Eddie Murphy in Talks to Host 84th Oscars

Why? The time for him to host was, oh, about 25 years ago when he was funny.

Because the Oscar committee is made up of elderly people who are out of touch with 21st century audiences.

This is how the voting is occurring this year, per a summary from Awards Daily:

Dave Karger is predicting only 5 films to make the BP cut. I think we'll get 7.

These films have done well with a combo of Globe/Guild nominations.

The Artist (Everything)
The Descendants (DGA, GG, PGA, SAG, WGA)
The Help (GG, PGA, SAG, WGA)
Moneyball (GG, PGA, WGA, SAG for Pitt/Hill)
Hugo (ACE, DGA, GG, PGA, WGA).
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (ACE, GG, DGA, PGA, WGA)
Midnight in Paris (DGA, GG, PGA, SAG, WGA)

The Ides of March, Drive, War Horse, Tree of Life, Bridesmaids, and Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy are out.

My prediction for Best Picture in alphabetical order - six titles (subject to change prior to the announcement):

Artist, The
Descendents, The
Help, The
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Tree of Life, The

Wow, this may be the first year where I didn't care for a single Best Picture nomination, unless Dragon Tattoo somehow gets a nom.

It's not a flashy group this time. Sort of reminds me of the 2008 class: Slumdog, The Reader, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk. That was an extremely underwhelming and weak group.

Last year was a solid group, but my favorite top 5 of recent year was '07 with No Country, There Will Be Blood, and Michael Clayton leading the way. I loved all 3 of those films, which made up for the fact that Juno got in. Atonement was a reasonable selection. Zodiac should have definitely replaced Juno.

I hope that Kevin James doesn't get left out because the vote gets split between The Dilemma and Zookeeper.

I think Dragon Tattoo makes the cut. Not only because of Fincher, but this will allow the Academy to show us they're still hip by selecting an R rated thriller. And it has strong guild support. I think Fincher can definitely get in for Directing. Mara still has a shot at Actress, but she has a tough field. And it'll definitely rack up on the technical categories. I could see it getting Editing, Cinematography, both Sound categories, and Score.

'07 was great, I even liked Juno enough to appreciate it in that category. '08 at least had one "fun" movie (Slumdog) in the mix, and The Reader was fairly watchable, plus it saw David Fincher with a best picture nom (even if it was his worst movie).

This year is just kind of boring to me. Last year it was what? The King's Speech, The Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, 127 Hours, The Fighter, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone... I actually liked all of those save for maybe Toy Story 3, but even that was mildly entertaining.

The Artist was okay to me but didn't draw me in like it seemed to other people, The Descendants is the first Alexander Payne movie I didn't care for, The Help got on my nerves but was mostly watchable, Moneyball was well made but forgettable and insubstantial, and both Midnight in Paris and Hugo had their moments with obvious inspiration but didn't hold my interest for their entirety. Loved Girl w/ the Dragon Tattoo and Drive, Ides was kind of like Moneyball - good but forgettable, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was a bore, haven't made it to War Horse yet. Tree of Life had a decent vibe to it, but when it ended I just felt nothing, it was suitably diverting but that was about it.

If the Academy wants to be hip then it'll nominate Drive. I have to agree about the nominations prediction, it's not so much that it's been a bad year, it's actually been pretty good, it's just that the films they will nominate will range from mediocre to bad. Though I did love The Artist so if one of them has to sweep I hope it's that one.

I'm personally a bit sick of all the Oscar buzz for Bridesmaids of all things. Not only was it a by the numbers romantic comedy, but it was completely misrepresented in advertising.

Artist, The
Descendents, The
Help, The
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Tree of Life, The
Moneyball
Drive

Then two of the below
(I hope not) War Horse
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
TGWTDT

I know there was a more recent thread about Oscar Rule Changes, but I couldn't find it. Anyways, it looks like some big new rules are coming to force diversity on the field. This should go over well in Middle America.


Forced Diversity for Oscar Seekers
AMPAS (i.e., The People’s Wokester Central Committee) has announced new representation and inclusion standards for all would-be seekers of a Best Picture Oscar starting in 2024. This is not a drill or a put-on. The standards were emailed to everyone earlier this afternoon.

AMPAS Quote: “For the 94th Oscars (2022) and 95th Oscars (2023), submitting a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form will be required for Best Picture consideration, however meeting inclusion thresholds will not be required for eligibility in the Best Picture category until the 96th Oscars (2024).”

Hypothetical 2024 situation: Imagine that it’s September 2022, and that Manchester By The Sea or Call Me By My Name, to name two examples of recent racist or exclusionary cinema, had never before been made. They are about to go into production sometime in late ’22 or early ’23, with Kenneth Lonergan and Luca Guadagnino directing respectively. After skimming the new standards, ask yourself how they would affect the making of Lonergan and Guadagnino’s films, given their producers’ hope to market themselves by becoming Best Picture contenders.

Reader request: Then is then and now is now, but someone should really count how many previous Best Picture winners (1929 to 2019) would be eligible with these new rules. Less than 10%? Roughly 20%?



AMPAS Verbatim: “For the 96th Oscars (2024), a film must meet TWO out of FOUR of the following standards to be deemed eligible:

STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES

To achieve Standard A, the film must meet ONE of the following criteria:

A1. Lead or significant supporting actors

At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.

• Asian
• Hispanic/Latinx
• Black/African American
• Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native
• Middle Eastern/North African
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• Other underrepresented race or ethnicity

A2. General ensemble cast

At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups:

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

A3. Main storyline/subject matter

The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

STANDARD B: CREATIVE LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT TEAM

To achieve Standard B, the film must meet ONE of the criteria below:

B1. Creative leadership and department heads

At least two of the following creative leadership positions and department heads—Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer—are from the following underrepresented groups:

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

At least one of those positions must belong to the following underrepresented racial or ethnic group:

• Asian
• Hispanic/Latinx
• Black/African American
• Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native
• Middle Eastern/North African
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• Other underrepresented race or ethnicity

B2. Other key roles

At least six other crew/team and technical positions (excluding Production Assistants) are from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. These positions include but are not limited to First AD, Gaffer, Script Supervisor, etc.

B3. Overall crew composition

At least 30% of the film’s crew is from the following underrepresented groups:

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.”

Personally, while I am a fan of diversity, I don't think awards should be given or nominated based on anything other than artistic merit. Would Lord of the Rings films qualify for nominations here with these criteria? Would Almost Famous? Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Boyhood? Wolf of Wall Street?

It's concerning to me. If we choose to celebrate diversity (i.e. Moonlight over La La Land), that's great. If we eventually celebrate Moonlight by excluding La La Land from competition, that's different.

Oh man, now I really want the AMPAS to start officially calling themselves Wokesters.


In theory this sounds ok. I just hope movies don’t all start having the token ________ just to meet Oscar eligibility.

I’m very left. I hope Trump loses and then dies on a toilet like Elvis 6 months later. And I think this is one of the stupidest fucking ideas I’ve ever heard of.

I never took the Oscars seriously and this just provides more evidence to continue holding that view.

People who care about the Oscars are the worst.

So, you if think movie cast and crew are the worst, why are you on a forum that supports the media of "the worst?" Little hypocritical or do you never watch movies?

And no one will be allowed on stage to host, present, perform, or receive an award unless they're wearing a colored ribbon representing one of a number of pre-determined accepted causes.

They're applying the Bechdel Test to the Oscars.

It might.

For "Standard A," would Lawrence Makoare, who played Lurtz, the Uruk-Hai, count as a significant supporting cast member? His character has been given action figures and statues. As far as the standard goes, "significant supporting character" has a lot wriggle room.

For "Standard B," two of the three screenwriters were women. But I think at least one of the two needs to be a racial minority, and I'm not sure what exact positions they're looking at, and I don't want to sift through the IMDB.

Wouldn't surprise me if most composers were "hard of hearing."

I looked up the rest of the "standards," and it's all kind of bullshit.

I would be surprised if most big studio movies didn't meet this standard.

And "Standard C" (not listed in the post) deals with internships and apprenticeships. So that's more or less a gimme.

And "Standard D" shouldn't be too hard to meet, either.

None of these sound that difficult to meet, and C and D seem like they're kind of designed to be freebies that are easily met and don't impact the creative side of the films at all. Marketing and Publicity is kind of bullshit positions that just get filled by someone's friend or their kids.

I think that's unattainable and unsustainable. Hollywood is continuing to eat itself alive so have fun trying to survive in a world post COVID. I'm content with watching older movies right now.

This is beyond parody...

A couple of serious points I've read:

It's illegal for an employer to ask about someone's sexual orientation.
Are Jewish people counted as a minority? If not, why not?