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

[Former President tack50]

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

Within each category are a variety of criteria involving the inclusion of people in underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people and those with cognitive or physical disabilities.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-09-08/academy-oscars-inclusion-standards-best-picture

Posting this to see the discussion on the implications of this. I personally do not like them. If the best movie happens to feature and be made by all white straight men, what's the problem? On the other hand the standards are not super harsh and should not stop too many movies but I am still opposed.

But let's see what others think

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is a mistake

[7,052,770]

It's all for show. If what I've seen on Twitter is true, you'd have to be failing on purpose for a movie not to meet 2 of these 4 standards.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/kylebuchanan/status/1303513693599145985

https://twitter.com/kylebuchanan/status/1303529843435347968

[BaldEagle1991]

I guess we're gonna see Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 nominations then.

[emailking]

Black Panther was nominated by the way.

I would actually like to see more movies like Avengers get nominated, instead of almost entirely dramas. It was interesting though that they voted a foreign movie best picture last year (although I didn't really like it).

[dead0man]

<giant roll eyes>

[Calthrina950]

I don't particularly care about the Oscars, and haven't watched the full ceremony in years. Moreover, I hardly watch any of the movies that get nominated in any case (save for Black Panther, which I saw on Netflix about a year or so ago). So this makes no difference to me. It's interesting though, how the Academy seems to be trying its hand at responding to "racial justice" concerns, but it's still got a long way to go, given how it has traditionally treated minority actors and producers. To this day, no black director has won the Oscar for Best Director (though a few have won Oscars for Best Picture and Screenplay).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is either a virtue-signaling non-change for the reasons that Twitter thread articulated, or a backdoor to giving those in charge of certain East Asian film markets even more say in what gets produced. Possibly a bit of both.

I guess we're gonna see Black Panther 2 and Captain Marvel 2 nominations then.

I can't speak for a thus-far-hypothetical second Captain Marvel movie, but the first one was really not that conspicuously ~diverse~ other than the director and the lead.

[DrScholl]

Can Trump do something about this? I mean this is racist towards white people and violates the constitution. If Biden doesn't come out and condemn this he is complicit in promoting hatred against the heartland.

[Ferguson97]

It's going to be funny to watch people who have never cared about the Oscars suddenly pretend to care about the Oscars.

You'd have to try pretty hard to not meet 2 of the 4 standards.

If the head of your makeup department is a woman, the head of your special effects department is a black guy, and your internship program uses affirmative action - then congrats, your movie qualifies.

Is this just virtue signaling? Yes. Is it a big deal? Not really.

[Horus]

So this was done to appease the Chinese market? Not good, I've never seen a decent Chinese film.

[parochial boy]

Well, I was never going to win an Oscar and I am still not going to win an Oscar. So, why should I give a crap?

It's just meaningless dross designed to look good as opposed to actually do good.

[Former President tack50]

It's going to be funny to watch people who have never cared about the Oscars suddenly pretend to care about the Oscars.

You'd have to try pretty hard to not meet 2 of the 4 standards.

If the head of your makeup department is a woman, the head of your special effects department is a black guy, and your internship program uses affirmative action - then congrats, your movie qualifies.

Is this just virtue signaling? Yes. Is it a big deal? Not really.

Using affirmative action is not exactly a low bar to clear; and hollywood should not force companies to use it

[Koharu]

It's a start.

What I'd prefer is a requirement for cast and crew makeup together to reflect the average US ratios. So you gotta have at least 18% Hispanic or Latinx, 13% African American, 6% Asian, 1% First Nations, .2%  Pacific Islander. Obvs these would be thresholds. With gender, though, I'd actually prefer male vs female to be about equivalent, with trans folks being at least .5% of the total and non-binary folks getting a representative amount as well, which unfortunately there isn't data on yet really, but let's say .5% for them as well.

And if you want to make a movie that doesn't fit these standards, ain't nobody going to stop you. You just wouldn't be eligible for whatever award was brave enough to have these requirements as necessary for being considered for their award.

It'd also be cool to have adult age ratios in there too, basically with the under-18 numbers going to allow you to use as buffer. So at least 9% folks being 19-25, at least 12% 26-34, 26% 35-54, 13% 55-64, 16% ≥65, and then the remaining 20% to fit in any age category. Though my categories would be 18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, 58-67, ≥68, but I couldn't find a quick source on the percentages of those breakdowns that didn't require me to do my own math.

The fact that there are 20% of Americans who are under 18 would give lots of buffer room. This would, I think, help weed out "old white dudes" being a large percentage of producers and directors and also help somewhat with the always using actors younger than the ages they're supposed to represent, but the buffer would still let you make Grace and Frankie or Grumpy Old Men or a college movie.

[T'Chenka]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

[SteveRogers]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

It would not.

[T'Chenka]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

It would not.

Which 2 of the 4 does it check off? "Diversity" means DIVERSITY, not "non-white". It's a Korean film with a Korean cast and Korean film crew AFAIK. There's no diversity. There's no racial themes in the movie either.

[GP270watch]

 This is like the barest of minimums, Hollywood is so out of step.

[Gracile]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

It would not.

Which 2 of the 4 does it check off? "Diversity" means DIVERSITY, not "non-white". It's a Korean film with a Korean cast and Korean film crew AFAIK. There's no diversity. There's no racial themes in the movie either.

In terms of these rules (where the context centers around the predominantly white American film industry and the lack of representation directed at American/western audiences), diversity = non-white or other marginalized groups (LGBTQ+, disabled people) representation in acting roles and crew positions. From a Korean perspective that would likely not be the case, but in this case it would meet the requirements.

[SteveRogers]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

It would not.

Which 2 of the 4 does it check off? "Diversity" means DIVERSITY, not "non-white". It's a Korean film with a Korean cast and Korean film crew AFAIK. There's no diversity. There's no racial themes in the movie either.

Did you read the rules? They're in the article the OP linked to. Parasite would auto-check all 4 criteria since Asians are counted as an "underrepresented" group per the rules. But even if that wasn't the case, Parasite would probably meet most of the criteria by virtue of featuring a significant number of female characters as well as women in significant roles behind the scenes.

[T'Chenka]

Serious question: if these rules were in place last year, would that not disqualify Parasite (which WON Best Picture)?

It would not.

Which 2 of the 4 does it check off? "Diversity" means DIVERSITY, not "non-white". It's a Korean film with a Korean cast and Korean film crew AFAIK. There's no diversity. There's no racial themes in the movie either.

Did you read the rules? They're in the article the OP linked to. Parasite would auto-check all 4 criteria since Asians are counted as an "underrepresented" group per the rules. But even if that wasn't the case, Parasite would probably meet most of the criteria by virtue of featuring a significant number of female characters as well as women in significant roles behind the scenes.

Does the fact that Koreans are not under-represented in Korean film come into play at all? Probably not I guess, but IMO it's at minimum SOMEWHAT relevant.

[gerritcole]

the gov should just approve each and every film before they're made to ensure it meets any and all thought crime requirements

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a start.

What I'd prefer is a requirement for cast and crew makeup together to reflect the average US ratios. So you gotta have at least 18% Hispanic or Latinx, 13% African American, 6% Asian, 1% First Nations, .2%  Pacific Islander. Obvs these would be thresholds. With gender, though, I'd actually prefer male vs female to be about equivalent, with trans folks being at least .5% of the total and non-binary folks getting a representative amount as well, which unfortunately there isn't data on yet really, but let's say .5% for them as well.

And if you want to make a movie that doesn't fit these standards, ain't nobody going to stop you. You just wouldn't be eligible for whatever award was brave enough to have these requirements as necessary for being considered for their award.

It'd also be cool to have adult age ratios in there too, basically with the under-18 numbers going to allow you to use as buffer. So at least 9% folks being 19-25, at least 12% 26-34, 26% 35-54, 13% 55-64, 16% ≥65, and then the remaining 20% to fit in any age category. Though my categories would be 18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, 58-67, ≥68, but I couldn't find a quick source on the percentages of those breakdowns that didn't require me to do my own math.

The fact that there are 20% of Americans who are under 18 would give lots of buffer room. This would, I think, help weed out "old white dudes" being a large percentage of producers and directors and also help somewhat with the always using actors younger than the ages they're supposed to represent, but the buffer would still let you make Grace and Frankie or Grumpy Old Men or a college movie.

Genuine question: Is this a joke?

[T'Chenka]

It's a start.

What I'd prefer is a requirement for cast and crew makeup together to reflect the average US ratios. So you gotta have at least 18% Hispanic or Latinx, 13% African American, 6% Asian, 1% First Nations, .2%  Pacific Islander. Obvs these would be thresholds. With gender, though, I'd actually prefer male vs female to be about equivalent, with trans folks being at least .5% of the total and non-binary folks getting a representative amount as well, which unfortunately there isn't data on yet really, but let's say .5% for them as well.

And if you want to make a movie that doesn't fit these standards, ain't nobody going to stop you. You just wouldn't be eligible for whatever award was brave enough to have these requirements as necessary for being considered for their award.

It'd also be cool to have adult age ratios in there too, basically with the under-18 numbers going to allow you to use as buffer. So at least 9% folks being 19-25, at least 12% 26-34, 26% 35-54, 13% 55-64, 16% ≥65, and then the remaining 20% to fit in any age category. Though my categories would be 18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, 58-67, ≥68, but I couldn't find a quick source on the percentages of those breakdowns that didn't require me to do my own math.

The fact that there are 20% of Americans who are under 18 would give lots of buffer room. This would, I think, help weed out "old white dudes" being a large percentage of producers and directors and also help somewhat with the always using actors younger than the ages they're supposed to represent, but the buffer would still let you make Grace and Frankie or Grumpy Old Men or a college movie.

Genuine question: Is this a joke?

Imagine trying to make a super realistic WW2 war film about nazis under those criteria.