Oscars new Best Picture Diversity and Inclusion requirements

[Jester]

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.

[Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Just wait'll someone tries to remake "Schindler's List"

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.

[Andrew NDB]

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?

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Just wait'll someone tries to remake "Schindler's List"

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.

[AquaParade]

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.

[Voltron]

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.

[Leo656]

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.

[Voltron]

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.

[Leo656]

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

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.

[AquaParade]

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

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Perhaps more importantly, art isn't about winning prizes. It's about being art.

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".

Originally Posted by Voltron

Latinx

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".

[Voltron]

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.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

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".

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.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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...

[Coola Yagami]

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

[Leo656]

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

[Jester]

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Voltron

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.

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.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Sumac

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 as NOT WORSE than men and feminine qualities being seen as not worse than masculine ones, nowadays supports idea that masculine is the norm and in order to be value 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 if 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.

[Voltron]

[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.

Also, that's how things start. Slowly. Creepily.

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.

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

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?

Given that there are bunch if 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.

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.