I'm not going to watch that, but I'm assuming because it's Bill Maher, and it's B5Erik, that it's negative about the rule change.

He actually makes a lot of sense. Bill Maher is a common sense liberal, and he makes a lot of valid points.

But no one can make you watch it. It just points out some valid reasons why this wasn't needed and the timing is bad.

Any points you haven't already articulated?

Actually, yes.

And the points we have in common are expressed in a more entertaining way by Maher.

Too bad you can't provide the reasons here, because your reasoning so far has been underwhelming. And I don't need to see poor reasoning restated, even "in a more entertaining way."

OK, then.

Quotas are still bad. People should be hired because they're the best at what they do, not because they check a required box off a list.

And Maher does have several points that I didn't make. I'm not going to list them because then you have no reason to watch the video.

Apparently you're not a fan of Maher. I am. He's a non-PC liberal. And he's not afraid to call liberals out when they're full of shit. Like he does in this video. C'est la vie. Watch, don't watch - it doesn't matter.

FWIW I totally agree with Maher. This was an unnecessary rules change at the wrong time. It might be super easy to meet their quotas, but there really shouldn’t be quotas at all. And as he kind of hints at, the films without any diversity won’t be winning BO anyways.

I'm pretty sure the people who are "the best at what they do," like that's even quantifiable and objective, can only work one film at a time. For films then it's often "the best fit for the project" more than merely "the best at task X," and also often "of who we know's available." The issue is that "who we know" is often straight-cis-white men, because those are who have been hired in the past, who's been given chances and promotions from other film positions, and who tends to get hired with no prior experience, even for the lowest of positions.

How do you combat the systemic race/gender/sexuality discrimination that's built into the system just from who's historically been hired, and perpetuates without active effort? When studies show that people will rate the same resume lower if it has a woman's name on it, even when women are doing the rating, how to you combat that unconscious bias in almost everyone?

Quota systems are not without problems, and ideally wouldn't be necessary, but they're at least an effort to correct something that won't just "go away on it's own." If anything this past summer has shown us, is that while we can often get rid of the surface veneer of prejudice, there's often systemic bias that goes deep and discriminates against minorities, especially when viewed in aggregate.

Does this mean some straight-cis-white male may not get a particular film job he otherwise would've? Probably, but that guy won't be perpetually unemployed, and it doesn't mean his replacement was necessarily any worse than him by any objective standard. Also, the particular film, as well as the film industry as a whole, benefits from increased diversity and inclusion, which brings in an increased diversity of viewpoints and experiences. And if the film was going to be just as diverse anyway? Well that particular production doesn't have to think about the quota at all.

I was a fan of Maher when he was cracking jokes on Politically Incorrect on Comedy Central, using his exaggerated, satirical "modest proposals" as jumping off points for fun and funny discussions. I stopped watching shortly after he moved to ABC, long before the show was cancelled, because he started getting full of himself and thinking that he was actually a serious political thinker, and that his often half-informed, half-thought-out opinions were undeniably, objectively right. After ABC (wrongly) fired him, I think he also developed a bit of a persecution complex, further entrenching in his mind that he was the lone man shouting reason into the wilderness. What I've caught of him in the intervening years is insufferable, even on subjects/opinons I agree with him on.

However, Bill Maher isn't on this discussion thread. If he was, and he voiced his opinions, I'd read them and respond. As it is, he's not, so I don't have to consider his opinion as worth anything, because I can't engage him and participate in a discussion about it, which is, you know, the point of a forum.

So your issue is that the rules make explicit what would've implicitly happened anyway? And how do Oscar voters know who was staffing the marketing and distribution teams?

Not in Hollywood. Hollywood is run by the most liberal people in the business world. Watch the Bill Maher video. He explains it far better than I can. There's no need for this.

And he's got other points that I hadn't even thought of. Points that show how this could actually be wrong in a historic context. I'd take his point one step further and say that it's morally wrong.

Giving filmmakers a checklist of people they have to hire isn't that far removed from how totalitarian regimes of the past had filmmakers make movies (subjects and characters had to be approved by the government, as did actors and writers, etc). Artists are supposed to have freedom to make the art they want to make. They shouldn't be out of contention for an award that supposedly recognizes THE BEST movies released the previous year just because the filmmakers didn't check all the quota boxes that needed to be checked. That's morally and ethically wrong. If a movie is great and worthy of nomination it should be nominated. Period.

And yet, you think they'll have trouble meeting these quotas?

Your posting contradictory statement that these new rule "aren't necessary," and yet so many films will be excluded because it's so hard for any production to satisfy these rules. Both of those statements can't be correct.

Congrats, you Godwin'd yourself. There's no "checklist of people they have to hire." They can hire whomever, but if they want to be eligible for Best Picture, then they have to conform to some guidelines about the type of people they hired, not specific people.

They do still have that freedom, and the Academy has the freedom to determine whether they want to give them an award or not, or even eligible for that award. Why do you want to dictate to the Academy? Dictating to independent agencies how they give awards is what totalitarian regimes do.

The problem seems to be your perception of what The Oscars are then. It was never an objective measurement of what counts as "THE BEST," and politics have always been involved.

There IS a checklist of people they have to hire IF they want the cache of being a Best Picture Nominee.

And you missed the point - they're dictating to artists who they can hire in order to be in their club. Doesn't that strike you as morally and ethically wrong? I mean, it was wrong to tell studios who they could hire during the blacklist, it was wrong when the Soviets and Nazi's told filmmakers who they could hire, so why is it OK now?

Show me your papers (if you want to be a nominee).

I'm sorry, but this is like the reverse end of the wrongs of the past. Just because they're calling for discrimination against a majority group doesn't make it any less wrong.

Clearly, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. I know some people are fine with reverse discrimination to right the wrongs of the past. I'm just more of a two wrongs don't make a right kind of guy.

Oh, well. You're set in your convictions, and that's fine. We just see this differently.

The "checklist" is of the type of people to include. They don't have to include any specific people. They don't have to include any specific one of those types, or all of those types. And it's optional. Not being eligible for an award is not an infringement of one's free speech.

Because it's not a government mandating anything, on punishment of criminal or any other sort of legal charges. Not being eligible for an award is not an infringement of one's free speech.

Trying to fix discrimination of minorities isn't discrimination of the majority. Hell the majority can still be the majority under these rules, it's just making sure there's some inclusion. Why is it wrong to suggest that films made today should have a modicum of diversity, that diversity should be encouraged, and that a private entity can choose, as is its right, to only recognize for its "highest" award only films that reflect that effort towards achieving more diversity?

Nothing new...

I wish I could generate this level of outrage at being so horribly oppressed as a white man, but for some reason I just can't find the energy.

Finally, a new and much-needed category added :

X - Formerly Twitter

Is that an award to the best ensemble cast, or is it award for the casting director?

Casting director.

I’m ok with a casting director award.

I wish there was a rule change that banned Kimmel from hosting again.

He is not that funny

1) He's plenty funny. I still maintain that this bit, which played off his pretend feud with Matt Damon was, next to the first time Billy Crystal put himself into Oscar movie clips, the funniest bit I've ever seen on an Oscsrs broadcast.

2) He doesn't have to be hysterically funny. He has to be a good host. Keep things moving. Mock the films but not the nominees. Adapt. He faced what was, until that point the biggest Oscar disaster imaginable with LA LA Land / Moonlight and handled that as well as anyone could hope. The Will Smith disaster might never have happened if he was hosting instead of Regina Hall riling up Will Smith with cuckold jokes. And the shows without a host were really dull. And forget your crush on Ricky Gervais, he's totally wrong for any award show that considers itself prestigious and legitimate (ie not the Globes).

3) Even if this is your opinion, we all already know it because you moaned about him in the 2024 Oscar thread. There is no reason to discuss it here in a rules change thread. The only reason to do that is if you thought it was a funny joke. And if you did, then you clearly have no concept of what is funny and what is not.

I did like John Mulaney's Governors Awards Monologue at the 14th Governors Awards last month:

FINALLY, there will be an Oscar for Stunts. Still a couple of years away though.

..It's just going to make the show longer!