Solving the #OscarsSoWhite Controversy

[maninahat]

If you knock it off with the straw arguments, it might not feel like a tactical retreat. Nowhere did I say that white people are incapable of judging, so stop insisting I did.

You said diversity is needed because they can't judge actors from others races, that clearly implies an underlying argument that caucasians are unfit to be judges because of their race.

No I didn't. I said a mostly white panel has an bias that favours white actors and directors. That is not the same at all as saying they are utterly incapable of recognising black actors. It is also not the same as saying such a bias is exclusively a white trait, nor that white people are incapable of judging. Similarly, me saying we should have diversity on the panel is not the same as saying we should have no white people on the panel. You are tilting at windmills.

I think black people should have been nominated because there are Oscar worthy black performances this year.

Couldn't help but notice you conveniently forgot to mention who exactly, and why. Is that because you didn't have any performance in mind and simply don't like whites winning for being the best actors, and instead want judging to be based on race?

No, it's because it wasn't necessary to allow me to make the point.

All things being the same, it is statistically highly unlikely for situations to keep cropping up where no black people have been nominated.

Okay, show us you're not thinking in terms of race and show us your numbers. Since I've not seen you do that before, I'll be nice and give you a list of data you need to calculate:
1 - Which percentage of actors is black
2 - Which percentage of all actors makes it onto the oscar nomination list
3 - Then calculate the likely probability of a single actor making onto the nominations list
4 - Then divide that number by the percentage you found at 1
5 - Then deduct that number 4 from the total number of actors
6 - Repeat the chance you found at 5 by ^5
7 - This is the probability of a nominations list without any black people on it

Suppose that probability would be below 50% or something, maybe then you could start to make a case. Good luck with your research.

Someone already did the maths. There is an article linked earlier in this thread. Here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

Doing it on a case by case basis seems like a way convenient way ignore the elephant in the room.

The elephant being racists on Twitter and in questionable media demanding for nominations based on race instead of a case-by-case review of talent and performance?

I mean, the Oscars are individual rewards for excellence, so case-by-case is literally the only way to go.

Which leads you to the argument that there were no Oscar worthy POC performances this year.

 

[maninahat]

No I didn't. I said a mostly white panel has an bias that favours white actors and directors.

That's quite a bold and slanderous claim, accusing the entire jury of racism. I look forward to you showing documents or other evidence of this conspiracy, or withdrawing your claims.

I could link you [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=studies+on+unconscious+bias&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4x4KtvpXLAhXjFZoKHRJCBi8QgQMIHTAA&safe=strict] to a bunch of scholarly articles on the subject of unconscious bias if you like. But, assuming you aren't able to access them, I can forward you a test you can do on yourself to see if you yourself exhibit unconscious biases (hint: everyone does):
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

Someone already did the maths. There is an article linked earlier in this thread. Here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

"Oscar nominations have not dramatically under-represented black actors." Thank you. And as we see in their numbers, including the social class correlation with ethnic group in the US, you could actually say black people have been overrepresented in the oscars, making up only 12% of the population, mostly lower social classes who could never make it to Hollywood, and yet winning 10% of all awards.

I am curious as to why you think a 12% section of the population getting 10% of awards is "over-representation"? Perhaps I am displaying some statistical ignorance, but surely that 12% would have to get more than 12% of the awards to be over-represented, whilst any less than 12% is under-representation? I'm also curious why you have not mentioned how over-represented white people are?

Which leads you to the argument that there were no Oscar worthy POC performances this year.

I've no idea what a POC performance is. Is that some genre of threatre or another term? Remember that I only speak four languages and "politically correct bollocks" isn't one of them.

It stands for "people of colour".

But anyway, back to the original issue of that paragraph, was the elephant in the room black supremacists argueing that the oscars should be given based on race instead of merit? Anything other than that, and case-by-case reviewing of people's performance is the only way to go.

No, it was that a competition that is supposed to be based on merit actually is disproportionately weighed towards white people, as demonstrated by the lack of black nominations this year, and other years too. Unless you think the judgement was fair and that there were no black performances worth celebrating, you can't argue there isn't something amiss with that selection process.

Also, "black supremacists"?

 

[Prepper247]

One more thought popped into my head. If they cast more roles with minorities, the nominations would be more balanced if I believe.

 

[Gengisgame]

One more thought popped into my head. If they cast more roles with minorities, the nominations would be more balanced if I believe.

Movies don't revolve around the oscars and sticking with theme by minorities I assume you mean blacks.

Blacks are a very small percentage of the cinema going population but are over represented, REMEMBER the cinema going population is not just Americans.

 

[axlryder]

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html[/url]

I just took a ton of those tests and it said I showed "little to no bias" in any category. If anything these tests just make me feel less racist. So thanks for that I guess.

 

[springheeljack]

Honestly the controversy isn't even about the academy awards at all it's about the barriers and lack of chances that black people face when trying to become writers, directors, actors.

 

[maninahat]

I could link you [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=studies+on+unconscious+bias&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4x4KtvpXLAhXjFZoKHRJCBi8QgQMIHTAA&safe=strict] to a bunch of scholarly articles on the subject of unconscious bias if you like.

So you basically admit your accusation was slander for which you have no evidence other than vague pseudo-scientific babble? Why accuse in the first place if you know you can't back it up?

You requested evidence and I provide a link to it. The burden now falls on you to demonstrate how these articles are "pseudo-scientific", otherwise you are making that assertion on no grounds. You can start by reading them.

Perhaps I am displaying some statistical ignorance, but surely that 12% would have to get more than 12% of the awards to be over-represented, whilst any less than 12% is under-representation?

Not every person alive of a certain group automatically qualifies as a potential oscar winner. If I have a group of plumbers and electricians who are 30% of the population somehow, I'd expect them to win 0% of all oscar awards.

If we found that plumbers and electricians won 0,1% of the Oscars, something really weird would be going on.

We aren't measuring the statistics of plumbers though. That chart measures the proportion of black actors and the proportion of black actors who are nominated or have won Oscars.

I am curious as to why you think a 12% section of the population getting 10% of awards is "over-representation"?

You'd expect a 12% minority that's statistically found mostly in the lower classes, to win a very small portion of awards handed out to exclusively higher social class people.

12% x percentage found in higher social class, that would suggest a much lower share of awards is the expected outcome. Giving it a stab based on the wealth gap, we'd find black people have a little over half the median income of US citizens of some kind of asian descent, the highest earning collection of ethnic groups.

So already cut in half, we need to add the effects of social dynamics and voluntary segregation. If people asociate with the lower class, it diminishes their chances in life, so the share of a half should be even lower.

I'd guesstimate an expected award-winning percentage of around 3-8% for black actors/directors in the US. 10% is an overrepresentation.

Either something is different is about black actors, or they are being privileged in the selection. I expect the latter given the American tendency to racism in favour of black people.

Fascinating, how much burden you place on me to provide you with comprehensive statistical evidence, whereas you permit yourself to "guesstimate" the expected number of award winning black-actors. We already have the proportion of black actors in the film industry, so you don't have to guess. It was in that chart.

No, it was that a competition that is supposed to be based on merit actually is disproportionately weighed towards white people, as demonstrated by the lack of black nominations this year, and other years too.

Yeah, except you both can't prove that, and statistical bias suggests a pro-black bias with an unexpectedly high number of black actors and directors winning, so not only is this claim untrue, but the opposite of it is plausible.

Is this based on the chart I provided which shows the opposite, or your guesstimations?

 

[BytByte]

That was the weirdest Oscars ever. They poked fun at themselves and somehow made it worse. God damn that was fun

 

[maninahat]

You requested evidence and I provide a link to it. The burden now falls on you to demonstrate how these articles are "pseudo-scientific", otherwise you are making that assertion on no grounds. You can start by reading them.

No, you accused the oscar judges of racism.

You failed to provide evidence and instead showed some vague link about subconcious bias, which may or may not be true.

Only possible conclusion: You lied

I didn't say the judges were racist, so I'm not looking to provide proof of racism. I did say they exhibited an unconscious bias, and provided a link to studies to show how people exhibit unconscious bias.

We aren't measuring the statistics of plumbers though. That chart measures the proportion of black actors and the proportion of black actors who are nominated or have won Oscars.

No, you used total population. Obviously not all people of an ethnic group are all actors or directors.

Look at the chart more carefully. There is a bar for population, a bar for actors, a bar for nominees, a bar for winners, and a bar for SAG members. Each bar is broken down by race.

Fascinating, how much burden you place on me to provide you with comprehensive statistical evidence, whereas you permit yourself to "guesstimate" the expected number of award winning black-actors.

I'm not the one advocating there's a racist conspiracy by a jury going on.

Neither am I. "Unconscious" means not conscious. An active collusion to not vote for black people would be concious, and not at all what I was talking about. My burden begins and ends with proving that unconscious bias exists in all selection processes, so I have done that by linking to the studies that prove it.

I can suffice shooting down the pathetic excuses offered up to try and get a racist quota system imposed where X% of all jury members or nominees must be black, regardless of merit.

We are arguing about a system that clearly shows white people are disproportionately given a preference at the Oscars, regardless of merit. Funny how you complain about the idea of a racist quota system that would arbitrarily favour black people, but don't complain about the current system that self-evidently favours white people.

Also your earlier chart is quite useless because it doesn't show which type of actor we're dealing with, and doesn't include directors.

Look at the chart again. The study restricts itself to film actors and Oscars for film actors. And it classes those film actors by "speaking parts" and "top roles".

 

[Musou Tensei]

The Oscars should be only about merit and be colorblind, race, sexuality etc. should not matter in the slightest, else it will become absolutely pointless if they implement equality rules or some shit like that "well technically you definitely deserve the Oscar more, but your skin color is already overrepresented, so fuck off."

Tbh though, I think the Oscars should be abolished completely.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The Oscars should be only about merit

How do you objectively define merit, especially in something as subjective as films, though.

Tbh though, I think the Oscars should be abolished completely.

Yeah, or seriously tone done the importance it gives itself, the very concept is rather foolish.

 

[Musou Tensei]

The Oscars should be only about merit

How do you objectively define merit, especially in something as subjective as films, though.

Good question, it sure feels like an impossible task, the Oscars would be need to be completely revamped, not really worth it.

 

[maninahat]

We are arguing about a system that clearly shows white people are disproportionately given a preference at the Oscars, regardless of merit.

No, you were accusing qualified judges in a fair competition based on merit, because the results of the merit-based system are not what you want them to be. You showed no evidence of white people having an advantage. Just completely irrelevant correlations. Here, let me quote you yourself denying that you even made that accusation:

I didn't say the judges were racist, so I'm not looking to provide proof of racism.

You're allowed to change your opinion of course, but what's it going to be? Either the merit-based system is fine and you could think there's some possible kind of subconcious bias, or it's racism, there is proof of that, and the current system needs to be changed.

At any rate we can't doublehthink this issue and not prove that racism is involved, but then want to change the oscar system because there's racism. Either the system is fine, or there is racism + proof. Those are the options.

You are trying to frame this as a straightforward dichotomy, when in fact what I am arguing is neither of the two options. I am not accusing the judges of racism, but I am also not saying the system is without problems. What I am saying is that the judges have a bias, and the consequences of having a homogeneous panel means that their collective bias makes a supposedly fair system unfair. My evidence has been to show that everyone exhibits such a bias, and that there is a statistical imbalance Oscar results that can't be explained by mere chance.

Meanwhile, you seem to think the lack of any winning POC actors is just the results of a fair system that decided none were Oscar worthy this year, and in other years too. If that isn't the case, I would like you to elaborate on your views.

 

[maninahat]

You are trying to frame this as a straightforward dichotomy

Because it is. Either there is racism and the system needs to be changed, or it's judging on merit and the system is fine.

when in fact what I am arguing is neither of the two options. I am not accusing the judges of racism, but I am also not saying the system is without problems.

So now you're trying to doublethink. There's no racism, but there's problems with racism. Make up your mind.

What I am saying is that the judges have a bias, and the consequences of having a homogeneous panel means that their collective bias makes a supposedly fair system unfair

So you've changed your opinion from what you said earlier, and believe that white people can't ever be judges?

This is getting very confusing with you constantly alternating between throwing around accusations of racism playing a role, and then denying racism plays a role.

You're the one that keeps using the word "racism", whereas I have been careful not to describe it as such. I don't know whether it is deliberate trolling or just poor reading comprehension, but you constantly misinterpret my argument and then demand me to prove something totally ludicrous and irrelevant to what I was saying. For instance, you read my quote:

"What I am saying is that the judges have a bias, and the consequences of having a homogeneous panel means that their collective bias makes a supposedly fair system unfair"

and from that extrapolated:

"Okay, so the judges are a problem, white people can't judge, cuz, race."

Again, that's a false representation of my argument, and not the one I've been defending.

My evidence has been to show that everyone exhibits such a bias, and that there is a statistical imbalance Oscar results that can't be explained by mere chance.

Except that it can, because the awards are given based on merit, not on race. You're not just ignoring that the competition is fair, but you haven't even begun to prove what the merits of black vs white actors and directors are. Because not only are these irrelevant correlations small, but your entire assumption that race = merit is wrong. You need to look at individual cases. Come back when a mediocre white actor wins, when a massively good and well-published performance by a black actor is ignored.

Either start showing the merits and an imbalance in that, or stop this silly conspiracy theory slash racist agenda.

I've got a better idea. Instead of me posting about my views yet again, why don't you offer something to the conversation and explain why you think there have been no Oscar worthy POC performances this year? If you are arguing that the system is fair and based exclusively on merit, then you can offer some justification for why no black actors deserved to win this time around.

 

[maninahat]

"What I am saying is that the judges have a bias, and the consequences of having a homogeneous panel means that their collective bias makes a supposedly fair system unfair"
and from that extrapolated:
"Okay, so the judges are a problem, white people can't judge, cuz, race."
Again, that's a false representation of my argument, and not the one I've been defending.

How is it false? You say their race causes them to discriminate, and you think this is actual racism because you even want to change the entire awards system over it, away from merit and towards a system where your race determines what you can win or not.

I am not proposing we change to a system where awards are determined by race. Instead I am suggesting we have more diversity on the judging panel, to reduce the influence of biases, which are already hampering the contest. My suggestion would actually make it more of a meritocracy and less of a race game, bearing in mind the undeniable fact that race already determines whether you are more likely to win or not in this current iteration of the Oscars. You are misunderstanding me. Nowhere have I said that white judges aren't capable of judging, or that awards should be given based on race. What I have said actually promotes the opposite view.

I've got a better idea. Instead of me posting about my views yet again, why don't you offer something to the conversation and explain why you think there have been no Oscar worthy POC performances this year?

Let's instead analyse your thought process here:
-Black people must always win the oscar, because black
-Their merits don't matter
-I won't say anything about acting or directing merits by way of proof
-If this horrible sheppie wants to annoy me with asking why they should've won this year, he has to prove they shouldn't win despite their blackness

Now do you see why I am pointing at racism? You're still not showing any film productions with the merit of winning, yet you assume they should win based on race alone. Entitled, because race, that is racism.

You've dodged the question so that you could go tipping at windmills again. Please answer the question.

 

[maninahat]

I am not proposing we change to a system where awards are determined by race. Instead I am suggesting we have more diversity on the judging panel

So you're proposing that white are unfit to judge, so we must forcibly impose judges of different races to ensure enough 'blackness' in the awards

No.

which are already hampering the contest.

Citation direly needed as this point has been defeated three or four times already. No correlation nonsense, proof only.

You've failed to demonstrate the Oscar Awards have a racism problem, and you've even literally said yourself that they don't have a racism problem.You can't continue to doublethink this and pretend you've proven anything by showing an irrelevant correlation.

To recap, I showed you proof that white people are vastly more likely to be nominated for awards than any other race. I also provided you scientific proof of the influence of unconscious bias. This isn't an irrelevant correlation, it is proof that a particular panel that is ostensibly judging people equally, actually favours white people. That isn't proof of racism, and I am not trying to prove there is racism. Instead I have shown you the mechanism that leads to a p

My suggestion would actually make it more of a meritocracy and less of a race game

This is contradictory. A few sentence before this you said less meritocracy, instead dismiss and appoint judges based on race. What's the definitive answer? Based on merit and the current system is fine, or no longer based on merit, but based on race?

The ideal system should be a meritocracy, but the current system is a flawed meritocracy, by its evident bias towards white actors. So what I am proposing is a method to eliminate that bias and ensure it is a meritocracy. That's not contradictory, that's straightforward, and also what the Oscar panel has just proposed it will be doing.

The weird thing is that when people talk about this in terms of anything other than race, they jump right on board. People complain about how the Oscar panel is ridiculously fond of "important", historical dramas and tend to snub entire other genres. They point to the fact that the panel is made up of very like minded individuals, and that getting some fresh blood would potentially result in a more comedies/horrors/sci-fis and fantasy movies getting Oscars.

You've dodged the question so that you could go tipping at windmills again. Please answer the question.

Why are you being so rude? I'm okay with the present merit-based system. You're the one who claims it's not based on merit, and constantly refusing to prove that accusation.

Let's work with that then. You say you're okay present system, which means you are choosing to overlook the semi-regular whitewashing. Why are you happy to overlook that?

The only question I'm dodging is passing judgment on your motivations for wanting such a racist system. I think the essence of your error is that you believe in the bullshit myth of 'colourblind racism'. A dogmatic political theory which holds that we MUST have racism, otherwise a meritocratic system will automatically result in even worswe 'colourblind' racism.

I don't know what colourblind racism is. Please tell me more.

 

[maninahat]

I also provided you scientific proof of the influence of unconscious bias.

No, you cited a pamphlet which observed the correlation between social class and award succes, which didn't even set out to prove anything judging by the lack of statistics backing up the significance of differences found.

Should I take that to mean you didn't look at the link I provided to the various white papers discussing unconscious bias? You shouldn't demand evidence if you are only going to ignore it when it is provided.

This isn't an irrelevant correlation, it is proof that a particular panel that is ostensibly judging people equally, actually favours white people.

Contrary to what black supremacists may think, a white person winning an award is not proof that that white person hates all black people.

Let's not go down that road of insane reasoning.

No one is, but that somehow doesn't stop you from trying to refute an argument no one is making.

So what I am proposing is a method to eliminate that bias and ensure it is a meritocracy.

No, you're saying something is wrong with the current system, and you proposed sacking white jury members because of their race and impose forcibly 'diversity' instead of meritocracy. Which I've said before is racism, is unacceptable, and not an option.

Who said anything about sacking white jury members? Please quote me where I did.

The weird thing is that when people talk about this in terms of anything other than race, they jump right on board. People complain about how the Oscar panel is ridiculously fond of "important", historical dramas and tend to snub entire other genres. They point to the fact that the panel is made up of very like minded individuals, and that getting some fresh blood would potentially result in a more comedies/horrors/sci-fis and fantasy movies getting Oscars.

Never bought into that. Films made for plot or acting quality or films made purely for revenue are two separate industries. The oscars aren't about that. Although I suppose they could make a "biggest commercial succes oscar" if they wanted.

We're not talking about commercial success. We're talking about how, say, a film like Ex Machina might have some exceptionally clever writing and acting, but only get nominated for special effects; how a sci-fi film could be exceptional over all, and still easily get ignored by the Oscar panel because it isn't what they tend to like watching.

Let's work with that then. You say you're okay present system, which means you are choosing to overlook the semi-regular whitewashing. Why are you happy to overlook that?

You failed to prove racism plays a role in the current oscar judging and even explicitly stated you didn't want to make that accusation, so you can't speak of 'whitewashing'. You yourself admitted it doesn't happen.

The entire discussion is about how all 2015 acting nominees were white. This is being referred to as a "white wash". It has happened quite a lot in Oscar history, and still happens. The only explanation you have offered for this happening is "income, succes and social class". I don't understand what you mean by that, could you please expand on it?

I don't know what colourblind racism is. Please tell me more.

The SJW/black supremacist idea that not judging people based on race or better said: Equal treatment, that this equal treatment is in fact racism before [insert group] doesn't always win under that system.

That's literally the opposite of what the critics are saying. They want a merit based system and are criticising the Oscars for being influenced by race, as evidenced by the blatantly disproportionate number of white people winning vs every other race. That doesn't mean they want a quota system or to sack white judges, those are assumptions you have made about the criticisms.

 

[LawAndChaos]

As an addendum to all this, the IAT tests (one of which I personally tried online) that have been circling around lately (and to my knowledge it has been relatively recent) was something that was mentioned on the Marketplace. I remember doing one of these IAT in relation to "unconscious bias against women in scientific fields" or something like that, and the test itself is flawed.
It's entirely based around reflex programming through hitting buttons to sort words, and when it swaps the words around on you after you've adapted to the initial pattern it attempts to use the fact that you're messing up to being "unconsciously sexist/racist/whatever" when in reality it's merely because your reflexes have adapted to sorting words a certain way in the initial phase of the test. It programs a pattern into you and then tries to mess with that pattern to imply some semblance of unconscious bias.

If you want to argue unconscious bias, then it makes more sense to state that the bias comes from the fact that in a story people are more likely to connect with someone who they can relate to or project themselves onto, and thus have a deeper emotional connection with some stories than others. But when you think about it that has little to do with race and more to do with a person's own experiences and opinions.

Also, gonna break this down real quick.

That's literally the opposite of what the critics are saying. They want a merit based system and are criticising the Oscars for being influenced by race, as evidenced by the blatantly disproportionate number of white people winning vs every other race.

This is literally accusing them of being discriminatory, I don't see how it isn't. "The oscars are favoring white people over other races." How is that not implying racial discrimination? Don't give me the unconscious bias thing, I already stated above the problem with that argument.

That doesn't mean they want a quota system or to sack white judges, those are assumptions you have made about the criticisms.

Then you consider #Oscarstoowhite to not be a hastag movement that declares the Oscars are too white?

As an addendum to this addendum, I recall people mentioning Creed earlier in this thread as being something that deserved nomination, but was supposedly excluded because #Oscarstoowhite.

Uh, considering that Creed, regardless of cast, looks like yet another Rocky film with a different title, it would not surprise me if the Oscars judges came at with rather cynically, considering they've likely viewed previous Rocky films and by this point felt it was literally nothing new.

Now that's just me making assumptions because I haven't seen the film myself, so if there's something in it that's groundbreaking or is treading new ground compared to the Rocky films, feel free to correct me by pointing it out.

But by and large I feel that most of this is just outrage against an awards show that in and of itself is so antiquated already (since it stubbornly chooses to exclude entire genres) that the idea of calling for any kind of change should focus more on improving the shows in a manner that helps everyone. I don't think demanding "diversity" in this way will improve things. I think instead it will force the Oscars to pay lip service to a minority demographic in an attempt to placate the people spewing vitriol/outrage/criticism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you want to argue unconscious bias, then it makes more sense to state that the bias comes from the fact that in a story people are more likely to connect with someone who they can relate to or project themselves onto, and thus have a deeper emotional connection with some stories than others. But when you think about it that has little to do with race and more to do with a person's own experiences and opinions.

Ah, but then we must ask why do people relate more with some than with others? People don't have trouble relating to space marines or James Bond, apparently, but do with people of different ethnicities. And then, only certain different ethnicities and those change over time.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Ah, but then we must ask why do people relate more with some than with others? People don't have trouble relating to space marines or James Bond, apparently, but do with people of different ethnicities. And then, only certain different ethnicities and those change over time.

Well the thing with James Bond is similar to Indiana Jones.

James Bond is a charming, english spy. He could easily be any ethnicity, so long as he is still a charming, english spy. (And before you even state it, yes you can be a different race and still be England-born.). See that's the beauty of characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones; they're not really realistic or relatable, but they represent an ideal fantasy.

Caricatures like Bond and Indy are charming, heroic characters. They're good with women, they're unambiguously the good guy, they're cool, (in Bond's case, he has all those cool gadgets), they go on adventures, etc. They are the classical hero with a fresh coat of paint. Despite all that, the characters themselves have no character. Indiana symbolically is just the hat and the ideal he represents. Bond is not really that different. That's how Bond was able to be effectively portrayed by both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan so effectively, and while blond Bond got some friction, people warmed to it quickly because if I recall correctly they kept the spirit of Bond intact.

In that regard, so long as the spirit of what the character is can be kept intact, their appearance doesn't really matter at all.

It's also part of why the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did so poorly; Harrison Ford is older now, and like it or not he's not as spry as he used to be. As a result Indy himself was not nearly as enjoyable, because they didn't keep the spirit of his character (as an ass-kicking archaeologist going on adventures and beating up bad guys) intact. Of course Crystal Skull failed for many other reasons, but Indy not being as Indy as he used to be was a part of that.