That's brilliant

 

Why not just make a black movie called "Every problem we have is because of white people" then give it an oscar for every category and call it a day .

In fact let's elect it president and give it a Nobel prize to boot.

 

Moonlight was dogshit on a plate for losers.

And I am insulting no one. Because only 30 people watched it in theaters, and those of us who watched the dogshit after it was nominated scratched our heads and said WTF is this dogshit on a plate.

 

I concede the point: Fences was a hell of a lot better than Moonlight.

But how about this:

The fucking award is called Oscar for BEST PICTURE.

It is not called Token Chew Toy for Dogshit on a Plate.

So why not give the fucking BEST PICTURE award to the BEST PICTURE?!

How fucking hard is that?

 

Let's do baseball first ...

It is not only the BBWAA that chooses the list of players that are considered annually but more precisely "The Veterans Committee which consists of 4 subcommittee's and it is quite an exclusive club to be both named and selected for the Hall of Fame. As of January 2017 , 317 people had been elected to the Hall of Fame, including 220 former Major League Baseball players, 35 Negro league baseball players and executives, 22 managers, 10 umpires, and 30 pioneers, executives, and organizers.

At one point a player that met the prerequisites could be nominated up to 15 times but that has changed and as such a few of the players nominated again for 2017 are down to one more strike at their last at bat, literally. McGriff, Raines and Smith are all on the ballot for the final time. Players used to remain on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years, though that was reduced to 10 not too long ago. Smith was grandfathered in, which is why he is on the ballot for the 15th time while McGriff and Raines are both on for the 10th time. Here are the guys that have been nominated but not voted in yet.

2016 voting percentage/ Years on ballot

Jeff Bagwell
71.6% 6
Barry Bonds
44.3% 4
Roger Clemens
45.2% 4
Trevor Hoffman
68.3% 1
Jeff Kent
16.6% 3
Edgar Martinez
43.4% 7
Fred McGriff
20.9% 9
Mike Mussina
43.0% 3
Tim Raines
69.8% 9
Curt Schilling
52.3% 4
Gary Sheffield
11.6% 2
Lee Smith
34.1% 14
Sammy Sosa
7.0% 4
Billy Wagner
10.5% 1
Larry Walker
15.5% 6

As a reminder, a player needs to receive 75 percent of the vote for induction into the Hall of Fame and at least 5 percent of the vote to stay on the ballot another year. Historically, when a player gets over 70 percent of the vote but falls short of induction, he gets in the following year. That bodes well for Bagwell.

To be eligible for the Hall of Fame, a player must have played at least 10 years in MLB and played their final game at least five years ago. Here are the 19 newcomers to the Hall of Fame ballot, listed alphabetically to round out the 34 players eligible.

Casey Blake
Pat Burrell
Orlando Cabrera
Mike Cameron
J.D. Drew
Carlos Guillen
Vladimir Guerrero
Derek Lee
Melvin Mora
Magglio Ordonez
Jorge Posada
Manny Ramirez
Edgar Renteria
Arthur Rhodes
Ivan Rodriguez
Freddy Sanchez
Matt Stairs
Jason Varitek
Tim Wakefield

Manny, Vlad and Rodriguez are the most notable newcomers to the ballot. Ramirez has first-ballot Hall of Fame credentials but is unlikely to ever be voted into Cooperstown after being suspended not once, but twice for performance-enhancing drugs.

Rodriguez is simply one of the greatest catchers in baseball history -- his 2,749 hits as a catcher are by far the most ever -- though it remains to be seen whether he gets swept up in PED suspicion like Bagwell and other players from his era. The same is true of Guerrero, who was one of the most exciting players of his generation.


Vladimir Guerrero and Tim Raines are both Hall of Fame eligible this year. USATSI
Other newcomers like Ordonez and Posada figure to generate plenty of Hall of Fame debate. Blake, Cabrera, Mora, Rhodes and Stairs are among the players likely to be one-and-done, meaning they won't receive the necessary 5 percent of the vote to remain on the ballot another year.

Hall of Fame voters must submit their ballots by Dec. 31. The 2017 Hall of Fame class was announced during a live MLB Network broadcast on Wednesday, Jan. 18.

You of course are entitled to your opinion and we will agree to disagree here ... could it be a better selection process, YES, but people in the know are charged with that honor and we know of what we speak when it comes to baseball given the limitations imposed in selecting players and keeping politics out of the equation. I write under contract for the Canadian Press (Associated Press) and submit articles to both TSN and ESPN that are picked up by other news outlets and as much as I am NOT on the committee I do know some that are and voice my opinions regularly ... for what it's worth LOL.

As for the Oscars and other awards, they are of importance to a degree to acknowledge outstanding achievements in film, television,radio and internet. Acting is one thing, being believable and doing justice to those they portray is another thing entirely ... Box office production studio's are an old boys network and quite exclusive as well and yes they beat a dead horse most years recycling the same films over and over but the general public is obsessed with Hollywood and it is a multi billion dollar industry that employs a lot of people. Guys like me that help get lesser films made thereby employing less than household names for the most part though arranging financing for some films that would otherwise never see the light of day. Just a note on that financing comment, some here attack me when I say that and are assuming that that money comes out of my pocket and yes some of it does to get a percentage of receipts but I connect film makers with bankers and the like when mainstream banks turn them down. I am not made of money and never said I was, just that I can afford to throw it around where it can do some good and open some doors ... BUT yes costs are out of control in salaries as well as production costs yet films like the Fast series still rake in half a billion dollars in less than a week and them fuckers definitely can not act lol, but are good at wrecking shit which sells tickets.

I could go on for pages but will nip it there as I probably lost most readers in the first paragraph but will conclude by saying that sport and entertainment are both a necessary part of society.

 

Being a bit of theater geek, I'm actually more into the "lesser" Oscars, and even the "other" Oscars for technical/production achievement that are awarded days before the Big Show. (There are many dozens of Oscars, for all aspects of production, which is lost on many.)

The point is that the awards are supposed to be about merit. Excellence of application and execution.

But they've become something else. They've become a joke. Just like the Nobel Prize. And so many other "prizes."

One of the last prizes that I still respect is the Fields Medal for Mathematics. It is PURELY meritocratic. So much so, that the International Congress of Mathematicians will sometimes go one or more years without awarding it!

How refreshing would that be, on Oscar Night? "Ladies and Gentlement, there will be no Oscar for Best Picture this year. Nothing this year EARNED it."

 

Good post clarise.

Moonlight won partly to appease those that felt left out a couple years back when one could get blinded by all the whiteness in the nominee's.

 

"partly." LOL.

You guys are dancing around it, I can tell.

No one wants to say why Moonlight won, because we have gay friends here on this board, whom we do not want to risk offending.

So I'll say it. And be the goat.

Moonlight had it all.
1. Blacks
2. Drugs
3. Whores
4. Interracial love (Black/Hispanic)
5. Gay interracial love
6. Gay underaged interracial love

Moonlight had it all. The full monty. A wet dream for the politically correct.

 

All the musical vocals were live.

And "Seb" (Ryan Gosling) played all of the jazz piano. Live. (Great modern jazz, btw.)

And who knew he and Emma Stone are accomplished tap dancers?

And the moving camera shots... all live, no effects....

And critics dismiss it as merely a parody of Hollywood. Not at all. The story is about sacrifice. Which only those who have lived can really understand. In youth you meet your first love. You and he mutually set each other free, in pursuit of dreams. Years later, you happen on each other again. And observe that your respective dreams have been fulfilled. Sacrifice validated. But for a brief instant, your eyes meet, and you both fantasize that maybe-- just maybe-- it could have gone differently, and you might have had it ALL, by somehow staying together, and fulfilling your dreams together, without the sacrifice. Which, of course, is impossible.

It is an age old story.

I've seen it twice now, and the second time, I saw so much more. The entire movie was new.

How the FUCK did this movie not win over that dogshit trash?

 

Actually I don't know anything at all about Lala land I've never seen it and the only thing that would recommend it to me is that Emma stone is in it.

I have sort of a prejudice against musicals however and any movie where people inexplicably start singing and dancing Is not my cup of tea .

 

Moonlight has no singing or dancing.

Something for everyone.