Oscars new Best Picture Diversity and Inclusion requirements
 

Today, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category, as part of its Academy Aperture 2025 initiative. The standards are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen in order to better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience. Academy governors DeVon Franklin and Jim Gianopulos headed a task force to develop the standards that were created from a template inspired by the British Film Institute (BFI) Diversity Standards used for certain funding eligibility in the UK and eligibility in some categories of the British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA) Awards, but were adapted to serve the specific needs of the Academy. The Academy also consulted with the Producers Guild of America (PGA), as it presently does for Oscars eligibility.

“The aperture must widen to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and in the audiences who connect with them. The Academy is committed to playing a vital role in helping make this a reality,” said Academy President David Rubin and Academy CEO Dawn Hudson. “We believe these inclusion standards will be a catalyst for long-lasting, essential change in our industry.”

For the 94th Oscars (2022) and 95th Oscars (2023), submitting a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form will be required for Best Picture consideration, however meeting inclusion thresholds will not be required for eligibility in the Best Picture category until the 96th Oscars (2024).

For the 96th Oscars (2024), a film must meet TWO out of FOUR of the following standards to be deemed eligible:

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
• 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
• 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 the specialty feature categories (Animated Feature Film, Documentary Feature, International Feature Film) submitted for Best Picture/General Entry consideration will be addressed separately.

Academy Aperture 2025 is the next phase of the Academy’s equity and inclusion initiative furthering the organization’s ongoing efforts to advance inclusion in the entertainment industry and increase representation within its membership and the greater film community.

###

ABOUT THE ACADEMY
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a global community of more than 10,000 of the most accomplished artists, filmmakers and executives working in film. In addition to celebrating and recognizing excellence in filmmaking through the Oscars, the Academy supports a wide range of initiatives to promote the art and science of the movies, including public programming, educational outreach and the upcoming Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, which is under construction in Los Angeles.

https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-...sr-eligibility

Seems like the days of the straight white man are finally over. I guess it isn't 1955 anymore.

No ****? That's 65 years.

What a strange thing to post.

I think it's very telling that you've chosen this perspective - the defeat of a group, as opposed to a positive (and more accurate) notion that everyone, including straight white men, have assisted in these developments.

People with your positioning reveal through the directionality of your words that these things aren't actually about inclusion - it's only veiled in that. And my days are far from over.

:trolleye:

If I was a director I'd purposely make a movie having 90% straight white men dealing with issue mostly straight white men can relate to and make it so awesome and thought provoking that they'll be forced to have at the Oscars otherwise it will show their racism. And I mean something so flawless that even if the Oscars ignore it, people will be criticizing them for years to come in all sorts of articles, videos, interviews with whoever runs the Oscars and documentaries.

Just to spite the woke narrative.

Get ready to see a lot of real ****** overly preachy films that you will risk getting fired from your job cause saying anything negative about them will be considered racist, homophobic, transphobic and whatever else.

And no, I don't have a problem with diversity and representation, but you shouldn't have to do it because. It shouldn't be rammed down our throats just because. And we shouldn't have to be forced to applaud some box office bomb almost at gunpoint because the director's camera assistant happens to be trans.

So hypothetically, if I were to make a movie about say, Billy The Kid and the Lincoln County War, and I went out of my way to assemble the absolute best and most authentic cast, strove for the absolute peak of historical accuracy, recreated authentic locations and costumes, had an amazing musical score, and it turned out that it really was by any objective measure the best movie during the year in which it came out... It would be excluded from consideration for Best Picture at the Oscars that year, even if it in fact WAS the best picture... simply because there weren't enough black people and autistics and LGBTQ+ people in Lincoln County, New Mexico in 1878. :roll:

Art is dead. No freedom of expression anymore, you HAVE to adhere to the arbitrary Diversity Checklist even in situations where it makes no sense to do so. But now if you DON'T, you're not allowed at the Big Kids Table anymore.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Technically you can if your staff is diverse, but good luck finding a modern-day diverse crew that won't be complaining or asking about adding more black people or if Billy the Kid really needs to be straight for the movie to work or what-have-you.

Tell you what. IF you ever do that movie, just hire my bro and me. Be default we'll be the only 2 Hispanic (whatever high position you'll give us) and you don't have to worry about us complaining about Billy the Kid not eating tacos or whatever, we're also going for accuracy.

Do you think black people, people with autism, or LGBTQ people did not exist in 1878? They're just people, man, they've been around as long as any other kind of person has.

True but were they around in the general area where Billy the Kid's story took place.

Like I grew up in all Mexican neighborhood, cause we were in the Hispanic part of town. Does that mean if they ever make my life story, they'll just add random black and trans people in the setting of my neighborhood during my childhood years just because 'those kinds of people existed in the 80's'. Don't change things for the sake of changing em.

Perhaps they did indeed exist, but they were not very prominently displayed in that place and time and were not relevant to the events surrounding the Lincoln County War, period, end of story. All the principle players are well-recorded by history; overwhelmingly, they were "hetero-normative" white people and Mexicans. That's it. That's who was there, that's who was involved, that's who the main cast of this hypothetical based-on-real-life story should be. Yes, there were several or perhaps even many black people down there, mostly working as servants and/or in brothels. They wouldn't be main characters in my movie because they were not "main characters" in the Real Life Events of the story, they were simply There In The Background. I'm not taking time out of the whole story As It Really Happened just to fixate on tertiary characters for the sake of having to "make the numbers even". If more black, gay, or autistic people HAD been prominent players in the events then they'd be there in my hypothetical script. History, however, says No. As a writer I shouldn't have to ignore history because I'm now obligated to pander to present-day sensibilities; that's dishonest. What happened, Happened.

The fact that this was a Real-Life Event that's very well-documented is precisely WHY I cite it as an example. Under current standards, I would not be ALLOWED to make a historically-accurate retelling of the tale as it actually happened, simply because the people who were present and involved happened to all look and behave a certain way. There weren't a ton of women involved in the story, either, but oh well, that's what happened. Susan McSween would be a notable exception in that she later became rather important, but really moreso for what happened AFTER the war than During. So even she'd merely be "the wife of a main character" moreso than a main character herself; Alex McSween was a highly relevant player in the Lincoln County War, his wife was just His Wife at that time. That's how these things go, it can't be helped. She's not suddenly gonna be the one who shot Sheriff Brady just because otherwise she had nothing to do. I could see Paulita Maxwell being rather prominent as she was mostly Billy's Main Side-Piece, but again, I kinda don't think every single one of his many, many girlfriends needs their own subplot; the story isn't ABOUT them even if they were there.

As the hypothetical writer who's aiming for historical accuracy and trying to tell a very specific tale based on things that actually happened, I would not feel any need to make Charlie Bowdre black just because there otherwise weren't a lot of black Regulators; he was a white guy, he should be played by one, and I should be allowed to cast whoever the hell I want without someone finger-wagging me. If Jose Chavez y Chavez was on the Autism Spectrum, we'll never know because history didn't record that, but I'm not inclined to just add those traits to him or any other character "just because they need to be included". If Dick Brewer or Jim French or even Pat Garrett were gay, history didn't record THAT, either, so again, I'm not inclined to Go There "just because". Get it?

Obviously "those types of people have always existed", but that's not the point. The point is, if they're not incredibly relevant to the story a person is trying to tell, they shouldn't have to be forced into it. That's disingenuous, dishonest, and manipulative.

Just wait'll someone tries to remake "Schindler's List", and someone points out that there aren't enough black Nazis or Jews represented in the script so therefore the movie fails. Loooooord KNOWS all those black Nazis and Jews ought'a be represented... y'know, despite the fact that in real life there weren't any black Nazis and that black people generally hate Jewish people, and the overwhelming fact that there really wouldn't have been even one black Jewish person in all of Germany or Poland or wherever else during that time and place. "Schindler's List" is overwhelmingly regarded as an incredible movie; under these new criteria, however, it would be excluded from all consideration for multiple reasons.

THIS is why you can't apply the "Diversity Checklist" to people trying to create art, it automatically imposes "rules" on what things are "allowed" to be and oftentimes those rules aren't in any way centered in reality. Hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to be Exclusionary, I'm trying to Keep Things Honest.
---------------

Coola, in the unlikely event my hypothetical Lincoln County War movie ever gets made, you can by all means play Chavez and your brother can play Pete Maxwell, so long as you can grow a thick beard. :lol: And so long as we all go into it with the understanding that "Young Guns" will most likely remain the final word on the subject on film. :trazz: Still should be fun, though! :tgrin:

This will kill the Oscars. These award shows are constantly trying to stay relevant. This is another failed attempt on the way out.

Theyve been trying to force this for years. No surprise, TBH.

On the other hand... maybe they can award sh** correctly this way so as not to corrupt the other categories.

why do that when you can just make a basic slave movie that will be a shoe in to get you nominated no matter what? smh.

Of course they existed. But if you want to really consider how ridiculous this all is, then again I point out to everyone that you need to start thinking in real-life ratios.

In the correct ratio of occurrences there aren't actually many compelling stories that includes non-normalized groups until most recent history. Basically there was significantly lesser population density in the past, and now combine that with the fact that cases such as autism have increased with modernity (genetic issues from STDs, genetic issues from pollutants, etc). You'll find that by those ratios there'd be little to no opportunity for any content that isn't forced diversity almost any kind of thematic story about those times. Short of intentionally making a movie about gay life in the 1800's like Brokeback Mountain which is probably the most viable topic, but outside of that or your "Torch Song Trilogy" every twenty years, there's about as much room for that content to thrive as there is a modern Western about any other topic nowadays. I think people were very open ended in ancient Roman times, so maybe that era is rife for an entire run of LGBTQ content if you need it.

And that is all fine and good. But what it really boils down to is that most average, well-adjusted people don't go to the movies to see that stuff. And that's how the money will flow. So I say, let these guys cage rattle because at the end of the day anybody can build a platform on anything nowadays. "Save the protozoa in small suburban retention ponds!!!"

We're living in crazy times. The majority of the movies that made Cinema a form of art, the movies you find in books of Cinema history would not even be considered for Oscar because of these rules. People like Hitckcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, Spielberg, De Sica would not receive any nominations for their works, they would not be considered at all. This doesn't make any sense to me.
As far as I'm concerned, Oscars are not a thing anymore from now.

I stopped caring about the Oscars years ago...wait I have never cared about the Oscars.;)

They basically put on paper what was already in action.

Well, more reasons not to bother with Oscars - they have become ****** propaganda some time ago and now they will double down on giving awards for the "right politics" as opposed for the good art. Guess, soon they die, as "go woke, go broke" is kind of true.

I am not even depressed over this: if anything it basically confirms status quo: there are movies made by talented people, who don't give a **** about SJW crap and than there are movies pandering to SJW and "academics", which will receive golden praise from journasluts, but fail at the box-office.

So, basically nothing had changed.

SJWs might double down on people who don't make movies according to their religion, as they always do, but trying to stifle creativity in 21st century when we have an Internet is a futile effort, so they can go **** themselves.

Also, those rules will be in action since 2024, so I think, plenty of time to some changes to take place, which might lead to those "rules" being abolished.

Might as well make Billy the Kid black. They all ready did that to a few historic people all ready in the BBC over there in England.

I don't think a single awards show deciding personal standards means "you are not allowed to make a certain kind of movie". You can still make whatever. Who really gives a **** about the oscars to begin with anyway? If you are making a movie with the intent to win awards you don't exactly have the purest artistic intentions to start with.

The MPAA has way more control over the film industry than the oscars do, they're the ones who actually tell you "no, you can't do this".

The Oscars deciding to broaden the scope of who Academy voters are makes sense, that way movies that are great but go under the radar might have a shot because there are more people voicing opinions on what is a Best Picture worthy. Making a check list (that some argue isn't really that hard for bigger studios and may only really keep Indys out of Best Picture contention) is kind of ridiculous and to me just gets us more Hollywood back slapping that they are making HUGE changes that only serve as marketing points, story and characters be damned.

That was actually the first film I thought of when I heard about this change to the nomination procedure that would not be shortlisted with the new criteria if made today. Even though Spielburg.

I'm all for this... AS LONG AS it means that the other categories stop getting bonus points for diversity and all that. That should never be the way it works in the arts.

Like, if I film a movie with 3 white dudes on an island and another guy makes the same movie from the same script, but has 1 white dude, 1 black dude, and 1 Asian transgender person... his movie should not be judged one iota more favorably than my movie. You know?

What are you talking about?

This isn't some scavenger hunt. You could just as easily fill the whole cast and crew with LGBTQ+ Latinx and still make the absolute best, most authentic cast AND meet the quota set out by this.

Perhaps more importantly, art isn't about winning prizes. It's about being art. No one is stopping you from making a movie where every single role is filled by straight white men. Go nuts.

I went through the IMDB page. It seems to hit all the criteria set out by the new list. I don't think many people are going to **** a brick over having an Asian video editor or Honduran hair stylist just to fill out the ranks, if they choose to do a remake.

I'll never understand why people lose their minds over this.

I'm a movie lover and I follow the industry closely, but I've never given a single iota about the Oscar's. In fact, I dread them because all the Pundits and podcasts i listen to absolutely milk the topic for all it's worth for about a quarter of the year, surrounding the event.

Idk how unique I am in that, but they generally seem pretty popular. I suppose it's a combination of all the fluff and the fact that I just don't care what these selected, prestigious voters think. I rather just hop online and discuss.

I'm with you on that. The Oscars, like every other award show, seem like a huge waste of time.

I don't want to hear speeches. I don't care about celebrity thoughts and opinions. I certainly don't care who wins what.

I just want to see a movie. I mean, Avatar won tons of awards, and that thing was a steaming pile. That alone tells me everything I need to know about what an Oscar is worth.

Unfortunately, some people do care about the kind of "clout" that comes with winning any sort of "award". They tend to be the same people who won't watch any movie with a RT score under a certain number. They only watch movies people tell them are "good", and winning an Oscar is about as solid a recommendation as those people are about to get. There's an unfortunately large number of these people, which in turn effects which movies get made or get more attention going forward. Anyone with taste and standards knows that things like the Oscars or RT are nonsense, but... well, "anyone with taste and standards" is like, five people. The rest are idiots who bang on about being individuals yet love being told what to think. That's the majority of those who consume media, and that's who still watches the Oscars. That's the unfortunate reason they still hold power in the industry: Because "Most People Are Stupid".

It shouldn't matter, but it does, which is why if we're going to have a big showy parade about "grading" films they should be graded on their own merits and not by how well they adhere to The Checklist. Whether it's in counting how many ______ people are in front of or behind the camera, NONE of that should even be part of the conversation. Story, Visuals, Music, Acting and Presentation. That's IT. Anything else is race-baiting garbage being peddled by people who have a vested interest in keeping everyone at each others' throats, and it's unseemly.

Once people start talking about how there's an "acceptable" number of X or Y People that needs to be hit in order for anything to have merit, that skews the entire conversation into an ugly place and now things aren't being judged fairly. The entire conversation is stupid. Anyone who couldn't call a good movie a Good Movie because "There's too many honkies" either in front of OR behind the camera is racist and nobody should entertain them. And yet, here we are.

Although the way they're announcing this NOW and yet saying it won't take effect for several years has me wondering if it's something they can quietly forget about once the cultural climate shifts away from these zealots and into more neutral territory, which can't happen soon enough. Like maybe they're just SAYING they're gonna start applying The Checklist because that's what's gonna make people happy right this minute, but then when things calm down they can just go about the normal business.

I'm willing to bet money that, had no one told of this change, the general public would have been completely oblivious to it.

And really, how many absolute classics has Hollywood consistently churned out? When was the last time you left a movie theater and thought, "man, THAT was beyond good"? So by that metric, it's not like all those fantastic ideas that were JUST about to hit us in rapid succession were thwarted by those dastardly SJWs.

This isn't going to change anything. There's so many loopholes here that a single actor can fulfill the at least a third of the requirements set out. For example, Ben Kingsley alone is a minority actor that carries most of Schindler's List. The rest are all literally a group of people that were targeted for systematic murder.

To top this off, Hollywood is filled to the brim with LGBTQ+ actors. Do you think there's a shortage of capable people to fill roles?

Also, I've never heard the term "honky" used seriously. If my students wanted to put race into an insult, they'd just refer to my "white ass". Or if I was wearing my yellow shirt, they'd ask why they'd have to listen to my "banana looking ass".

I had to stop wearing that shirt.

I believe "honky" was more a product of the 70s and is now used only ironically. :lol:

Also, aside from Hogan, Dick Tracy, and that guy Curious George hung out with, I don't think anyone ever looked good wearing yellow anyway.

"Well, I quite those days and my redneck ways".

When you put limits on what is considered a worthy art, as in this case, it stops being about art and becomes about pandering to the current ideology.

Next step would be to forbid certain types of stories and / or rewriting old stories to fit "current year ideology". Just like in USSR, where some types and genres were outright forbidden for being "alien to the communist ideology".

LOL, why use this stupid word, which was created to enable insanity of a few confused people?
I don't think anyone in their right mind would be insulted by "latino".

Is that how the USSR started? The Bolsheviks wanted more Mexican transexuals in the Duma and that just spun into the Holodomor? Ukraine didn't respect Stalin's pronouns, so everyone had to die?

Rumor is that wasn't a birthmark on Gorbachev's head. It was a botched pink triangle. He was so woke he went to a blind tattoo artist.

I do feel the need to chime in that the very few Latinos or Latinas I have heard speak on the "Latinx" subject unanimously declared it to be stupid and an example of "white people being offended on behalf of people who don't give a sh*t."

That's purely anecdotal but I feel it bears mentioning, since it came up. Carry on.

Bingo, Bango, Bongo...

I'm Latino and I never heard of that stupid Latinox BS. Sounds like SJW gringo BS, ese.

Just goes to show ya... Never Trust Whitey. :lol::lol::lol:

No, USSR had started when few educated and intelligent, but batshit insane people decided to build an utopia by any means necessary.

Also, that's how things start. Slowly. Creepily.
Like, initially LGB was fighting for rights of actually oppressed people. Then it started to fight for rights of fragile losers to pretend that they are of opposite sex and unknown genders.

Or like Feminism was initially for the right of women to be seen NOT WORSE than men and feminine qualities being seen not worse than masculine ones, nowadays supports idea that masculine is the norm and in order to be valued as men, women must act like men. And also provide sex for money to losers, because, it is apparently "empowering".

Given that there are bunch of lunatics out there, who blame white people for every single bad thing that had happened in history and who actually support genocide against white people, I would be very cautious with saying that those new norms won't lead to anything worse.

of course it'll lead to something worse. you've already seen how these eternally un happy and oppressed people are NEVER Satisfied. if they ever 'WIN' one battle, they will create something else to fight you on just to feel like they are continuing things for the 'right side of history'...

The alphabet people have won. But they are pushing people away that they've won over with their constant 'progressivness'...that even some of their own ranks don't fully think is real. just look at all the LGB people who hate forced hollywood diversity as much as we do.

progressivness and leftism really will be the downfall of society if not checked, and one reason why I'm GLAD a democrat hopefully won't win in the next 8 years at least.

[QUOTE=Sumac;1860754]No, USSR had started when few educated and intelligent, but batshit insane people decided to build an utopia by any means necessary.

This is the definition of a slippery slope argument. We can use it to view any change in society as the first step into inevitable disaster. I could sit here and say a bunch of stuff about a lot of fringe groups that exist right now, but it doesn't mean that a social revolution will occur if some group "wins" a small political victory.



I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

In the philosophy of the "liberal scourge", aren't men "toxic"? Wouldn't the masculine be demonized?

Also, you guys are charging for sex? Or are you guys paying for sex?

I think the strongest point in my case of this Oscar business being "no big deal" is how quickly you guys panic and turn it into the fall of western civilization. This is the biggest reason why I'm so strict with the "no politics" thing.

Is it frustrating to be the subject of complaints and blame for history we weren't involved in? Sure, and I understand that frustration. And if you're venting about it, that's fine. Everyone needs to blow off some steam now and again.

Is Brie Larson being an annoying asshole the first step in all white men being liquidated? Eh. . . I'm not that worried, yet.