audience you're likely to see more actors emerging from that sector. And with the US demographic shifting toward a greater hispanic population, you'll probably find movies shifting there too.

Because money.


Nah, it's because most of us chinks are simply ugly unphotogenic bastards.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:18 am
by TheBaxter
Fried Gold wrote:If you look at the MPAA's own marketing stats -

Frequent moviegoers by race:
Caucasian: 56%
Black: 10%
Hispanic: 25%
Other minority: 9%

That first group go to the movies the most, so they are the target audience and market for the vast majority of movies produced.

You will likely get (a) more white people starring in movies and (b) more white people working in the industry over time - hence more white people likely to get nominated at things like the Oscars.

It is racial problem? Yes, partly. A socio-economic problem too. However, it's more of a business strategy on the part of a industry which aims to make money. In the same way you tend not to see many white people in Bollywood movies or in Chinese movies, they make them based on what they think their target market wants.

If you'd you'd like to see the movie industry change the way it casts women, you change the source of the industry's income by changing the viewing audience's demographics. Make movies with female leads more profitable than movies with male leads and you'll see an increase of movies with female leads.

In fact, now that South-East Asia is a far bigger target audience you're likely to see more actors emerging from that sector. And with the US demographic shifting toward a greater hispanic population, you'll probably find movies shifting there too.

Because money.


Frequent moviegoers by race:
Caucasian: 56%
Black: 10%
Hispanic: 25%
Other minority: 9%

Academy voters by race:
Caucasian: 93%
Black: 2%
Hispanic: 2%
Other minority: 3%

hmmm... doesn't quite match up. the demographics of industries who SELL a product rarely match up to the demographics of those who BUY a product. as a general rule, it's safe to assume that any industry is going to be more white and more male than the demographics of their consumers. the reasons for that are definitely socioeconomic, not demographic. if movies reflected the demographics of audiences, then 1 out of 4 movies would be aimed at hispanics, and there'd be a lot more "chick flicks". it's a chicken-and-egg argument. if the movie industry wasn't so white-male dominated to begin with, maybe they'd be making more diverse films that would appeal to more diverse audiences and the demographics of moviegoers would reflect that. but an industry dominated by white male decision-makers is probably not very likely to know how to make a tone of movies that appeal to other races, even if they wanted to. and it's not terribly surprising that the movies that get made, and the nominations for awards for those movies, reflect the makeup of the Academy more than they do the makeup of actual moviegoers.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:12 pm
by Fried Gold
Image

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:50 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Well us chinks are so uncharismatic we only get as high as being EXTRAS!!! That's 'cos we're UGLYYYY!!!!

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:54 pm
by Al Shut
To have this whole discussion over something so subjective as nominations for acting awards is kinda moot.

My biggest nightmare is someday the the male and female categories will be rolled together and the whole issue will be potentiated by x.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:55 pm
by Al Shut
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Well us chinks are so uncharismatic we only get as high as being EXTRAS!!! That's 'cos we're UGLYYYY!!!!


nah, that's just you

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:19 pm
by TheBaxter
Al Shut wrote:To have this whole discussion over something so subjective as nominations for acting awards is kinda moot.

My biggest nightmare is someday the the male and female categories will be rolled together and the whole issue will be potentiated by x.


just wait til the first hermaphrodite nominee is announced, then things will get REALLY confusing.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:54 pm
by Ribbons
Fried Gold wrote:Image


"Where's the fucking problem!?" You stay classy, Anonymous.

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:58 pm
by Fried Gold
TheBaxter wrote:
Al Shut wrote:To have this whole discussion over something so subjective as nominations for acting awards is kinda moot.

My biggest nightmare is someday the the male and female categories will be rolled together and the whole issue will be potentiated by x.


just wait til the first hermaphrodite nominee is announced, then things will get REALLY confusing.

Best Cisgender Non-Triggered Safespace Acting Award

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:16 am
by Al Shut
Ribbons wrote:"Where's the fucking problem!?" You stay classy, Anonymous.


On a sidenote, I have serious fucking problems. :oops:

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:03 pm
by Fried Gold
Ribbons wrote:"Where's the fucking problem!?" You stay classy, Anonymous.


You can have The Economist version instead - http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero ... m-and-race

Re: OSKAHS 2016

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:10 am
by Ribbons
Fried Gold wrote:
Ribbons wrote:You stay classy, Anonymous.


You can have The Economist version instead - http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero ... m-and-race


You stay classy, Economist.

Actually that was a pretty good read.