DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/591846-oscar-rule-changes-discussion-thread.html)

windom 09-12-20 09:04 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 
So who is going to keep track of all this? Will the studios have to present a report to the academy with the ethnicity/sexuality breakdown of the cast and crew for each picture they submit? Will it be someone's job to keep track of the hiring and tell the producers they need to hire more of this or that to qualify? Will they have to measure how long each person appears on screen to qualify? Or will it be number of lines or words? I still don't see how they can legally have people they hire tell them their ethnic breakdown and sexuality.

Crocker Jarmen 09-13-20 03:12 AM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by clckworang (Post 13804533)
I call BS on this latest article. I guess they're trying too hard to focus on category A. But Hurt Locker wouldn't qualify? Wouldn't it qualify under category A because of Anthony Mackie? And then with category B, you have a woman director, a Middle Eastern set decorator, and one of the two editors is a woman.

Then most of the others would qualify under category B. Birdman would easily qualify: Hispanic director, Hispanic and women producers, gay costume designer, woman casting director. O Brother would qualify with women as set decorator, casting directors, and costume design. 1917 has a female writer, casting director. Gone Girl has a female writer, art director. Lighthouse has female editor, casting director, costume designer.

My thoughts too. This seems to me like the Academy wants to make it appear like they're doing something noble to enact change when really they're not doing anything besides generating a lot of paperwork.

Drexl 09-13-20 09:32 AM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 
How will multiple hats work? For example, will a typical Spike Lee film get credit for having a black writer, black director and a black producer, even though it's just him doing all of that?

I agree that this will not be difficult to meet, especially when producer is one of those things that can have multiple people getting credit. I wonder how strictly they will look into producer credits being handed out to people who had little to do with the film.

B5Erik 09-13-20 02:23 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Red Hood (Post 13803099)
Did you actually read all the options filmmakers and studios have to meet these quotas? Is not only about who's in front of the screen, but behind the scenes. So a movie like the Irishman or Goodfellas can still be made as long as Scorcese hires enough people to work on the production side that meet the quota established by the Academy Awards. Also, filmmakers and studios can decide not to meet the quota. The only repercussion to this is that they aren't going to be nominated for Best Picture. So if Universal Studios wants to make Jurassic Park meets King Kong and cast and hire every white person in America, they can. They simply won't qualify for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

So it's not about ability or excellence, it's about meeting quotas?

That's wrong.

If the best cinematographer for the job is a white guy, and the editor the director wants to use is a white guy, and the producer is a white guy, they're out of the running regardless of how good the movie is?

That's pathetic.

TomOpus 09-13-20 05:22 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13804795)
So it's not about ability or excellence, it's about meeting quotas?

That's wrong.

If the best cinematographer for the job is a white guy, and the editor the director wants to use is a white guy, and the producer is a white guy, they're out of the running regardless of how good the movie is?

That's pathetic.

It's about excellence along with meeting extra guidelines if you want Best Picture consideration..

clckworang 09-13-20 07:03 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Drexl (Post 13804681)
How will multiple hats work? For example, will a typical Spike Lee film get credit for having a black writer, black director and a black producer, even though it's just him doing all of that?

I agree that this will not be difficult to meet, especially when producer is one of those things that can have multiple people getting credit. I wonder how strictly they will look into producer credits being handed out to people who had little to do with the film.

I was curious about that, too. That's why I didn't use many producer examples. Plus, do you get full credit for a female or minority producer when it's one out of eight? Likewise for things like screenwriter. If there are four credited writers and only one is a woman, how does that count?

And along the lines of your Spike Lee example, auteur directors like the Coen brothers or Steven Soderbergh have fewer available slots by handling so much on their own.

It was an interesting exercise looking into those films that were mentioned in that last article, though. I just used IMDB and didn't look too deep and only included ones that were obvious who was in charge.

Draven 09-14-20 07:25 AM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13804795)
So it's not about ability or excellence, it's about meeting quotas?

That's wrong.

If the best cinematographer for the job is a white guy, and the editor the director wants to use is a white guy, and the producer is a white guy, they're out of the running regardless of how good the movie is?

That's pathetic.

Plenty of other positions are available to meet these requirements.

But it’s also pretty telling if you are only picking from a pool of straight white dudes for these positions.

wendersfan 09-14-20 08:53 AM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13805110)
Plenty of other positions are available to meet these requirements.

But it’s also pretty telling if you are only picking from a pool of straight white dudes for these positions.

Two things.

First, if you can get Roger Deakins to shoot your film, you probably have Roger Deakins shoot your film. Sure, Rodrigo Prieto is no slouch, but Deakins is the one DP who 'above the credits' actors will work with just because he's the DP.

Also, there needs to be a separate category for Soderbergh, who shoots and edits everything himself. Except, does it count that as film editor he's credited as being female since he does it under the name Mary Ann Bernard? :lol:

This alone shows the absurdity of the whole thing. G-d knows I'm as big an advocate for diversity and inclusion as anyone, and I realize this is all a response to the #OscarsSoWhite movement, AND there's certainly been an 'old boys' network in Hollywood since, well, forever, but this is the cludgiest way of dealing with this problem imaginable. You know how Hollywood could actually do something? Stop nominating boring English period dramas, and look at cinema like, I dunno - Support the Girls, The Last Black Man In San Francisco, or - and I realize I'm beating this drum too much - Booksmart, which were three of the best, most interesting, and most entertaining examples of American cinema from the last half-decade.

B5Erik 09-14-20 01:32 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 
The Academy Awards are supposed to recognize excellence. Period.

Not excellence with inclusion and diversity, just excellence.

So under the new rules it's possible to make the best movie in decades and not even get nominated.

That's crazy. It's stupid. It's absurd.

Inclusion is good, but these new rules change the purpose of the Academy. Instead of recognizing and rewarding excellence, it is now about pushing diversity. That is a huge shift in the mission of the Academy. Hell, it's a new mission altogether! The old mission has been abandoned in favor of the new one.

Ridiculous.

Jay G. 09-14-20 01:42 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805284)
The Academy Awards are supposed to recognize excellence. Period.

Not excellence with inclusion and diversity, just excellence.

It's interesting that you think those can be separated so cleanly from each other.

Also, considering this is the Academy itself deciding this change, maybe you're wrong about what the Academy Awards actually represent? Is there something wrong about recognizing excellence and inclusion and diversity?

DaveyJoe 09-14-20 01:43 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805284)
So under the new rules it's possible to make the best movie in decades and not even get nominated.

That's always been possible. The Academy doesn't have to meet your standards of excellence or mine. They just have to do what gets them the most ratings. That's it.

B5Erik 09-14-20 02:02 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Jay G. (Post 13805289)
It's interesting that you think those can be separated so cleanly from each other.

Also, considering this is the Academy itself deciding this change, maybe you're wrong about what the Academy Awards actually represent? Is there something wrong about recognizing excellence and inclusion and diversity?

You can (easily) have excellence without diversity.

You can also (easily) have diversity without excellence.

The Academy was founded to recognize excellence and support the art of filmmaking, as well as supporting and recognizing the artists who make those films.

This rule change is not about art. It is about politics. And that makes it a serious change in the mission of the Academy.

wendersfan 09-14-20 02:09 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805296)
This rule change is not about art. It is about politics. And that makes it a serious change in the mission of the Academy.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk...0e0bfa2ebd.jpg

B5Erik 09-14-20 02:13 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 13805300)

OK, and???

I've never seen Crash and know nothing about it.

wendersfan 09-14-20 02:21 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805301)
OK, and???

I've never seen Crash and know nothing about it.

It's generally considered one of the worst Best Picture winners over the last couple of decades, and the consensus is that it won because it was a politically correct movie about race relations that, by voting for it, it made members of AMPAS feel all 'woke' and shit (before 'woke' was a term.)

The point being, this new rule isn't anything new, it's just a codification of the same lame bullshit the Academy has been doing for years.

B5Erik 09-14-20 02:35 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 13805308)
It's generally considered one of the worst Best Picture winners over the last couple of decades, and the consensus is that it won because it was a politically correct movie about race relations that, by voting for it, it made members of AMPAS feel all 'woke' and shit (before 'woke' was a term.)

The point being, this new rule isn't anything new, it's just a codification of the same lame bullshit the Academy has been doing for years.

Ahh. Ok.

I still see this as a significant change since excellent movies could be excluded by the new official rules, and that wouldn't have been possible before.

​​​​​​The Academy has just gone too far this time.

Jay G. 09-14-20 02:49 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805296)
The Academy was founded to recognize excellence and support the art of filmmaking, as well as supporting and recognizing the artists who make those films.

No, it was founded as a PR mechanism, and to hopefully squash unions from forming:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...-oscar-history

So Mr. Mayer and his pals decided they needed an organization to handle labor problems at the studio without having to get into the union thing, and it would be a public relations operation that pumped out the message that Hollywood was a wonderful place where delightful and thrilling stories were made to give the folks a good time...

...in the early 30s, the actors, the writers, and the directors did form their unions or their guilds, because they realized the Academy was just a rubber stamp for the system.
The Awards are just major studios patting themselves on the back.


Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805296)
This rule change is not about art. It is about politics. And that makes it a serious change in the mission of the Academy.

BWAHAHA! You're incredibly naive or disingenuous to suggest politics have never affected the MPAA before. I mean, these rules are just an expansion of things they've already been doing, like this 2018 initiative:
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-...les-and-london

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in partnership with E! Entertainment and Swarovski, announced today the launch of Action: The Academy Women’s Initiative, comprised of the Academy Gold Fellowship for Women, the Academy Directory and annual events, all designed to create opportunities for female filmmakers to connect, share their stories and celebrate inclusion.

Crocker Jarmen 09-14-20 02:50 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 
The Academy Awards are a commercial for the movie industry. I think they're fun, and I love watching the show every year, but they're not definitive rulings on who gave the best performance or which sound mixing was superior to the sound editing.

This is reminding me of the controversy last year about the Academy saying Netflix films wouldn't be eligible for Oscars unless they had theatrical screenings. They're not interested in promoting Netflix, they want to promote their own product.

The idea the Oscars are about "art" over "politics" is laughable.


Jay G. 09-14-20 02:52 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805318)
I still see this as a significant change since excellent movies could be excluded by the new official rules, and that wouldn't have been possible before.

The rules don't go into effect until 2024. They're not going to affect any film that was in production before these new rules were announced. If someone makes a film that doesn't comply with the rules, they're consciously excluding themselves.

B5Erik 09-14-20 02:57 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Jay G. (Post 13805329)
The rules don't go into effect until 2024. They're not going to affect any film that was in production before these new rules were announced. If someone makes a film that doesn't comply with the rules, they're consciously excluding themselves.

They should be able to hire people solely based on talent and ability, not meeting quotas.


Jay G. 09-14-20 03:01 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 13805333)
They should be able to hire people solely based on talent and ability, not meeting quotas.

Diversity and inclusion "should" happen without people having to push for it too, but we don't live in an ideal world. Do you think productions that are all straight-cis-white-male somehow reflect a "natural" state of affairs, instead of a reflection of systemic discrimination over the course of decades?

People are still free to hire whomever they want for a particular film production, and the Academy is free to consider certain films not worthy of consideration for Best Picture based on whatever criteria the Academy sees fit.

Dan 09-14-20 03:31 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Jay G. (Post 13805339)
People are still free to hire whomever they want for a particular film production, and the Academy is free to consider certain films not worthy of consideration for Best Picture based on whatever criteria the Academy sees fit.

:up:
It reminds me of when some folks would say things like, "well, why isn't Movie X in the Criterion Collection? It deserves to be there!" and it's like... start your own label/awards, then. As I noted earlier in this thread, I want to know what filmmakers and current Academy members think of this. Not necessarily individually, but also as a whole. This really seems like the kind of thing that's not nearly as big of an issue as some want to make it out to be. "What about The Irishman?" Yeah, it'd still qualify. "But what about QUALITY??" Uhh, Crash? Green Book? "I know nothing about those!"

Come on, now.

AaronHernandez 09-14-20 03:56 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 
If The Irishman was Directed by a No Name Director no way would it have been nominated for BP or BD. Part of the legacy advantage big name(mostly white male) director's have is they are almost treated like incumbent politicians and a nomination is something they have to fail out of instead of the awards existing like an Open Seat Race where all eligable nominees start out on an even playing field.

GoldenJCJ 09-14-20 05:03 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 

Originally Posted by Jay G. (Post 13805326)
The Awards are just major studios patting themselves on the back.

To me, the Academy lost all credibility in the late 90s when the Weinstein’s began to openly campaign and essentially buy the award. I still watch them for fun and root for my choices to win but it isn’t some barometer of quality that they claim it is.

B5Erik 09-19-20 04:05 PM

Re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
 


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.