New Oscars standards say best picture contenders must be inclusive to compete

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

The only time in recent memory the Oscars made the right choice for best picture was "Moonlight" and that film obviously didn't need quotas to win. Amazing movie. I'm against this, but I'm also against giving the Oscars clout at all. They've always been self serving trash, just like the Grammys. The Grammys should've been cancelled the moment they gave Taylor Swift album of the year over To Pimp a Butterfly.

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

All three are amazing. LMAO at Moonlight being forgotten.

Tell me one trait about the main character that makes him a unique individual.

You're going to need to re-phrase that for me to be able to respond to it.

Was there anything about Chiron's personality that stood out to you, not including the identity groups he belonged to?

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

I thought they were both good movies but not great. Parasite definitely wasn't better than Alita or Endgame. I though 1917 was the best from those nominated.

Endgame barely qualifies as narrative storytelling, let alone a good movie.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

All three are amazing. LMAO at Moonlight being forgotten.

Tell me one trait about the main character that makes him a unique individual.

You're going to need to re-phrase that for me to be able to respond to it.

Was there anything about Chiron's personality that stood out to you, not including the identity groups he belonged to?

He was a very shy, very reserved and unsure of himself. His father figure motivates him to eventually come out of his shell, at least in ways that didn't put him at odds with his surroundings. He seemed intelligent but not always able or willing to show that socially.

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

All three are amazing. LMAO at Moonlight being forgotten.

Tell me one trait about the main character that makes him a unique individual.

You're going to need to re-phrase that for me to be able to respond to it.

Was there anything about Chiron's personality that stood out to you, not including the identity groups he belonged to?

He was a very shy, very reserved and unsure of himself. His father figure motivates him to eventually come out of his shell, at least in ways that didn't put him at odds with his surroundings. He seemed intelligent but not always able or willing to show that socially.

Now, this is an excellent thing you've brought up. Let's compare Chiron to another character in another story who is unsure of himself, conflicted, and somewhat withdrawn-- Hamlet.

I know it's not fair to compare Moonlight to Hamlet, but here's the thing-- if you have a character like this who is going through inner turmoil, can't reach out to anyone, and is unsure of himself, then you need to find a way of showing that. Shakespeare does this through soliloquies and asides, which allow us glimpses into the character's thought process that give us some sense of how he is feeling. But without these sorts of storytelling devices-- an internal monologue, let's say-- Moonlight gives us a protagonist who is completely impenetrable. When we relate to Chiron, we relate to his situation, not to him as a person. We empathize with him due to the circumstances that he finds himself in, but his actual character as an individual remains unexplored. This character, to me, is the epitome of the "blank slate" protagonist, a character who is deliberately underdeveloped so that the audience can project their own experiences and feelings onto him.

Of course, Chiron is supposed to have his emotions bottled up inside of him, but that alone cannot provide a fulfilling and engaging protagonist for a film. You need aspects of his personality-- things he likes and dislikes, things he's good or bad at, preferences, tastes, interests, hobbies, opinions-- aspects of the human experience that Moonlight deliberately chooses not to explore, I think because it wants to turn Chiron into a universal archetype. Speaking as someone who values characters and their development (almost above all else) in films, I found this approach lacking.

[emailking]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

I thought they were both good movies but not great. Parasite definitely wasn't better than Alita or Endgame. I though 1917 was the best from those nominated.

Endgame barely qualifies as narrative storytelling, let alone a good movie.

Well it was way more entertaining than Birdman and Parasite, however it did it.

[Mister Mets]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

All three are amazing. LMAO at Moonlight being forgotten.

Tell me one trait about the main character that makes him a unique individual.

You're going to need to re-phrase that for me to be able to respond to it.

Was there anything about Chiron's personality that stood out to you, not including the identity groups he belonged to?

He was a very shy, very reserved and unsure of himself. His father figure motivates him to eventually come out of his shell, at least in ways that didn't put him at odds with his surroundings. He seemed intelligent but not always able or willing to show that socially.

Now, this is an excellent thing you've brought up. Let's compare Chiron to another character in another story who is unsure of himself, conflicted, and somewhat withdrawn-- Hamlet.

I know it's not fair to compare Moonlight to Hamlet, but here's the thing-- if you have a character like this who is going through inner turmoil, can't reach out to anyone, and is unsure of himself, then you need to find a way of showing that. Shakespeare does this through soliloquies and asides, which allow us glimpses into the character's thought process that give us some sense of how he is feeling. But without these sorts of storytelling devices-- an internal monologue, let's say-- Moonlight gives us a protagonist who is completely impenetrable. When we relate to Chiron, we relate to his situation, not to him as a person. We empathize with him due to the circumstances that he finds himself in, but his actual character as an individual remains unexplored. This character, to me, is the epitome of the "blank slate" protagonist, a character who is deliberately underdeveloped so that the audience can project their own experiences and feelings onto him.

Of course, Chiron is supposed to have his emotions bottled up inside of him, but that alone cannot provide a fulfilling and engaging protagonist for a film. You need aspects of his personality-- things he likes and dislikes, things he's good or bad at, preferences, tastes, interests, hobbies, opinions-- aspects of the human experience that Moonlight deliberately chooses not to explore, I think because it wants to turn Chiron into a universal archetype. Speaking as someone who values characters and their development (almost above all else) in films, I found this approach lacking.

Would it have been better if he dressed like his father figure in the last act, or if they showed him at different stages of his life (middle school, high school, twenties)?

[C r a b c a k e]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

Parasite definitely wasn't better than Alita or Endgame.

what

[Beet]

The recent Oscar best picture winners have all been subpar... I can't say I've watched every one, but I can't remember the last time I saw a Best Picture Winner and thought... 'Wow, that really was the best film to be released that year. I understand why the Academy's wisdom should be respected.'

For an idea, my favorite films of 2019 were Good Boys, Long Shot, Alita, and Aladdin, and none of them made it anywhere near Best Picture.

[emailking]

Moonlight was another in a long line of Oscar bait movies that will be forgotten within ten years. Birdman and Parasite were both far superior and were excellent choices.

Parasite definitely wasn't better than Alita or Endgame.

what

That's what I think, I probably should have qualified that.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

The recent Oscar best picture winners have all been subpar... I can't say I've watched every one, but I can't remember the last time I saw a Best Picture Winner and thought... 'Wow, that really was the best film to be released that year. I understand why the Academy's wisdom should be respected.'

For an idea, my favorite films of 2019 were Good Boys, Long Shot, Alita, and Aladdin, and none of them made it anywhere near Best Picture.

I liked all 4 of those movies, but none of them belong anywhere even remotely close to Best Picture.

[emailking]

I know opinions on Alita are a bit polarized but it was the first movie in many years that touched my soul. Tenet has done that since.

[pbrower2a]

Obviously you are going to have only white people as Nazis. unless the person is so near-white that nobody would notice. Or one will have to do Nazis in whiteface. Right?

[emailking]

Obviously you are going to have only white people as Nazis. unless the person is so near-white that nobody would notice. Or one will have to do Nazis in whiteface. Right?

As I understand it, the production has to be diverse, not necessarily the movie itself.

[Brittain33]

Obviously you are going to have only white people as Nazis. unless the person is so near-white that nobody would notice. Or one will have to do Nazis in whiteface. Right?

As I understand it, the production has to be diverse, not necessarily the movie itself.

Not many people are actually reading the four criteria or the article before posting.

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

Obviously you are going to have only white people as Nazis. unless the person is so near-white that nobody would notice. Or one will have to do Nazis in whiteface. Right?

As I understand it, the production has to be diverse, not necessarily the movie itself.

Not many people are actually reading the four criteria or the article before posting.

If these rules would actually lead to getting a potential nominee disqualified, then they are valuing identitarianism over art, which makes them stupid. If they would never actually lead to getting a potential nominee disqualified, then they might as well not even exist, and they are therefore pointless virtue-signaling, which also makes them stupid. Either way, they are stupid.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

Ok, so it's stupid for reason #2.

[Santander]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

[Higgins]

Probably every movie ever made has had, by these metrics, a diverse production staff. I mean Christ, Hollywood was probably one of the few places gays, bisexuals and lesbians could exist without torment relatively out of the closet (not officially, but still) even back in the 1920s. Even Gone With the Wind - the strongest character who isn't either utterly selfish, or painfully and sadly deluded, is a Black Woman. Is she a "Mammy stereotype", yes, but she's also literally the strongest and most sensible character in the entire film.

[emailking]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting exception. 4 hour movie with a large cast but no women other than a few extras in one scene.

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting exception. 4 hour movie with a large cast but no women other than a few extras in one scene.

12 Angry Men is another, and both happen to be in my top five favorite films of all time.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting exception. 4 hour movie with a large cast but no women other than a few extras in one scene.

12 Angry Men is another, and both happen to be in my top five favorite films of all time.

1917 is a more recent example of a cast consisting entirely of white men, but women, people of color, and LGBT people behind the cameras also count (which 1917 had). And how many straight cis men work in costume design or makeup?

[Santander]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting exception. 4 hour movie with a large cast but no women other than a few extras in one scene.

12 Angry Men is another, and both happen to be in my top five favorite films of all time.

1917 is a more recent example, but women, people of color, and LGBT people behind the cameras also count. And how many straight cis men work in costume design or makeup?

I would love to do those jobs. 

[Former President tack50]

This was already covered pretty extensively in the New Left Watch Thread on AAD: essentially, almost every movie would already qualify because nowadays it's pretty much impossible to make a movie where the entire cast and crew are straight cis white men.

If you're going to be that narrow, it's basically almost always been impossible to make a movie with just white guys. Even in some action movie or sports movie or war movie, there's going to be some prominent female family member or love interest.

Lawrence of Arabia is an interesting exception. 4 hour movie with a large cast but no women other than a few extras in one scene.

12 Angry Men is another, and both happen to be in my top five favorite films of all time.

1917 is a more recent example, but women, people of color, and LGBT people behind the cameras also count. And how many straight cis men work in costume design or makeup?

I would love to do those jobs. 

It is never too late to change careers

[StateBoiler]

Basically this will force Oscar contenders to fulfill the following 2/4 following criteria:

1) Onscreen Representation, Themes and Narratives
2) Creative Leadership and Project Team
3) Industry Access and Opportunities
4) Audience Development

So a film like "The Artist" or "La Bella e Vita" will never win again? (I know La Bella e Vita depicts Jews but that's not diverse to some people.) This effectively rules out foreign films from European homogeneous countries from ever winning.