[Future Shock]

Two Academy membery lived in my last apartment building - FWIW they were both Jewish. I am not sure that means anything, but it is slight empiracle information regarding SC's suspicions...

FS

[supercaffeinated]

nolan, on Mar 2 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

And what's not fair about being judged by your (insider) peers?  Who better to judge the quality or worth of a work, which is, after all, what the awards are all about.  It's a celebration of their craft/profession by members of that craft/profession.  The public just gets caught up in the glitz and the glamor.  Too bad that you think that joe blow on the street should have a vote just because he has an opinion.  Why should he have a vote?  He has no expertise in the subject nor is he a member of the group.

What's missing is accountability. These films exert a significant influence on the public. Academy award winners receive recognition and advancement.

Exposing and criticizing The Academy for their a gross bias rightfully hurts their credibility and therefore reduces the influence.

I think The Passion deserved at least one oscar nod based on its broad appeal alone, and I didn't even see it. I think The Academy should have reconsidered their ruling to show less bias. Apparently they act as a mob.

[Nil Einne]

Some of you seem to be missing the point. The Passion neither had that broad an appeal nor was it really that popular. Number 9 on the uptake in 2004 is def not by any def that popular. Also, comparing a movie which was released at the beginning of this year to one released much later is just plain stupid.

The Passion only appealed to a certain section of people in the US. Although this section is fairly large, it's still only a certain section in the US. Outside the US, even in 'Christian' countries it had far less appeal. Not only that but the nature of the movie and the section it appealed to almost certainly meant many of these people would pay to watch it. However, many other movies, Shrek 2 for example appealed to a much wider section of people, both in the US and worldwide. In fact, the nature of it means a large number of these people would not pay to watch it at the cinema and would either pirate it or wait for it to come out on video etc.

It's clear the Academy is somewhat biased and elitist in their selections. In fact, it's a well known fact that they strongly dislike animated shows for many reasons (chiefly being they known it greatly reduces their importance). They also show their bias and elitism in a number of other ways but ignoring Passion was not one of them.

In fact, Farenheit 9/11 was much more deserving of an Oscar then the Passion. Although it only appealed to a certain subsection of USA audiences, worldwide it had much wider appeal. Def much wider then Passion...! And once again, it's nature and the nature of it's audience, especially worldwide means it's a movie much more likely to be pirated and waited for release on DVD etc. However, I don't personally believe it deserved much recognition either. Maybe 1 or 2 at most. It was an interesting movie but I wouldn't exactly call it great...

[Nil Einne]

I should add too that if how much movie a money made is the only thing to go buy then the Awards are kind of pointless. You might as well just say it's the number 9 grossing movie of 2004. Why give awards for it?

[supercaffeinated]

Hi, The Passion is the number 9 grossing film of all time.

http://movieweb.com/...ice/alltime.php

It was third highest grossing film of 2004.

http://www.portelgin....com/top50.html

A film's gross revenue is a clear indicator of its appeal to its intended audience, and despite Hollywood's attempt to portray themselves as "artistic", making money is their primary goal.

[jtr1962]

Why the attack on SC for stating a well known fact-that the media is largely controlled by Jews, and has been for decades? Instead of attacking him, nolan, you should be asking the reason why this is so, and also why a group which constitutes not much more than 1% of the population has influence well beyond its numbers, especially in the government, law, and finance. Something stinks big time about this when such important matters are in the hands of a minority. That's the problem as I see it, and before you start accusing me of anti-Semitism I would see the same problem whether the group in power was Jewish, Chinese, Italian, etc. It shouldn't be predominently anything, unless of course something was done to rig the game so as to prevent those not of a specific background from advancing to positions of leadership, or indeed from even advancing.

I also might add that this more or less monolithic makeup of the media elite has compromised the quality of what passes for entertainment these days. It seems all you have are sequels, remakes of older movies, and movies designed to do nothing but sell products. Add in seemingly gratuitous pornographic sex scenes in almost movie combined with sexual themes in advertising and I'd say the media has sunk to an all time low. It's well past time for some fresh blood. I'm tired of seeing what a bunch of horny old men think I should enjoy seeing because they may happen to enjoy it. I think it's time we heard other voices.

[Future Shock]

I would have to say that Rupert Murdoch's ONLY saving grace is that he isn't Jewish...

FS

[nolan]

Where to start ... where to start?

Quote

And I barely understand what it means to be Jewish, so I don't see how I could be "Anti-Jewish", if that's what you meant. Is "Jewish" a religious affiliation, Is it an Ethnicity? Is it a nationality? Is it a "Race"?

You don't know what is is to be Jewish.....but you're sure that the Academy is?? I think that's a preposterous position on its face. And you can't claim that you're merely presenting the Academy as an organization that is predominately Jewish as balding_ape suggested. You identified them by name...the "Jewish Academy." And the phraseology speaks volumes about your mind set. If you HAD intended to define the Academy as a "group of predominately Jewish members", you should have stated so in clear and concise terms.

Quote

What's missing is accountability. These films exert a significant influence on the public. Academy award winners receive recognition and advancement.

Accountability to who? The public be damned. The groups responsibility is to the group, not the "public", who are there only as a parasitic mob attracted by curiosity, hero-worship (grossly misplaced in my opinion), and the glamor that they themselves attach to the event. The early Awards ceremony were low key events attended only by a few industry members. It wasn't until several years later when the "public" decided that they wanted to be part of this affair that things began getting "out of hand" (my words and my opinion). But even today no tickets to the event are availabel to the "public". It's by invitation only, as this event was and still is primarily intended as a celebration for the Acadamies members. Not the "public". Of course the academy and it's members bask in the attention they receive. Who wouldn't. If you think that the American Institute of Public Accountants wouldn't die to have the same attention paid to their organization then I don't think you understand human nature very well.
The winners receive recognition and advancement? Sure they do. Within their own chosen profession. How else is it supposed to be? Members of ANY organization are (or should be) rewarded and advanced based on the peer reviews they receive. And one of the ways those reviews are given is by the awards and accolades they receive. If you're implying that award winners exert an undo influence outside of their profession than I think that you're only partly correct. They do get heard more than an average citizen. But that's more of a problem with the "public", which bestows that influence, than the "stars" who only follow human nature and takes as much attention as is given. What about rock "stars" or sports "heroes"? They seem to exert more influence than warranted. But you seem fixated on "Jewish" Academy members.

Quote

I think The Passion deserved at least one oscar nod based on its broad appeal alone.

Big deal. You have an opinion. Join the Academy and get a vote.

QUOTE]Apparently they act as a mob.

[/QUOTE]
I'm wondering if you know how the academy votes. During the nomination phase, only members of a specialty group votes for nominations for that specialty. For example, only directors vote to nominate the five "best director" nods; only actors vote to nominate the "best actor" nods; only producers vote to nominate the "best producer" nods. What could be more fair? Only someone that does exactly the same job as you gets to vote on your efforts. Hardly sounds like a "mob" is controlling all voting to me. After the nominations are tabulated, the entire membership gets to vote on them. A mob? Maybe...perhaps in the same sense that the US acts "as a mob" every four years when we vote on the current roster of imcompetents.

Quote

A film's gross revenue is a clear indicator of its appeal to its intended audience

So what. Why are you so fixated with money? The academies objective is NOT to reward the highest grossing films of the year. It is to reward "excellence in cinema achievement". (That's a quote from the Academies web page) So you don't agree with the academy members......you're opinion is in the minority. Cry me a river.
And what about the "intended audience"? If someone makes a film intentionally targeting a subset of the worlds population (say a group that represents 5% of us) and everyone in that group sees the film, it's going to make a LOT of money. Just because every intended victim (sorry...viewer) saw the film and it made a lot of money, does that mean that the film is good? I don't think so.

Quote

Why the attack on SC for stating a well known fact-that the media is largely controlled by Jews, and has been for decades?

this more or less monolithic makeup of the media elite

"A well known fact?" "Monolithic media elite?" We're getting back to phrases that make alarms go off inside my head. Where are your corroborating sources for such statements? In some parts of the world it's a "well known fact" that all westerners are evil incarnate. Anything you want can be a "well known fact" if you're not willing to corroborate it. Hell, I saw a poll a while back that said over twenty percent of the US population thought the moon was made of cheese. It's a "well known fact" to them. (A rather telling comment on the intelligence level of the average American.) I'm afraid, jtr1962, that your phraseology reveals more of your mindset than you may have intended. I think that if we continued this discussion we'd probably discover that you see a Jew behind every tree and a Black in every corner. Probably a Muslim lurking in all the shadows. All of them just waiting to do us in.

I won't be posting to this topic again. It's obvious (to me at least) that despite protestations to the contrary, this post is about a prejudical rant against Jews. I think the words and phrases used and implications made clearly indicate that.

BTW, this shouldn't matter but it probably does to some of you. I'm not Jewish. Come from a long line of Catholics (mothers side) and Southern Baptist (fathers side). I took the same survey that SC did and came up with much the same results. I consider myself an agnostic (yes, I know what the word means).
I just don't like prejudice or ignorance and that's how I saw this. Couldn't let it pass unchallenged.

[jtr1962]

nolan, on Mar 3 2005, 11:37 AM, said:

"A well known fact?"  "Monolithic media elite?"  We're getting back to phrases that make alarms go off inside my head.  Where are your corroborating sources for such statements?

See here. The relevant paragraph is:

Quote

Run the numbers on The Passion of The Christ and you see the argument being made against it. The emotional, "So many people hate it" screed must be discounted. As Gangs of New York proved, a high percentage of voters can hate your film and it can still get a lot of nominations. But the issue of what percentage of voters actually saw the movie and how many of them can be moved to see the movie now… that is a real challenge to the film. If you start with only 60% of the Academy being non-Jewish, with few Jews presumably willing to support the film for awards, you need 37.5% of those non-Jews to vote the film highly.

So you have, what, 40% of the members of the Academy are Jewish and 60% are everything else, meaning Jewsih members probably outnumber any other group. IIRC Jews constitute less that 2% of the US population. Even in cities like New York they were never above 25% or so. Constituting 40% of an industry definitely rings some alarm bells, especially one with as much influence as the mass media. And BTW, close to 7% of the US Congress is also Jewish according to this. Not as big a discrepancy, but it seems they apparently have more influence than those numbers would indicate based on the disproportionate amount of aid to Israel each year. Is asking why this is so such a bad thing?

Monolithic media elite is simply my own way of referring to those in the media of all backgrounds. Never have I saw a group more self-serving, more convinced of their own self importance, and more out of touch with reality than those in the media. I make no secret of my utter disgust for the entire Hollywood culture, fostered in some part due to the misguided celebrity worship which you alluded to.

Quote

I'm afraid, jtr1962, that your phraseology reveals more of your mindset than you may have intended.  I think that if we continued this discussion we'd probably discover that you see a Jew behind every tree and a Black in every corner.  Probably a Muslim lurking in all the shadows.  All of them just waiting to do us in.

And you might be right but not in the way you think. Truthfully, I'm suspicious of anyone who defines themselves mainly by their religion and/or their race. Religion is currently the most dangerous thing on the planet. It has resulted in more and bloodier wars than everything else put together. I'd personally like to see a ban on the proselytizing of religion to children so that religion could hopefully gradually die out within a few generations. Maybe then we can actually have some peace in the world.

Quote

I won't be posting to this topic again.  It's obvious (to me at least) that despite protestations to the contrary, this post is about a prejudical rant against Jews.  I think the words and phrases used and implications made clearly indicate that.

And you know what this statement reminds me of? It's the same mindset prevalent among some special interests in government who suddenly bring out the race card whenever someone either tells the truth and/or they find that they cannot justify their views based on reason. For example, for a long time any talk of welfare reform in places like NYC was met with cries of racism by black leaders despite the fact that the welfare system was/is a costly disaster which keeps blacks more than any other group subservient to government handouts. And any talk about the excessive influence wielded by those of Jewish background, even when it's backed up properly with facts, is similarly met with cries of anti-semitism.

Quote

BTW, this shouldn't matter but it probably does to some of you.  I'm not Jewish.  Come from a long line of Catholics (mothers side) and Southern Baptist (fathers side).  I took the same survey that SC did and came up with much the same results.  I consider myself an agnostic (yes, I know what the word means). 
I just don't like prejudice or ignorance and that's how I saw this.  Couldn't let it pass unchallenged.

It doesn't really matter to me what you are, but since you brought it up I'm of Italian Catholic ancestry but I don't subscribe to religious beliefs of any kind. I don't like prejuduce either but I also don't like being prevented from having a rational discussion about something I consider a huge problem because the hard truth might offend some people. And I'm sad to see you decided to drop out of the discussion since a lot of what you say does make sense.

[1_smack_for_2]

I have not seen the Passion either, I dont believe in that.

maybe you read this letter nolan, http://www.adl.org/m...0040625-CNN.htm

here are two sites as evidence to who controls the media:

http://www.compuserb.com/mediain1.htm

http://www.heretical...bend/broad.html

Some others are:
sports commissioners:
NFL: Paul Tagliabue
NBA: David Stern
MLB: Bud Selig
NHL: Gary Bettman (http://www.shtick.org/Gitlin/gitlin67.htm, funny!)

Howard Stern Show (not exactly tasteful as jtr was saying)

Porn industry, performers, producers,


Obviously the Jewish (some, maybe most) will defend their own views and peoples the best they can. They have an influence on the media rather than a control over the media.

Regardless of who is in control there is an adage: when the majority is controlled by the minority the empire will fall. When you don't know who the minority is and what they are trying to do...that is the scary part. Other countries (Europe, Middle East, China, Russia) see the US as bloodthirsty wolves out on a rampage. Those who are the minority know this and they shelter themselves behind values: we are all equal, ten commandments, etc... In reality, you either have someone above you or someone below, never an equal. It's all about money; big companies making big money.

This post has been edited by 1_smack_for_2: 03 March 2005 - 02:01 PM