Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 20:37:08 GMT
Best Picture Category: The problem is, then are you really picking the “Best Picture”? Or “Best Picture With Diversity”?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 11, 2020 20:51:06 GMT
Even with the new standards, a movie like 1917 or The Irishman is still eligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Sept 11, 2020 20:54:03 GMT
This is a charade.... The REAL reason is that the last 40 years of movies have been shit, so they'll try ANYTHING to make $$$$
"Artistic License to Dive"
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 11, 2020 20:59:18 GMT
The Academy was still not exactly about what the best of the year was, because movies got excluded because of genre bias and eligibility rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 11, 2020 21:00:47 GMT
Even with the new standards, a movie like 1917 or The Irishman is still eligible. How is that? I thought the new rules say that any movie without a minority in a major role is ineligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwightmachinehead on Sept 11, 2020 21:47:12 GMT
Forced diversity is like online poker, it feels totally fixed and un-random compared to playing at a real life table.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2020 21:49:45 GMT
Lttp but I'm always interested in another opinion concerning how the rules change anything and if there are examples from the past 10 years that don;t already qualify.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Sept 11, 2020 21:52:03 GMT
A good video on the new standards for the I'm-not-racists whose sole understanding of them comes from some Breitbart article:
Tl;Dr: While I'm-not-racists immediately TRUMPeted the "Hollywood is gonna make every movie put more black people in their movies, and that'll make it impossible for movies like 1917 to be eligible!!!" angle, in reality it is actually very easy to meet the new eligibility requirements. Eligibility would require movies to meet at least two of four standards (Standards A-thru-D), and each standard has several criteria by which one can be considered to have met the standard. Basically, the movie only needs to meet at least one criteria from at least two standards to meet the eligibility requirements. Are at least six people on your entire crew from minority groups? Does the distributor or financing company behind the movie have at least two interns from a minority group? Congratulations, you just met Standards B & C, and are eligible for consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 11, 2020 22:15:40 GMT
Even with the new standards, a movie like 1917 or The Irishman is still eligible. How is that? I thought the new rules say that any movie without a minority in a major role is ineligible. No, even the LA Times article shared earlier this week had pointed this out. There's four new standards and any TWO are acceptable. One of them includes internships and/or apprenticeships:
"...Mindful of the difficulty of enforcing potentially heavy-handed mandates on the types of stories that are deemed worthy for best picture consideration, however, the academy is building in the flexibility for films to meet the inclusion requirements in other areas. For example, films can meet the “Industry Access and Opportunities” standard if the studio or production company offers paid apprenticeship and internship opportunities and training programs for underrepresented groups across a range of fields, something that is quite common across the industry."
Also acceptable are positions related to film production or marketing/distribution. And it doesn't really have to be a minority. Women are acceptable. Which since it's Hollywood, it seems like that's how most movies are made these days anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 11, 2020 22:19:36 GMT
How is that? I thought the new rules say that any movie without a minority in a major role is ineligible. No, even the LA Times article shared earlier this week had pointed this out. There's four new standards and any TWO are acceptable. One of them includes internships and/or apprenticeships:
"...Mindful of the difficulty of enforcing potentially heavy-handed mandates on the types of stories that are deemed worthy for best picture consideration, however, the academy is building in the flexibility for films to meet the inclusion requirements in other areas. For example, films can meet the “Industry Access and Opportunities” standard if the studio or production company offers paid apprenticeship and internship opportunities and training programs for underrepresented groups across a range of fields, something that is quite common across the industry."
Also acceptable are positions related to film production or marketing/distribution. And it doesn't really have to be a minority. Women are acceptable. Which since it's Hollywood, it seems like that's how most movies are made these days anyway.
Thanks. I misread the article it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 11, 2020 22:19:55 GMT
No, even the LA Times article shared earlier this week had pointed this out. There's four new standards and any TWO are acceptable. One of them includes internships and/or apprenticeships:
"...Mindful of the difficulty of enforcing potentially heavy-handed mandates on the types of stories that are deemed worthy for best picture consideration, however, the academy is building in the flexibility for films to meet the inclusion requirements in other areas. For example, films can meet the “Industry Access and Opportunities” standard if the studio or production company offers paid apprenticeship and internship opportunities and training programs for underrepresented groups across a range of fields, something that is quite common across the industry."
Also acceptable are positions related to film production or marketing/distribution. And it doesn't really have to be a minority. Women are acceptable. Which since it's Hollywood, it seems like that's how most movies are made these days anyway.
Thanks. I misread the article it seems. Np.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 11, 2020 22:27:52 GMT
Even with the new standards, a movie like 1917 or The Irishman is still eligible. Both probably qualify as they both have female producers plus possible female and minority crew and staff plus Netflix & Universal & Dreamworks are all diverse companies with underrepresented execs.
|
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on Sept 11, 2020 22:48:46 GMT
#Oscarssowhite will become #Oscarssodead.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Sept 12, 2020 0:36:40 GMT
Even with the new standards, a movie like 1917 or The Irishman is still eligible. How is that? I thought the new rules say that any movie without a minority in a major role is ineligible. Thus, the importance of actually reading the new rules instead of just reading an angry tweet by someone like Ben "wet ass p-word" Shapiro and his ilk. Not only are the new rules so easy to fulfill that, as John Campea says, you'd almost have to go out of your way to TRY to not meet the requirements, but there's also an appeals process through which exemptions can be made if you couldn't meet the requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 12, 2020 0:42:36 GMT
How is that? I thought the new rules say that any movie without a minority in a major role is ineligible. Thus, the importance of actually reading the new rules instead of just reading an angry tweet by someone like Ben "wet ass p-word" Shapiro and his ilk. Not only are the new rules so easy to fulfill that, as John Campea says, you'd almost have to go out of your way to TRY to not meet the requirements, but there's also an appeals process through which exemptions can be made if you couldn't meet the requirements. I did read the rules, but lazily it seems. I think I just distrust Hollywood/the world so much at this point that I just want to hate Hollywood/the world for everything and then see what I want to see. That is the best explanation I can come up with. I have a serious case of confirmation bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Sept 13, 2020 1:03:46 GMT
PATHETIC. The Oscars had been such a joke for a while.
|
|
