And the award for the most woke movie goes too...

[Gob]

The Academy Awards shake-up means films hoping to win Best Picture from 2024 will have to hire more black, female, LGBT or disabled cast and crew or address themes that affect those communities.

Academy chiefs say the rules are intended to 'better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience', but critics accused 'Woke Hollywood' bosses of turning the Oscars into a 'weapon against anyone who disagreed with their politics'.

Oscar nominee James Woods said the new eligibility rules were 'madness', while Cheers star Alley called them a 'disgrace to artists everywhere'.

The move comes after months of race protests in the US and years of pressure from activists who have called for a boycott of the glitzy event.

The initiatives will go into effect with films released in 2024, which will be recognized at the 96th Oscars in 2025.

Films contending for the best picture Oscar in 2022 and 2023 will not be bound by the rules, but will need to submit to the Academy confidential data on the movies' diversity based on the new criteria.

Starting in 2024, films will need to meet at least two of four new standards to qualify for Best Picture.

The first standard focuses on 'on-screen representation, themes and narratives,' with a film required to meet at least one of three sub-criteria to achieve this standard.

The first of these is that a film must have at least one lead or significant supporting actor' from an underrepresented group including Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or Other underrepresented race or ethnicity.

If the film is an ensemble, there must be at least 30 per cent of all actors in secondary and more minor roles who are either women, from a racial or ethnic group, from the LGBTQ+ community or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The third sub-criteria revolves around the story, which must revolve around women, from a racial or ethnic group, from the LGBTQ+ community or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing to qualify for this criteria.

If any one of those criteria are met, a film achieves the first standard, with the second focusing on 'creative leadership and project team.'

To achieve the second standard, a film must meet at least one of the three criteria below.

The first says that a film must have at least two creative leaders or department heads in the following roles - Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer - who are either women, from a racial or ethnic group, from the LGBTQ+ community or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Of those two positions, at least one must be from the following groups: Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or Other underrepresented race or ethnicity.

The second sub-criteria states that at least six other crew members/technical team members must be from an underrepresented group, including positions such as First AD, Gaffer, Script Supervisor.

The third criteria states that the entire crew must be comprised of over 30% of those from underrepresented groups such as women, from a racial or ethnic group, from the LGBTQ+ community or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The third overarching standard focuses on Industry Access and Opportunities, with two criteria, both of which must be met.

The first criteria is that a film's studio or production company must have paid interns who are from the following groups: women, from a racial or ethnic group, from the LGBTQ+ community or people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Major studios are required to have, 'substantive, ongoing paid apprenticeships/internships inclusive of underrepresented groups (must also include racial or ethnic groups) in most of the following departments: production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing and publicity.'

Mini-major and/or independent companies/studios must have, 'a minimum of two apprentices/interns from the above underrepresented groups (at least one from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group) in at least one of the following departments: production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing and publicity.'

The second criteria states that a film company must offer, 'training and/or work opportunities for below-the-line skill development to people 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.

The fourth and final standard relates to Audience Development, which states that the studio or production company must have 'multiple in-house senior executives' from underrepresented groups on their publicity and marketing teams.

The Academy added that films in the specialty feature categories (Animated Feature Film, Documentary Feature, International Feature Film), 'will be addressed separately.'

What utter fucking horseshit.

[Big RR]

Horseshit? Certainly? but remember that the Academy is a trade organization designed to promote the film industry and get asses in seats. The Academy awards don't reward achievement as much as they serve as a promotional campaign for films generally, keeping films and filmaking in the press in the traditionally slower seasons. I don't see how these criteria will achieve this, but maybe they know their business better than I do (indeed, I would hope they do). Somehow I see a future crash and burn on account of this.

[BoSoxGal]

If you go back to the beginning of all those directives and realize they only have to meet TWO of FOUR standards, and that meeting two of them is as easy as having women and interns of color comprising 30% of the staff related to the film and a couple of diverse staff on the marketing team, it’s not overly onerous at all and it isn’t going to conform all content in films. Very easy to get overly hysterical reading this new criteria (as James Woods clearly did), but there is nothing here that will ruin Hollywood or do anything other than provide some affirmative action to women and BIPOC in the industry and I am all for that.

eta: It’s definitely not horse shit, but I’m not surprised to see two very comfortable white men express that response.

[Long Run]

[Gob]

but there is nothing here that will ruin Hollywood or do anything other than provide some affirmative action to women and BIPOC in the industry and I am all for that.

No one thinks it will "ruin Hollywood", that's just your own silliness. However, whatever happened to movies winning as they were ....good movies.... not due to them conforming to a political agenda?

eta: It’s definitely not horse shit, but I’m not surprised to see two very comfortable white men express that response.

Oh it's horseshit alright, but I’m not surprised to see a very screwy white woman express that response.

[TPFKA@W]

Since cell phones became a ubiquitous annoyance I have not gone to the movies. It's been even longer since I have given a shit what movie won what. If the acting is all solid in a production with an engaging story line I am unable to care who is doing what part.

[BoSoxGal]

but there is nothing here that will ruin Hollywood or do anything other than provide some affirmative action to women and BIPOC in the industry and I am all for that.

No one thinks it will "ruin Hollywood", that's just your own silliness. However, whatever happened to movies winning as they were ....good movies.... not due to them conforming to a political agenda?

eta: It’s definitely not horse shit, but I’m not surprised to see two very comfortable white men express that response.

Oh it's horseshit alright, but I’m not surprised to see a very screwy white woman express that response.

Affirmative action isn’t a political agenda, it’s equity.

[Scooter]

whatever happened to movies winning as they were ....good movies.... not due to them conforming to a political agenda?

The process of film making is inherently political - who is in and who is out, who holds power and who does not, whose stories are told and whose are not, who or what is seen as being palatable to an audience and who or what is not. Those who hold the power build the industry to conform to their own vision, and the range of what constitutes "good" film is limited by that vision and by the exclusion of any talent that is not seen as fitting into it. These reforms give film makers the incentive to tap into pools of talent that they might otherwise have overlooked. It provides a way for those who have been largely excluded to get a foot in the door and show what they can do. And because, as BSG has noted, the options for meeting these standards are so wide ranging, they can be achieved without anyone having to compromise their artistic vision in even the slightest degree.

And why would anyone give a flying fuck what Kirstie Alley thinks about anything?

[Econoline]

...remember that the Academy is a trade organization designed to promote the film industry and get asses in seats. The Academy awards don't reward achievement as much as they serve as a promotional campaign for films generally, keeping films and filmaking in the press in the traditionally slower seasons. I don't see how these criteria will achieve this, but maybe they know their business better than I do (indeed, I would hope they do).

Bingo.

[Joe Guy]

They should just change the award's name to 'Affirmative Oscar' and give everyone a participation award.

[Big RR]

It’s definitely not horse shit, but I’m not surprised to see two very comfortable white men express that response.

Playing the race/gender card? As a white male I have just as much a right to express my opinion as anyone else, and I'm not going to apologize for my race or gender. Indeed, I'm surprised you see this as something which will "provide some affirmative action to women and BIPOC in the industry"; Hollywood follows nothing but the money (one need only to look at the majority of movies made and heavily promoted to see this), and they will find a way around all of this without any chance of any change unless the box office demands it.

[Long Run]

They should just change the award's name to 'Affirmative Oscar' and give everyone a participation award.

Inscribe: ars celare artem

[BoSoxGal]

It’s definitely not horse shit, but I’m not surprised to see two very comfortable white men express that response.

Playing the race/gender card? As a white male I have just as much a right to express my opinion as anyone else, and I'm not going to apologize for my race or gender. Indeed, I'm surprised you see this as something which will "provide some affirmative action to women and BIPOC in the industry"; Hollywood follows nothing but the money (one need only to look at the majority of movies made and heavily promoted to see this), and they will find a way around all of this without any chance of any change unless the box office demands it.

Did I say you couldn’t express your opinion? No I did not. I merely asserted that I wasn’t surprised to see two white males with a white male experience of the world expressing a negative opinion of a system contrived to provide some equity of access to opportunity for women and melanin-enhanced people. If that rubs you wrong, that’s your issue.

Now, if YOU’RE saying it is horseshit because it doesn’t go far enough and you’d rather see a much more extensive application of meaningful affirmative action standards in the industry, by all means clarify and my opinion will be correspondingly nuanced. That’s certainly different than the horseshit declaration Gob clearly means as contempt for any kind of affirmative action regime in the industry because it’s all a cult of victim hood and nobody ever experiences discrimination ever and the only thing that matters is if he likes the films or not - or at least that’s how his comments read to me.

[Joe Guy]

If they were to remake Straight Outta Compton, would they need to add non-binary Chinese and transgendered indigenous American characters with disabilities to be in the running for Best Picture?

[Scooter]

Interesting that you should choose that example, one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of that year, but theatres that screened it felt the need to add extra security, and it got only a single Oscar nomination (best original screenplay) because, you know, black people are too scary.

[Econoline]

No matter what standards/restrictions/criteria the Academy places on the process of choosing the winner of their "Best Picture" award, they cannot prevent any of us from deciding on our own just which picture we liked the most.

[Bicycle Bill]

Here is a list of the top 50 films in terms of money made ..... and with only two exceptions (denoted by ℗ ), there ain't a Best Picture winner among them:

1      Avengers: Endgame
2      Avatar
3      Titanic   ℗
4      Star Wars: The Force Awakens
5      Avengers: Infinity War
6      Jurassic World
7      The Lion King
8      The Avengers
9       Furious 7
10     Frozen II
11     Avengers: Age of Ultron
12     Black Panther
13     Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
14     Star Wars: The Last Jedi
15     Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
16     Frozen
17     Beauty and the Beast (2017)
18     The Incredibles 2
19     The Fate of the Furious
20     Iron Man 3
21     Minions
22     Captain America: Civil War
23     Aquaman
24     The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)   ℗
25     Spider-Man: Far From Home
26     Captain Marvel (2019)
27     Transformers: Dark of the Moon
28     Skyfall
29     Transformers: Age of Extinction
30     The Dark Knight Rises
31     Joker
32     Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
33     Toy Story 4
34     Toy Story 3
35     Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
36     Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
37     Aladdin (2019)
38     Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
39     Despicable Me 3
40     Jurassic Park
41     Finding Dory
42     Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace
43     Alice in Wonderland (2010)
44     Zootopia
45     The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
46     The Dark Knight
47     Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
48     Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
49     Despicable Me 2
50     The Lion King (1994)

This would seem to prove — to me, anyway — that Hollywood makes what sells.  And if it turns out to be a quality movie — well, that's just extra gravy on the potatoes.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

whatever happened to movies winning as they were ....good movies.... not due to them conforming to a political agenda?

The process of film making is inherently political - who is in and who is out, who holds power and who does not, whose stories are told and whose are not, who or what is seen as being palatable to an audience and who or what is not.

Yeah, like Jaws was all about the great white hegemony, and the subjugation of the weaker sex...

These reforms give film makers the incentive to tap into pools of talent that they might otherwise have overlooked.

Horseshit. If they want to be considered for an award, it makes it compulsory for them to hire people to tick boxes, no matter if there are others better than them, due to PC.

It provides a way for those who have been largely excluded to get a foot in the door and show what they can do.

"Largely excluded"? Oh so these imaginary people were turned down due to "ism" were thy? Even if they were very talented? Bollocks..

And why would anyone give a flying fuck what Kirstie Alley thinks about anything?

Sexist!! (Ageist? Bootist?)

[Big RR]

Did I say you couldn’t express your opinion? No I did not. I merely asserted that I wasn’t surprised to see two white males with a white male experience of the world expressing a negative opinion of a system contrived to provide some equity of access to opportunity for women and melanin-enhanced people. If that rubs you wrong, that’s your issue.

No, you did not say I couldn't post, but dismissing my opinion as something being the result of being a "comfortable white" male without even addressing it shows what your assessment of that post was--something pretty much not worth of any attention.

If you read the remainder of my post you would see why I thought it was horseshit, and it was not because I thought that trying to get unrepresented people into positions of influence in Hollywood is not a desirable goal. But these guidelines are sp loose one could drive a truck through them, and I predict Hollywood will do just that, while pretending that they are committed to real change. Again, IMHO all the movie industry is committed to is selling movies, and pretending they are doing something while conducting business pretty much as usual will pretty much do exactly that. Face it, Hollywood is pretty good in constructing fantasies, it's their stock in trade.

[BoSoxGal]

And clearly you blew off the latter part of my post, which did in fact address the latter part of yours - if belatedly.