Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
Starting in 2024, would-be Oscar nominees must meet specific representation and inclusion standards in order to be eligible for the Best Picture category.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences unveiled the requirements on Tuesday, saying they are intended to "encourage equitable representation on and off screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience." Change starts now. We've announced new representation and inclusion standards for Best Picture eligibility, beginning with the 96th #Oscars. Read more here: https://t.co/qdxtlZIVKb pic.twitter.com/hR6c2jb5LMThe Academy had promised the introduction of such standards earlier this summer, as it faced a fresh wave of criticism over the lack of diversity among its honorees and in the filmmaking industry more generally. In June, it announced an initiative called "Academy Aperture 2025," which includes a number of new policies aimed at fostering a more inclusive organization and film community going forward. "The aperture must widen to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and in the audiences who connect with them," they said. The new standards require films to fill a certain percentage of on-screen and behind-the-scenes roles with people from underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, people with disabilities and people from the LGTBQ community. The requirements fall into four categories: on-screen representation, creative leadership and project team, industry access and opportunities and audience development. Starting in 2024 — for the 96th Oscars — a film must meet two out of four standards to be considered. And beginning in 2022, films vying for Best Picture must submit a confidential "Academy Inclusion Standards" form, though they do not need to meet the criteria in order to be eligible. The Academy said its new rules were drawn from the British Film Institute Diversity Standards and adapted to serve its specific needs, in consultation with the Producers Guild of America. Other elements of the Aperture 2025 initiative include making annual unconscious bias training mandatory for Academy staff and setting a fixed number of ten Best Picture nominees starting in 2021. The 93rd Oscars will take place in April, two months later than originally planned due to the coronavirus pandemic. This is one of those good intentions thing that is actually disgusting. What happens with historical films...HAMILTON style works for Hamilton a musical not going to work for 1917. It's supposed to be about the art...disqualifying films because they don't pass a morals test in the staffing just seems antithetical to the award...Best Picture of XYZ. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
Haha. Good joke, bro. Really nice! Oh wait, today is not April fool's day!!!
|
|
This is frightening. I have definitely always been open to more diversity in the film industry, but this will just continue furthering the devolution of movie making becoming a factory-produced process. Instead of telling good stories which happen to include diverse groups, directors and producers will include them just to fill a criteria.
And if it makes no sense in a historical context to include some groups of people, that movie will immediately stand no chance of ever getting nominated. I'm glad I decided to never give a **** about the Oscars/Academy Awards or whatever, but even then I can't help feeling angry reading this. It's beyond parody. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
Jesus Christ!
Please someone take the piss out if them for this, like a Black historical epic set in Africa with white, Hispanic, Asian and LGBT all in there, or something like Braveheart/ with all black leads. |
I think the Academy and the film industry in general need to be more inclusive and represent a broader range of the human experience, but I'm not in favor of forcing this kind of thing.
To me, this just reads as Affirmative Action: Oscars Edition. |
Is it me, or could these new inclusion representative standards be anymore vague?
|
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
In fairness, they mention that a film just has to meet at least two of the four bolded categories, of which on-screen representation is only one and can therefore be circumvented as long as the production meets the (arguably more important) behind-the-scenes requirements. After all, one of the existing problems with prestige films centred around minority groups is that they may feature people from said groups but have behind-the-scenes creatives who aren't and are therefore liable to make poor use of them - Crash is a good example of that.
|
Just so y’all know, this doesn’t really change anything at all. Basically every nominee from the last decade passes 2/4 of these requirements. It may be irksome that the rules exist in the first place but I wouldn’t worry too much about the actual nominees having a drop in quality. Hell, Green Book and Crash - Two of the most racist and bizarre Best Picture Winners - pass the requirements. At least it’s a step in the right direction for Hollywood, even if doesn’t change anything.
|
Originally Posted by gandalf26 (Post 2123224)
Please someone take the piss out if them for this, like a Black historical epic set in Africa with white, Hispanic, Asian and LGBT all in there
Who cares? Hollywood's been dead for years now, and Europe has long lost its charm. Asia is where it's at nowadays. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
1. "These requirements are necessary."
2. "No reason to get worked up, films already do this without trying." Pick one. |
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123273)
1. "These requirements are necessary."
2. "No reason to get worked up, films already do this without trying." Pick one. |
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2123268)
And end up winning 10 Oscars! Haha!
Who cares? Hollywood's been dead for years now, and Europe has long lost its charm. Asia is where it's at nowadays. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
That's something a lot of people don't appreciate in other spheres, either: regulations often have the net effect not of constraining businesses, but of creating hoops that the little guys have a lot more trouble jumping through than the big ones. Which is one of the reasons why large corporations often advocate for them, contrary to what people might expect.
|
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123277)
The requirements aren’t necessary because they won’t actually change anything in Hollywood.
|
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123278)
Yes yes yes. I will also add independent studios like A24 that are thriving.
|
I knew when I saw this announced last night people would be up in arms about this. A few knee jerk reactions.
Thankfully it’s only 2 categories that need to be checked off. You can still cast as you wish as long as you fulfill your requirements in other areas. It’s a shame it has to be forced like this, and I understand quite often change has to be forced, but I feel the Oscars are wrong here. Good intentions, could have been implemented better. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123280)
Then how are they a "step in the right direction"?
|
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
If the thought counts, then it will change Hollywood, though. It either helps in some important way or it doesn't.
It's possible to think it will help in a purely symbolic way but not place burdens on most major productions (though, again, I emphasize "major"), but I think it's impossible for it to be a step in the right direction but also not change Hollywood. |
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2123285)
I knew when I saw this announced last night people would be up in arms about this. A few knee jerk reactions.
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123313)
True, but I think we've reached the really unfortunate point in these cultural debates where thoughtlessness and predictability of the kneejerk opposition to it incentivizes people to defend even fairly bad ideas, simply to try to counterbalance that (or because people are inherently disgusted by seeing a predictable reaction to anything, let alone a predictable overreaction).
I understand no one here is actually against more representation and career opportunities for minority and/or women. Especially behind the camera, which is where I feel more efforts should really go towards. The issue most will take is it being forced rather then allowing it to happen on its own. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
As I said before...we don't need black tom hanks or black brad pitt or black christian bale or black leo dicaprio or black matt damon or black johnny depp...we need black tarantino, black nolan, black scorsese or black spielberg....and we need those directors to risk the profile of their career by making movies with less famous black actors and make them famous in the process all while not giving up on their artistic merit. Ryan Coogler is a great example although he is not as talented as them.
|
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2123323)
Agreed, and it is indeed an overreaction on the Oscars part, But my comment was mostly towards the reactions to the casting part. It seemed like some missed the line where they only have to fulfill 2 of the criteria. They can still cast as they wish, especially where it makes sense.
I understand no one here is actually against more representation and career opportunities for minority and/or women. Especially behind the camera, which is where I feel more efforts should really go towards. The issue most will take is it being forced rather then allowing it to happen on its own. I'm annoyed by the casting part, and I agree that we need women and minorities in behind the scene work. But it needs to be either those two things or the other two which sounds like Production and Distribution but it's very vague. Having a system where a film has to be financed and approved but a cabal of people is basically creating a state sponsored art program. You are also creating something quantitative are films going to be judged based not on the art but the percentages of representations from the artists. Will we end up with a homogenization of ideas because only one line of thinking is acceptable. |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2123341)
I'm annoyed by the casting part, and I agree that we need women and minorities in behind the scene work. But it needs to be either those two things or the other two which sounds like Production and Distribution but it's very vague.
Having a system where a film has to be financed and approved but a cabal of people is basically creating a state sponsored art program. You are also creating something quantitative are films going to be judged based not on the art but the percentages of representations from the artists. Will we end up with a homogenization of ideas because only one line of thinking is acceptable. I like the idea of apprenticeships they proposed, if it’s handled correctly. * I think this will open up more opportunities for cinematographers and the like for them. Should it have been forced? Well, I guess the question I’m asking myself is when has change never been forced? Equal opportunity has seldom been given without someone demanding it to begin with. And if it’s being forced, its because inclusion has not been accurately handled. We wouldn’t be here if it was. |
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123266)
Hell, Green Book and Crash - Two of the most racist and bizarre Best Picture Winners
Excuse me, what? How on earth is Green Book racist? I found it a wonderful and uplifting movie. |
Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6 (Post 2123410)
Excuse me, what? How on earth is Green Book racist? I found it a wonderful and uplifting movie.
For further reading, since this has been talked about a lot: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...-golden-globes https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna938886 |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123310)
If the thought counts, then it will change Hollywood, though. It either helps in some important way or it doesn't.
It's possible to think it will help in a purely symbolic way but not place burdens on most major productions (though, again, I emphasize "major"), but I think it's impossible for it to be a step in the right direction but also not change Hollywood. |
Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6 (Post 2123422)
The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
|
Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6 (Post 2123422)
The reason I questioned your statement is because it makes no sense to me. Will you please elaborate what you mean instead?
No, I don't think that's reasonable, but that's usually what's going on with claims like these. EDIT: yup, I started reading the article (which I hadn't done before writing the above), and sure enough that's one of the complaints: "I worried that the screenplay ... might have glossed over the reality experienced by black Americans like Shirley." |
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123423)
If you want to play black and white, then no, it doesn’t help Hollywood in any important way.
I guess the issue here is that these responses feel reflexive, to me: it feels like people are often worried about not seeming like they're on the right side, so they need to express support for an idea that, when pressed, they actually agree is toothless or largely meaningless. |
I liked Crash. I never considered it “racist”.
This reminds me of the recent criticism aimed at The Help, which, while I agree could have delved more into thee background of said “help”, was a very fine movie as well. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
I think a better way to describe it would be "mishandling of racial subjects" rather than "racist" if the person feels the movie doesn’t delve into racism in a poignant enough manner. There is a very big difference between that and a movie preaching racial hatred.
@Wyldesyde19 Yeah, I loved The Help. Sure, it could have done an even better job at getting into the backstory of the maids, but they still managed to make me feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis were fantastic. And Cicely Tyson has one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the movie. Her complete look of despair as she gets fired really sticks with you. |
I welcome these new rules. Anything to limit the power and influence of the patriarchy is fine by me. Those straight white men have had it coming for a while, I mean what have they ever done for cinema?
Seriously though WTF is this nonsense... Pure racism and sexism to say that 30% of the cast and crew cannot be white men. There is no way on earth any other group would get treated in this manner. It exposes the hypocrisy of the progressive left that they employ the very same methods that they claim to be fighting against. Identity politics is a poison infecting the soul of the West. Awards shows should be a meritocracy. The most talented individuals should be recognized, regardless of what they look like, who they love or how they vote. Who cares what race the visual effects artist is or who the costume designer is sleeping with? You shouldn't hire or fire someone based upon their skin colour, gender or any other personal characteristic. I mean what's next; quotas for people based on their height or eye colour? Nothing would surprise me anymore. |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123426)
I have no idea why my noting the obvious mutual exclusivity of those two statements means I want to "play black and white," and to be honest I'm not even entirely sure what that means.
I guess the issue here is that these responses feel reflexive, to me: it feels like people are often worried about not seeming like they're on the right side, so they need to express support for an idea that, when pressed, they actually agree is toothless or largely meaningless. |
Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6 (Post 2123431)
I think a better way to describe it would be "mishandling of racial subjects" rather than "racist" if the person feels the movie doesn’t delve into racism in a poignant enough manner. There is a very big difference between that and a movie preaching racial hatred.
@Wyldesyde19 Yeah, I loved The Help. Sure, it could have done an even better job at getting into the backstory of the maids, but they still managed to make me feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis were fantastic. And Cicely Tyson has one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the movie. Her complete look of despair as she gets fired really sticks with you. |
Originally Posted by HollowMan (Post 2123432)
I welcome these new rules. Anything to limit the power and influence of the patriarchy is fine by me. Those straight white men have had it coming for a while, I mean what have they ever done for cinema?
Seriously though WTF is this nonsense... Pure racism and sexism to say that 30% of the cast and crew cannot be white men. There is no way on earth any other group would get treated in this manner. It exposes the hypocrisy of the progressive left that they employ the very same methods that they claim to be fighting against. Identity politics is a poison infecting the soul of the West. Awards shows should be a meritocracy. The most talented individuals should be recognized, regardless of what they look like, who they love or how they vote. Who cares what race the visual effects artist is or who the costume designer is sleeping with? You shouldn't hire or fire someone based upon their skin colour, gender or any other personal characteristic. I mean what's next; quotas for people based on their height or eye colour? Nothing would surprise me anymore. |
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123433)
I just don't think they're obviously mutual exclusive. That's all.
Could you also just expound more in general? This seems to be following the same path as saying Green Book is "racist," in that you're saying very stark things without explaining your thought process, even though some explanation would obviously help (and in some cases is clearly necessary). |
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123435)
I mean, that's fine, but it's nitpicking with words.
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123435)
Of the black people I know who've seen the movie, they all call it racist; I'm going to listen to their experiences first and foremost... and yes, racism can mean a lot of things, including un-intentionally harming anti-racism agendas.
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123438)
Can you expound on that a bit? Saying something is an "important step" but that it "won't change anything" sure seems mutually exclusive, to me.
Could you also just expound more in general? This seems to be following the same path as saying Green Book is "racist," in that you're saying very stark things without explaining your thought process, even though some explanation would obviously help (and in some cases is clearly necessary). ummm ok so Green Book is a movie made by a white director in a time when racism is really still ongoing in America, and I think it's super great the white directors are still making these types of movies. Anyways lol I think it's pretty obvious that Green Book ended racism right?? |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123439)
I really, really don't think it is.
Perhaps you should lead with your definition of "racist," then, if you at all desire to be understood? - Peter Farrelly |
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123440)
It's not an important step and it won't change anything...
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123440)
ummm ok so Green Book is a movie made by a white director in a time when racism is really still ongoing in America, and I think it's super great the white directors are still making these types of movies. Anyways lol I think it's pretty obvious that Green Book ended racism right??
|
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123441)
"And I suffer that slight alone, because I'm not accepted by my own people 'cause I'm not like them, either. So, if I'm not black enough and if I'm not white enough and if I'm not man enough, then tell me, Tony, what am I?"
- Peter Farrelly Either way, this in no way tells me what your definition of racism is. All it really does is imply (though still doesn't simply say, oddly enough) that you inherently object to a white person writing dialogue about race for a black character. Is that what you're saying? |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2123442)
Sorry, "step in the right direction" was the actual quote. Otherwise, same point: how can this not change anything but also be a "step in the right direction"?
I don't follow. Green Book is racist because it was made by a white director and/or because it didn't end racism? |
So your response to my totally earnest and fair questions is just to double down on sarcasm?
|
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
He already lost me when he compared Green Book to 20's and 30's blackface comedies :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by ahwell (Post 2123444)
But it did end racism. sorry if you misinterpreted.
Which was never its goal to begin with, mind you. A white director helming a film about racism doesn’t make it inherently racist. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
I hope this new Academy rule will equally apply to black film makers who make all black actors and all black film crew movies. I mean if films are to to be diversified than all black or all Hispaic or all Asian film need to include a number of white people. Otherwise it's just a **** rule designed to pander.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2123462)
I hope this new Academy rule will equally apply to black film makers who make all black actors and all black film crew movies. I mean if films are to to be diversified than all black or all Hispaic or all Asian film need to include a number of white people. Otherwise it's just a **** rule designed to pander.
Oscars are and have been compromised for awhile. If your white especially a straight white male and win you might as well give an apology speech instead of an acceptance one. Parasite was so diverse. Moonlight cast personifies diversity. Black Panther was so diverse it had 2 white guys. I literally think Hollywood thinks diversity means a big wooden ship. |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2123462)
I hope this new Academy rule will equally apply to black film makers who make all black actors and all black film crew movies. I mean if films are to to be diversified than all black or all Hispaic or all Asian film need to include a number of white people. Otherwise it's just a **** rule designed to pander.
However, last I saw, white people weren’t under represented in film, which is the point This does unintentionally raise an interesting question however. How does a country such as South Korea, that doesn’t have many people of color in any way, represent that? Obviously casting is out the window, but of the other 3 criteria (and remember they only need to meet 2 of 4, so casting can be ignored) how can they meet those requirements? |
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2123478)
Well, it is absolutely pandering. Yes. We can agree here.
However, last I saw, white people weren’t under represented in film, which is the point This does unintentionally raise an interesting question however. How does a country such as South Korea, that doesn’t have many people of color in any way, represent that? Obviously casting is out the window, but of the other 3 criteria (and remember they only need to meet 2 of 4, so casting can be ignored) how can they meet those requirements? |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2123483)
I didn't say anything about South Korea.
|
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2123478)
How does a country such as South Korea, that doesn’t have many people of color in any way, represent that? Obviously casting is out the window, but of the other 3 criteria (and remember they only need to meet 2 of 4, so casting can be ignored) how can they meet those requirements?
|
Originally Posted by Miss Vicky (Post 2123486)
If I understood the requirements correctly, it isn't just a race thing. Right? It doesn't have to be people of minority races being represented. Women, LGBTQIA people, and people with disabilities count as minorities as well. Unless I missed something.
|
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
That yellow stick wants to stay relevant, I see...
|
1 Attachment(s)
I had a hunch about why the Academy Awards were making a diversity rule in 2020, when it's been half a century or more since minorities had a hard time breaking into movies.
The Academy's decision is not about making things better in America and it's not about making things fairer for under represented people. It's about the Oscars as a money making TV show having the ability to make more money by targeting those who watch TV the most. It's about profit. After seeing this thread, I asked myself how come so many of the newest TV shows and movies have become more diversified with many more black actors...BUT Hispanics and Asian American actors are all but left out? I guessed that Black Americans watch more TV and are more likely to watch the Oscars than White & Hispanic or Asian Americans and so the Oscars needed to attract black viewers to their dwindling TV ratings and this poll bears that out. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-us-ethnicity/ https://www.movieforums.com/communit...chmentid=67751 We can pretend this all about making a better world but it's really all about tapping into the demographs of who watches TV the most. |
Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6 (Post 2123209)
This is frightening. I have definitely always been open to more diversity in the film industry, but this will just continue furthering the devolution of movie making becoming a factory-produced process.
For all the worthiness and how much it may or may not be called for/necessary, CR's last post is correct, IMO. As with most things commercial, this is about money and publicity, but I repeat myself. If I genuinely thought there was an ounce of sincerity in this I'd be glad to see it. Not because I think it has to happen or that it's right or wrong, but just because it'd be real and could lead to further change(s) in culture and atmosphere because there'd be someone in charge who wanted to see it happen and was prepared to use their power to make it possible. This is just a headline or a black square on a twitter account. It's easy, it costs nothing and it risks nothing. |
Oh, it’s absolutely performative. Rather then actually doing anything about it, they’re putting the onus on the studios and film makers and patting themselves on the back.
It’s an illusion that they’re doing some high productive. |
Re: Academy Awards are changing the rules again....
Its an interesting topic. I agree with those who have said that representation behind the camera is potentially more important than in front of it. For example, using LGBT films as an example rather than race/ sex, it is very much a thing that when the Oscars go gaga for LGBT films, they very rarely star queer actors, and even more rarely, writers/ directors etc. These films exist, they are just rarely given any attention and have to exist in the indie world. I think Im right in saying to that no out gay actor/ actress has ever been nominated for playing an LGBT character. It is a complex thing with LGBT people, in the sense that not everybody is 'out,' and no they shouldnt have to show their gay card before they can get a writing gig on a gay film. And there are some very good LGBT films out there that are completely created and acted by straight people. But, the fact they are gay should not expel them from telling these stories. LGBT people at some point should have the same opportunities to tell their stories too, and not just save the ones you want to win big prizes for for straight people.
Going back to race too, I agree too that it is not only down to black writers and directors to be giving opportunities to black casts. But at the same time, you write/ create what you know, and being any kind of minority automatically makes you a political figure for the community you represent, whether you like it or not. So of course a black writer director wants to give more opportunities to black actors. It is an awful catch 22 situation that has been created by an industry that has fought against diversity for so long. Hopefully long term change will come as you naturally get people from more diverse backgrounds like Del Toro, Barry Jenkins etc. becoming part of the academy. |
The current drive for "representation" is harmful, irritating and divisive. A symptom of identity politics infecting every realm of society. Hollywood should focus on making high quality original films instead of obsessing over progressive affirmative action targets.
|
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:03 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums