|
Post by darkpast on Sept 9, 2020 2:21:44 GMT
STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES
To achieve Standard A, the film must meet ONE of the following criteria:
A1. Lead or significant supporting actors At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
Asian Hispanic/Latinx Black/African American Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native Middle Eastern/North African Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other underrepresented race or ethnicity
A2. General ensemble cast At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups:
Women Racial or ethnic group LGBTQ+ People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
A3. Main storyline/subject matter The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).
Women Racial or ethnic group LGBTQ+ People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
STANDARD B: CREATIVE LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT TEAM
To achieve Standard B, the film must meet ONE of the criteria below:
B1. Creative leadership and department heads At least two of the following creative leadership positions and department heads — Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer — are 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
At least one of those positions must belong to the following underrepresented racial or ethnic group:
Asian Hispanic/Latinx Black/African American Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native Middle Eastern/North African Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other underrepresented race or ethnicity
B2. Other key roles At least six other crew/team and technical positions (excluding Production Assistants) are from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. These positions include but are not limited to First AD, Gaffer, Script Supervisor, etc.
B3. Overall crew composition At least 30% of the film's crew is 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
STANDARD C: INDUSTRY ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES
To achieve Standard C, the film must meet BOTH criteria below:
C1. Paid apprenticeship and internship opportunities
The film’s distribution or financing company has paid apprenticeships or internships that are from the following underrepresented groups and satisfy the criteria below:
Women Racial or ethnic group LGBTQ+ People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
The major studios/distributors 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.
The mini-major or independent studios/distributors 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.
C2. Training opportunities and skills development (crew) The film’s production, distribution and/or financing company offers 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
STANDARD D: AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
To achieve Standard D, the film must meet the criterion below:
D1. Representation in marketing, publicity, and distribution The studio and/or film company has multiple in-house senior executives from among the following underrepresented groups (must include individuals from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups) on their marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams.
Women Asian Hispanic/Latinx Black/African American Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native Middle Eastern/North African Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other underrepresented race or ethnicity LGBTQ+ People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
All categories other than Best Picture will be held to their current eligibility requirements.
Films in specialty categories submitted for Best Picture/General Entry consideration (e.g. Animated Feature, Documentary Feature and International Feature Film) will be addressed separately.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 9, 2020 2:52:11 GMT
I'm curious as to whether or not members of the old guard like Martin Scorsese or Clint Eastwood will even pay attention to this.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 9, 2020 5:46:55 GMT
Not sure why everyone here feels it's ruining the Oscars. All you literally have to do is hire a production member. You literally would have to go out of your way to hire any diverse crew in order to not meet eligibility .
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 9, 2020 5:55:50 GMT
Not sure why everyone here feels it's ruining the Oscars. All you literally have to do is hire a production member. You literally would have to go out of your way to hire any diverse crew in order to not meet eligibility . it could be an issue for smaller indie films, produced outside Hollywood system, movie only having a few in crew, they must make exceptions if budgets under a million
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 9, 2020 14:25:46 GMT
it could be an issue for smaller indie films, produced outside Hollywood system, movie only having a few in crew, they must make exceptions if budgets under a million Why? Is there a U.S. city where literally no one but straight white men work in film?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 9, 2020 14:49:01 GMT
Not sure why everyone here feels it's ruining the Oscars. All you literally have to do is hire a production member. You literally would have to go out of your way to hire any diverse crew in order to not meet eligibility . A fair point.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 9, 2020 15:23:37 GMT
Not sure why everyone here feels it's ruining the Oscars. All you literally have to do is hire a production member. You literally would have to go out of your way to hire any diverse crew in order to not meet eligibility . it could be an issue for smaller indie films, produced outside Hollywood system, movie only having a few in crew, they must make exceptions if budgets under a million smaller indie films you could argue had no chance to begin with, without proper studio backing though, not saying i like it, but voters often don't see everything at all.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 9, 2020 16:42:48 GMT
it could be an issue for smaller indie films, produced outside Hollywood system, movie only having a few in crew, they must make exceptions if budgets under a million Why? Is there a U.S. city where literally no one but straight white men work in film? if small film only hires locals in small town, you have to hire the best people for job , not by race or gender
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 9, 2020 16:54:47 GMT
Regional films were never eligible for the Oscars anyway--it was a political event from day one. They didn't have painting award shows in the Renaissance--people understood then that art-making was not a competition. The Oscars was always about fake virtue-signaling but the European core of film (film was invented in Europe) has been so thoroughly eroded. Does India have diversity requirements for its film industry? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 9, 2020 18:20:18 GMT
Why? Is there a U.S. city where literally no one but straight white men work in film? if small film only hires locals in small town, you have to hire the best people for job , not by race or gender Yes, that's my point. Regional films were never eligible for the Oscars anyway That's not true. Where did you get that? They didn't have painting award shows in the Renaissance--people understood then that art-making was not a competition. All art forms are subjective, but film is an exception, because it's somewhere in the middle between subjective and objective. Does India have diversity requirements for its film industry? Probably not. That's not the same thing. Straight white men are the majority of the U.S. population, but the percentage of everyone else is still significantly high. Therefore, when there isn't even 1 white woman or 1 non-white man/woman working in a movie on any capacity, despite there being hundreds of possible jobs a person could do (even outside of principal photography), it's suspicious. On the other hand, the number of non Indians living in India is minuscule.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 9, 2020 19:31:26 GMT
That's not true. Where did you get that? All art forms are subjective, but film is an exception, because it's somewhere in the middle between subjective and objective. That's not the same thing. Straight white men are the majority of the U.S. population, but the percentage of everyone else is still significantly high. Therefore, when there isn't even 1 white woman or 1 non-white man/woman working in a movie on any capacity, despite there being hundreds of possible jobs a person could do (even outside of principal photography), it's suspicious. On the other hand, the number of non Indians living in India is minuscule. The Oscars were designed as PR for the big studios.
Film is no less subjective than painting--the only exception is technical recognition--new developments in the technology. But any of the "art" categories are subjective and biased. You can never have a "best' anything-it's bullshit. Totally subjective. Who decides? Why should their opinion matter?
India has religious diversity--muslims for example-yet you can bet the Hindus don't make films that cater to hindus and muslims alike.
Your argument on film needing to be representative of demographics is like saying all clothing needs to be unisex and culturally ambiguous. If clothing can be distinct and individual so can film--the reason it is not is because of the monopoly of the media companies--they prevent newcomers and regional players from having a piece of the distribution pie--that's why film has become so mediocre like the USSR was. They are not promoting the best of anything--merit is irrelevant--ideological loyalty is all that matters now. The fact that they now say diversity matters, proves that it was never about "best' or "merit." It's just a political charade.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 9, 2020 20:03:12 GMT
Film is no less subjective than painting--the only exception is technical recognition--new developments in the technology. But any of the "art" categories are subjective and biased. No, you can tell if a movie is well-acted, well-written, etc. You can never have a "best' anything-it's bullshit. Totally subjective. Who decides? Why should their opinion matter? There are 8,000 or so Academy voters. And there are tons of award ceremonies and film festivals around the world. Most of they time, they award the same movies in the same categories. That's not to say it means a movie is absolutely the best since, as I said before, there is a subjective element. However, it's hard to ignore the value of so many people's opinions, especially since they all have different backgrounds and mentalities. Your argument on film needing to be representative of demographics is like saying all clothing needs to be unisex and culturally ambiguous. If clothing can be distinct and individual so can film Yes, there are unisex and culturally ambiguous clothes available to buy, but there are also gender-specific and culturally specific clothes available to buy. That does represent diversity, because it gives everyone a choice on what they like to wear.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 9, 2020 20:12:25 GMT
No, you can tell if a movie is well-acted, well-written, etc. There are 8,000 or so Academy voters. And there are tons of award ceremonies and film festivals around the world. Most of they time, they award the same movies in the same categories. That's not to say it means a movie is absolutely the best since, as I said before, there is a subjective element. However, it's hard to ignore the value of so many people's opinions, especially since they all have different backgrounds and mentalities. Yes, there are unisex and culturally ambiguous clothes available to buy, but there are also gender-specific and culturally specific clothes available to buy. That does represent diversity, because it gives everyone a choice on what they like to wear. Telling if a movie is well-acted has nothing to do with best. Best is saying this acting is better than all the others. That's like proving why the Mona Lisa is superior to the School of Athens.
This is why it is ultimately a PR show--a political exercise--there are many examples of films that were either nominated or won entirely because it fit some political message of the day.
And your final comment is precisely what is what is wrong with film--you can get choice in clothing or food--but with art--the choice has been eliminated over time--that is why it is so enfeebled and chaotic. Last year a Korean film won best (English language) picture-where was the diversity in that? Hollywood has no idea what it is doing. Like CHAZ.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 9, 2020 20:48:38 GMT
Telling if a movie is well-acted has nothing to do with best. I meant that it's a good way to say a movie is objectively good. there are many examples of films that were either nominated or won entirely because it fit some political message of the day. As I said before, there are tons of award ceremonies and film festivals around the world and, usually, the same movie wins the top prize. There's absolutely no way all these voters of different nationalities, races, genders, religions and political beliefs can have the same bias. you can get choice in clothing or food--but with art--the choice has been eliminated over time How so? Last year a Korean film won best (English language) picture-where was the diversity in that? Exactly. There were no white people there. And at least one of the producers was a woman (the one who spoke at the Oscars).
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 9, 2020 21:06:20 GMT
As I said before, there are tons of award ceremonies and film festivals around the world and, usually, the same movie wins the top prize. There's absolutely no way all these voters of different nationalities, races, genders, religions and political beliefs can have the same bias. How so? Exactly. There were no white people there. And at least one of the producers was a woman (the one who spoke at the Oscars). That's globalism. The awards system all pipe into the same globalist international system. If you check, you will see that all the awards shows go through the same limited business apparatus. It's a club with a limited ideological range.
So the British Film Awards is in England, and yet usually, out of 5 nominees, only one can remotely be considered British made. Why is it called the British Film Awards when they honor Hollywood films, not indigenous ones?
It's because Britain doesn't have a film industry anymore. It did in the 50s-70s.
Compare:
to
The 2010 list includes tv and comic books to make it more impressive--and also films that are technically Hollywood productions like Inception. Jesus-they even have John Landis listed as a British director! Also, most of the casts are diverse-despite the fact that England is still like 80% or more white.
"The clearest evidence for this hypocrisy is that minorities are over-represented in television, less so in radio news, but under-represented on the BBC Board. The media's "diversity" is about visual appearances, not merit. An alien watcher of British television would think that whites and males are minorities, England is the least populated nation, and everybody cares about social justice."
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 9, 2020 21:33:52 GMT
That's globalism. The awards system all pipe into the same globalist international system. If you check, you will see that all the awards shows go through the same limited business apparatus. It's a club with a limited ideological range. Do you need to take your tin foil hat off when you shower or is it waterproof? So the British Film Awards is in England, and yet usually, out of 5 nominees, only one can remotely be considered British made. Why is it called the British Film Awards when they honor Hollywood films, not indigenous ones? The name comes from the location. They have a category for British films, but there's no need for them to exclude everything else, just like the Oscars don't award only American films.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 9, 2020 21:42:21 GMT
Do you need to take your tin foil hat off when you shower or is it waterproof? The name comes from the location. They have a category for British films, but there's no need for them to exclude everything else, just like the Oscars don't award only American films. It's no conspiracy--it's called centralized media control.
That's why there is less variety in British film in 2010 than there was in 1960. By going globalist, they reduced the opportunity for indigenous merit.
Or consider this article by a UK viewer:
And he's just speaking about UK tv--so he has a tin foil hat?
Why diversity ruins the media November 16, 2018 |In Media |By Bruce Oliver Newsome
Bruce Newsome believes the British media's quest for diversity is producing content that is boring, repetitive, predictable, hypocritically prejudicial, and (ironically) unpopular.
In the last few years, Britain has become an Orwellian nightmare, in which the media tell you what you can say, what is acceptable, what is important, what to feel. The media under-represent the majority, and over-represent minorities. They put agendas before facts. They dumb-down in order to be "inclusive." They hide news that doesn't conform with fashionable myths, and exaggerate news that does. Last week they swarmed with outrage about a tasteless bonfire party, encouraging arrests for hate crimes ? all of white men.
The new priority for the media is "diversity" without merits, where the media must look diverse of ethnicity and gender, at the expense of diversity of talents and opinions. The media over-represent supposedly under-represented groups, until majorities become under-represented, and content becomes all about social justice – boring, repetitive, predictable, and prejudicial.
The clearest evidence for this hypocrisy is that minorities are over-represented in television, less so in radio news, but under-represented on the BBC Board. The media's "diversity" is about visual appearances, not merit.
An alien watcher of British television would think that whites and males are minorities, England is the least populated nation, and everybody cares about social justice.
Programmes whose subjects are too male, pale, or vale – anything sports, scientific, mechanical, or rural ? such as BBC's Country File, Spring Watch, and Strictly Come Dancing ? are quickly insinuated with presenters who know nothing of the subjects but are visually "diverse."
Political programmes once featured only politicians, then over-represented journalists of fashionable bias, and now add utter nobodies – except that they have a Twitter account with an explicit social justice agenda in favour of some minority or another. BBC Television's "Question Time" is now in the habit of including comedians.
Comedy is boringly about making fun of whites, men, older generations, the past, and conservatives. The BBC has ruined its longest-running science-fiction drama "Doctor Who" with tiresome feminist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, differently-abled stories.
Historical dramas pretend that Britain was just as diverse then as it is now, that everybody in the past realized how sexist and racist it was, that the only life-stories were struggles against sexism and racism.
Historical documentaries no longer stick to the facts or the narratives of the time. Instead, they must discover how socially unjust the past was, or over-represent today's fashionable minorities, or draw links between past injustices and present progressiveness. Reports on the centenary of the end of the First World War this month have biased female, regional, and non-European participants. BBC Scotland's "100 Days to Victory" voiced all the British characters as Scottish. In co-production with Australian and Canadian television, the only soldiers of valour that were featured were aboriginal or indigenous."
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 9, 2020 22:26:09 GMT
That's globalism. The awards system all pipe into the same globalist international system. If you check, you will see that all the awards shows go through the same limited business apparatus. It's a club with a limited ideological range. Do you need to take your tin foil hat off when you shower or is it waterproof? So the British Film Awards is in England, and yet usually, out of 5 nominees, only one can remotely be considered British made. Why is it called the British Film Awards when they honor Hollywood films, not indigenous ones? The name comes from the location. They have a category for British films, but there's no need for them to exclude everything else, just like the Oscars don't award only American films. “... globalist international system.” I guess “rootless cosmopolitanism” is too on-the-nose?
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 10, 2020 12:19:28 GMT
He's also written articles called BBC HISTORY IS SOCIALIST FICTION and IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT, so excuse me if I don't take him seriously. The new priority for the media is "diversity" without merits, where the media must look diverse of ethnicity and gender, at the expense of diversity of talents and opinions. The media over-represent supposedly under-represented groups, until majorities become under-represented, and content becomes all about social justice – boring, repetitive, predictable, and prejudicial. I don't have the energy to reply to every sentence of the article. I just wanted to highlight this part, because it's the one that represents one of the most common problems in the world: The paranoia that diversity will somehow ruin straight white men's lives. They're still the majority of the world's population. They're still be the ones who get the majority of lead roles. Also, it's very insulting to assume that people get jobs without merit. Like they can't possibly have the required skills just for not looking like you. Finally, what's up with the use of "supposedly" there?
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 10, 2020 12:32:27 GMT
He's also written articles called BBC HISTORY IS SOCIALIST FICTION and IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT, so excuse me if I don't take him seriously. I don't have the energy to reply to every sentence of the article. I just wanted to highlight this part, because it's the one that represents one of the most common problems in the world: The paranoia that diversity will somehow ruin straight white men's lives. They're still the majority of the world's population. They're still be the ones who get the majority of lead roles. Also, it's very insulting to assume that people get jobs without merit. Like they can't possibly have the required skills just for not looking like you. Finally, what's up with the use of "supposedly" there? It is also insulting to the natives of a country to say they have no right to be represented. In the old days such things were called invasions and cultural oppression. If you say foreigners have a right to go to Tibet and have a right to dominate the culture then ok maybe you are consistent--if you say it is wrong for China to move into Tibet and prevent Tibetans from expressing their own heritage and history in media then it is a double standard. No one asked the public if they wanted to be invaded--this was decided outside of public opinion. The most common sensical thing is to have media representation for everyone--and that includes the majority. Suppressing their voices does not make for diversity, it makes for less diversity since it downsizes artistic expression to a smaller government approved minority. That is what happened in the USSR-they centralized media in all the invaded countries.
It's a really simple thing--if a country is say, 80% Nigerian or 80% Japanese or 80% Anglo-Saxon, should they have media representation--yes or no? Should they be allowed to have ownership and control of media --if so, by what percentage?
Merit does not play a role if 80% of the population is of one race, and yet 80% of the media is controlled by a different race or insists on promoting 20% of the population to the other 80%. That's not self-determination. Do you support self-determination for people?
|
|