I don't like the idea of diversity for the sake of it, any award should be in merit. If there are glaring omissions then that has to be looked at. The LGHQG lot will stick their oar in soon.
And the winner is ........ the best person at the job, their colour or gender or sexual preference is totally irrelevant, and diversity is bollocks if it means you HAVE to include someone based on this.
Nobody cares who the best original vest designer was, but everybody would care who won tits of the year. They just need to get with the times, useless ****s. please log in to view this image
Can’t recall any films in the last year starring a black actor that are a patch on The Joker and 1917 Oscars are for ****Z anyway
And the winner is... The film that pleases the white, gay, rich old foggies on the awards panel the most. For example La La Land ffs. Put some diversity into the judging process and you'll get a much broader scope of what's awards worthy. Keep giving the same people the same power then you will get the same results. It's not diversity for diversity's sake. It's diversity for fairness sake. An oscar nomination can put millions on the gate receipts for a film and untold kudos to the film makers. It can make their chances of making their next film a whole lot easier. So it matters.
Joker is not a great film. It is enhanced by the leads performance which brings it out of the realms of mediocrity. Just Mercy, If Beal street could talk are far better films and both have incredible performances from the actors in them.
Antonio Banderas's performance in Pain and Glory was definitely worth a nomination and Alma Har'el should have been nominated for best director for Honey boy. She just doesn't have the right credentials, a cock.
you are the dullest person in the galaxy , so the first time I care or get even remotely interested in anything you say I will have a rethink..
Roys been hella sensitive since that bird stood him up. Remember mate we dont want you turning into comm all sexless and miserable.
