-
-
I actually prefer Keoghan but that win is shady, there’s no reason for it. I get that they can feel free to go with whatever but Quan literally swept everything else at that point, if he was white they wouldn’t have ignored that.
Quan had swept the critics awards to that point. People in the industry might prefer Keoghan’s performance, as you do and I do and many others no doubt.
ReplyCopy URLQuan had swept the critics awards to that point. People in the industry might prefer Keoghan’s performance, as you do and I do and many others no doubt.
He went 3/3 with the trifecta and also won GG and CC. He’ll probably win SAG. When Waltz and Simmons did the same they had no issue winning the BAFTA. I love Keoghan so obviously I’m happy for him but this situation does leave a sour taste.
ReplyCopy URLGrammys Album of the Year: Harry's House ✨
2023: Year of the JerEMMYs
He went 3/3 with the trifecta and also won GG and CC. He’ll probably win SAG. When Waltz and Simmons did the same they had no issue winning the BAFTA. I love Keoghan so obviously I’m happy for him but this situation does leave a sour taste.
It only leaves a sour taste to the easily offended, who are determined to perceive everything as racism. A lot of whom appear to be regular GD contributors.
ReplyCopy URLWhat is the criteria for a BAFTA jury pick? Is it spelled out anywhere? I had thought that the jury was supposed to try to ensure that both excellent performances in films unlikely to be widely seen by the general membership are included among the nominations and that excellent performances by “diverse” candidates are included among the nominations. Am I correct or incorrect?
I can understand why many find offensive the suggestion that a diverse actor who received a nomination was a jury pick but my sense is that such a suggestion is not at all an expression of the view that the diverse candidate was in any sense less deserving of a nomination than those selected by the general membership; on the contrary, I think the suggestion that a diverse candidate was likely saved by the jury accurately reflects the reality that the general membership is often less likely to view films with diverse actors and may well be less likely to “appropriately” value the quality of the performances of diverse actors.
ReplyCopy URLDumb comment. Plenty of diversity in the nominees. Do you want set quota of POC winners each year?
But that’s where it stops: “nominees” this jury was set in place to make this organization seem diverse, but it doesn’t change the fact that their winners will continue to be far from diverse. These are facts.
ReplyCopy URLDumb comment. Plenty of diversity in the nominees. Do you want set quota of POC winners each year?
But that’s where it stops: “nominees” this jury was set in place to make this organization seem diverse, but it doesn’t change the fact that their winners will continue to be far from diverse. These are facts.Yep i agree Just give ALL the awards to non deserves people like Angela Basset ☠️
ReplyCopy URLBut that’s where it stops: “nominees” this jury was set in place to make this organization seem diverse, but it doesn’t change the fact that their winners will continue to be far from diverse. These are facts.
Well, in fairness, the changes were a specific response to a lack of diversity among the nominees. I doubt they really thought in three years they would achieve a significant change with the actual winners. For that, they will probably need a big membership overhaul (and even that does not guarantee much as we´ve seen at the Oscars).
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
