Oscars new Best Picture Diversity and Inclusion requirements

[Autbot_Benz]

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

[CyberCubed]

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

[Cryomancer]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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

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.

[Coola Yagami]

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.

[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.

[Coola Yagami]

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.

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.

[Cryomancer]

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.

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.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Cryomancer

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.

[Leo656]

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. 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. Still should be fun, though!

[AquaParade]

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

[The Deadman]

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

[Andrew NDB]

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

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

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.

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.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Cryomancer

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.

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!!!"

[frank_one]

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.

[drgon78]

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

[Sumac]

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.

[turtle1237]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

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.

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.

[Cryomancer]

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".