|
Post by WizLemon on Sept 9, 2020 11:50:50 GMT
When I was reading the article, these conditions did not seem very lofty to adopt. Even if your whole cast is white and straight (which is the case with 90% of the movies anyway), producers can hire black and queer and Asian and disabled members for behind the team efforts. This really is the bare minimum. I mean only 75% of American population is white. 50.8% of the population is female. About time our movies and the industry behind these movies should reflect that. I hope this was done more in the spirit of promoting change from within the industry more than to disbar 'white' films. Also, this implies to 2024 and so studios and producers have plenty of time to actively start thinking about hiring female editors, directors, cinematographers, LGBTQ artists, Asian and Native American and Black artists.
I agree: a movie is a great movie if it's a great movie. And these reforms are by no means perfect - you are rightfully suspicious of tokenism.
But something needed to be done. It's a good start I think and I'll be very curious to see how it translates to real/reel life. I wish the Academy would sponsor art and filmmaking courses and schools in black communities, sponsor native American artists, give scholarships to LGBTQ and disabled talent. This can go on. This fixes nothing. But may be, just may be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Dedlock on Sept 9, 2020 12:11:13 GMT
ok I went through the article and alot of the requirements are already being met by alot of recent films, also how strictly they enforce their rules remains to be seen. Asking people to disclose their sexuality on set might prove to be problematic!
but I agree with the guest that mentioned "its not that hard to qualify." the studios to qualify for best picture only have to meet
so there is nothing controversial here, its a positive development to bring in diversity to movie studios and perhaps give actors from other races a chance to be seen. there is nothing wrong with that, and under these rules " the northman" can qualify if they meet two of the four standards, they might not me the casting standard but they have three others out for the taking.
|
|
|
Post by WizLemon on Sept 9, 2020 12:23:03 GMT
Yup. If you have an all white cast, there are enough absolutely talented make up artists, editors, sound engineers, interns who identify as non-white, non-straight and deserve a chance! They just haven't been given the chance historically because of their race, ethnicity, orientation or gender.
|
|
|
Post by HaurvatatL on Sept 9, 2020 12:25:07 GMT
When I was reading the article, these conditions did not seem very lofty to adopt. Even if your whole cast is white and straight (which is the case with 90% of the movies anyway), producers can hire black and queer and Asian and disabled members for behind the team efforts. This really is the bare minimum. I mean only 75% of American population is white. 50.8% of the population is female. About time our movies and the industry behind these movies should reflect that. I hope this was done more in the spirit of promoting change from within the industry more than to disbar 'white' films. Also, this implies to 2024 and so studios and producers have plenty of time to actively start thinking about hiring female editors, directors, cinematographers, LGBTQ artists, Asian and Native American and Black artists. I agree: a movie is a great movie if it's a great movie. And these reforms are by no means perfect - you are rightfully suspicious of tokenism. But something needed to be done. It's a good start I think and I'll be very curious to see how it translates to real/reel life. I wish the Academy would sponsor art and filmmaking courses and schools in black communities, sponsor native American artists, give scholarships to LGBTQ and disabled talent. This can go on. This fixes nothing. But may be, just may be a good start. yes, if they wanna protect some theme and genre, they can do like that gymnastics and figure skating thing. like.. for the particular theme and genre and production, maybe let them have 50 bonus votes or something? to change the conversation more smoothly. WW2 films don't get to compete best picture is just disrespectful.
|
|
|
Post by WizLemon on Sept 9, 2020 12:29:33 GMT
They really can compete though. How about hiring a make up artist who is black. Or an editor who is a woman. Or having interns on the set who have disabilities or are Asian or identify as queer. You can still make a very beautiful, historically accurate movie and yet have a diverse crew, no?
|
|
|
Post by bada on Sept 9, 2020 12:32:35 GMT
Um... you should read that again. It's not that hard to qualify, studios could literally just give paid internships to women during production and make sure minorities are involved in the marketing, publicity and/or distribution of the film. It's basically the bare minimum they could do. These standards simply FORCES them to do it. By the way, I'd be interested to know how else "lefties expropriate the freedom of creation"? This is going to shock you, but most art created all over the world is created by left-leaning individuals. Most of the movies, books, plays and music you're ever enjoyed exists thanks to "lefties". The Northman is just lost the qualification for the best picture award. "not that hard"? and it's becuz the freedom of speech which the academy is destroying with this new rule. What are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the thing? The Northman has Louise Ford (a woman) as an editor & Kharmel Cochrane (a POC woman) as a casting director. There, Standard B is already fulfilled. (Obviously there are many more minorities in the crew, but those two already meet the standard. So I won't bother to check all of them.) I'm pretty sure New Regency or the eventual distributor (will) have enough female and/or POC and/or LGBTQ+ interns and executives. (Honestly, is there any studio that doesn't have them in 2020?) There, Standard C and D will be most definitely fulfilled. Wow, you only have to meet 2 of the 4 standards to be eligible, but The Northman has 3! The Northman will be 100% eligible. Honestly, these are bare minimum. Every single film you mentioned earlier will still be eligible under these standards. I mean, The Hurt Locker? Did you happen to forget it was directed by a woman? Even Dunkirk, probably the whitest and the most male movie you mentioned, also meet the qualification (female producers / female executives - including the one who became the freaking CEO 2 years later - at Warner Bros). If Dunkirk can be eligible, literally everything else can.
|
|
|
Post by HaurvatatL on Sept 9, 2020 12:41:15 GMT
I know and the new rules begin in 2024, so it's just a metaphor. but what about Dunkirk and 1917? I don't think they need to change in their own way, they're great and served the industry, their artistic and technic level are all Oscar worthy, and people behind that billion boxoffice number are consumer also, even they're not all minorities. if academy change their name to Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Diversity. then I don't have any problems.
|
|
|
Post by bada on Sept 9, 2020 12:49:05 GMT
I know and the new rules begin in 2024, so it's just a metaphor. but what about Dunkirk and 1917? I don't think they need to change in their own way, they're great and served the industry. and people behind that billion boxoffice number are consumer also. if academy change their name to Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and diversity. then I don't have any problems. As I said, Dunkirk would have been eligible. 1917 has female producers, a female writer, a female casting director, etc. And it was distributed by Universal whose chairman is a woman. 100% eligible.
|
|
|
Post by HaurvatatL on Sept 9, 2020 12:49:46 GMT
They really can compete though. How about hiring a make up artist who is black. Or an editor who is a woman. Or having interns on the set who have disabilities or are Asian or identify as queer. You can still make a very beautiful, historically accurate movie and yet have a diverse crew, no? what about they don't wanna, cuz they got suitable co-workers already? then they don't deserve to compete it anymore? as a gayman and an asian, if someone hires me only becuz I'm gay or colored, then I think that's the worst kind of racist.
|
|
|
Post by HaurvatatL on Sept 9, 2020 12:59:51 GMT
I know and the new rules begin in 2024, so it's just a metaphor. but what about Dunkirk and 1917? I don't think they need to change in their own way, they're great and served the industry. and people behind that billion boxoffice number are consumer also. if academy change their name to Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and diversity. then I don't have any problems. As I said, Dunkirk would have been eligible. 1917 has female producers, a female writer, a female casting director, etc. And it was distributed by Universal whose chairman is a woman. 100% eligible. OK, I've to really dig one good example, but thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Dedlock on Sept 9, 2020 13:06:15 GMT
Kaniska there is no good example, this the bare minimum the academy can do to address the issue on hand.
If you do find an example it'll be from space.
All crews behind major features will meet the requirements and if they don't then they should make an effort to look around, this is good news.
|
|
|
Post by bada on Sept 9, 2020 13:10:14 GMT
Personally, I think these standards are quite useless since it's near impossible to NOT meet the criteria these days. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of professional films released in the States for the last 5 years fulfill them. I think this is merely AMPAS trying to look good while actually doing nothing.
Even more reason to not overreact.
|
|
|
Post by HaurvatatL on Sept 9, 2020 13:27:54 GMT
Kaniska there is no good example, this the bare minimum the academy can do to address the issue on hand. If you do find an example it'll be from space. All crews behind major features will meet the requirements and if they don't then they should make an effort to look around, this is good news. or foreign white folks.
|
|
|
Post by Ventura on Sept 10, 2020 3:42:58 GMT
link “the Academy is committed to playing a vital role in helping make this a reality.” this is just disgusting, unbelievably disgusting!! Gladiator, The Pianist, the Departed, There Will Be Blod, No Country For Old Men, The Hurt Locker, The Social Network, The Artist, Les Misérables, Nebraska, Boyhood, Birdman, American Sniper, Whiplash, The Big Short, Spotlight, Manchester by the Sea, Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The Irishman, 1917, Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood.. are no longer qualified for Oscar's best picture award. someone pls sue the academy, protect Amendment I. Kaniska, please don't do this and research a bit more. All of these would meet the requirements necessary to qualify, it's not only actors on screen and themes, it's also people BEHIND the scenes. OUATIH has a bunch of head of department who are women, 1917 has a female co-writer and so on and so forth. People are getting infuriated about this for no reason, all BP nominees from last year would meet the required criteria. Also, it's interesting to point out no one is telling film-makers how to make their films. They can choose to have a white man in every role in front and behind the camera, they're just saying they need to meet this criteria *in order to be nominated for BP*. Foreign Films can't be nominated for Best Picture at the Golden Globes FOR NO REASON and no one does this much about it.
|
|
|
Post by Ventura on Sept 10, 2020 3:54:44 GMT
Personally, I think these standards are quite useless since it's near impossible to NOT meet the criteria these days. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of professional films released in the States for the last 5 years fulfill them. I think this is merely AMPAS trying to look good while actually doing nothing. Even more reason to not overreact. This. Thanks for looking up The Northman example, too. It really is sooo easy to meet this criteria. Most movies meet this criteria already, and I'd be hard pressed to find a BP nominee who doesn't meet them in the last 10 years. It's precisely because of this that the rules are quite useless, because they don't actually ask to do much that hadn't been done before, and still people are getting infuriated. I agree that tokenism is an issue and there are some iffy aspects, like asking lgbt+ workers to disclose certain information, but really about having to hire a more diverse crew and staff... it really isn't that hard to have more poc, women and lgbt+ as part of the advertising team, for example. No one's telling you to recast your lead.
|
|