Is anybody really being hurt by this? This only seems to affect those nominated for Best Picture, it's not like the Oscars can tell somebody whether or not they can make a movie. 99% of films don't get nominated for that award anyway.
New Oscars Standards
10,918 Views |
173 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Quad Dog
Saxsoon said:
I would be interested in hearing TC's take on this, especially for the requirements behind the camera and if this will make things more difficult for smaller studios (We all know TC has got an Oscar in him)
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, Rick laid out a great defense on the previous page as to why more diverse voices will lead to more diverse stories, and thus more originality down the line. This is obviously true of diversity in any field, and if it wasn't already clear by my arguments in other threads, exactly why I've always been pro diversity in that regard. It's also why I applaud that active and tangible measures are actually being taken here. This is definitely progress.
That said, the Academy forcing the industry's hand in this way *also* rings a bit hallow to me. Because now studios and productions will be trying to meet a quota not because it's the right thing to do, but because they want an Oscar and the free marketing that nominations can garner. It's being a good boy because you want Santa to bring you toys, not because being good is simply the right thing to be. Granted, tangible consequences as a means of enforcing social harmony/change isn't anything new, and if the same result is eventually reached, maybe the means by which that change is reached doesn't really matter.
As for the indie/smaller studio angle, yes, I think these rules in their current form would hurt indies more for all the reasons mentioned. But here's the thing... these won't be the final rules. Enough legit industry types are already b*tching and discussing tweaks that all of this will no doubt be amended before 2024. So I'm not really "worried" about that angle as much. Nor am I concerned about my own work, either. Looking at our current development slate, there's not a single project that wouldn't already qualify. Granted, from day one, we've made it a point to tell diverse stories, and work with diverse talent, so this really isn't an issue for us. I don't think we've ever nixed a project for being "too white" or anything like that either. We've just always gravitated toward stories that naturally fit these criteria.
But if an Oscar happens to come our way one of these days, all the better.
texasaggie04 said:
Is anybody really being hurt by this? This only seems to affect those nominated for Best Picture, it's not like the Oscars can tell somebody whether or not they can make a movie. 99% of films don't get nominated for that award anyway.
I don't think the research has been fully vetted yet, but even among Best Picture winners over the past few decades, it's looking like maybe one or two would have turned out differently under these rules, if that. The criteria appears way more stringent than it really is, all things considered.
Even though I agree with this sentiment, doesn't the same apply to when they do it to make more money? (ie. Black Panther, Wonder Woman, etc.)Quote:
Because now studios and productions will be trying to meet a quota not because it's the right thing to do, but because they want an Oscar and the free marketing that nominations can garner.
I believe you've said something along those lines in the past, and I kind of see it that way here, too.
In other words, I don't think doing it for an Oscar or doing it for money are much different. Neither is really because "it's the right thing to do".
Having said that, still not sure how I really feel about this yet.
Agreed, and yeah, that's a good point.
Tokenism and quotas are counterproductive in terms of quality and, arguably, in terms of accomplishing the intended goals. When you start making decisions on the basis of something besides merit and suitability, it leads to short and longterm negative impacts.
And the diversity discussion on here is incredibly superficial, like it is for much of our society. You claim to want new ideas but don't pay any attention to diversity of ideology, focusing only on surface "diversity."
And the diversity discussion on here is incredibly superficial, like it is for much of our society. You claim to want new ideas but don't pay any attention to diversity of ideology, focusing only on surface "diversity."
Or... "diversity of ideology," more often than not, is part and parcel with the "surface diversity" you're shaming. You're making a pretty blanket statement yourself in assuming those two things as not being interconnected. For instance, a black person's experiences and ideology can be wildly different from a white person's simply because of the way both have been treated for the color of their skin. Same goes for gender. The surface influences the ideology.
I find it funny how people on this board keep arguing about the same things. Liberals want X, so they find a way to coerce people into doing X because of "good for everyone". Conservatives believe in Y, so they want everyone to just leave them alone and allow them Y. And then there are people in both categories who are just power hungry and aren't true believers, either way.
The Academy Awards is a giant leftist circle jerk anyways. It stopped being fun to watch after about 2003. In the grand scheme of things, it just devalues the award in my opinion. These were all basically guidelines they've followed for years, anyways. They just finally put them down on paper.
I'm already over it. I'm ready for this whole damn country to just burn.
The Academy Awards is a giant leftist circle jerk anyways. It stopped being fun to watch after about 2003. In the grand scheme of things, it just devalues the award in my opinion. These were all basically guidelines they've followed for years, anyways. They just finally put them down on paper.
I'm already over it. I'm ready for this whole damn country to just burn.
TCTTS said:
Or... "diversity of ideology," more often than not, is part and parcel with the "surface diversity" you're shaming. You're making a pretty blanket statement yourself in assuming those two things as not being interconnected. For instance, a black person's experiences and ideology can be wildly different from a white person's simply because of the way both have been treated for the color of their skin. Same goes for gender. The surface influences the ideology.
I'm not assuming there is no interconnection. You're assuming I'm assuming that.
It influences but is not anywhere close to a perfect correlation. And there is no attempt at ideological diversity, which is the supposed goal. Hollywood is hostile to people with conservative views, and the next realistic depiction of an evangelical Christian in a Hollywood studio movie will be the first in years. Those are merely two examples.
Much like this set of new standards, and the Oscars in general, Hollywood is only interested in self-congratulatory gestures.
Hollywood is full of capitalists who favor conservative fiscal policies/efforts over the those on the left. That is a fact. Just because a bunch of movie stars hate Trump doesn't mean all of Hollywood is "hostile" toward conservative views. If they were, why do people like Clint Eastwood continue to work? Trust me, the actual people writing the checks are more conservative than you know.
As for your random evangelical Christianity aside, its core tenant literally argues that only those who agree with its version of the truth can be saved. In other words, it is the very thing you accuse Hollywood of being. That's why all of this same old song and dance coming from people such as yourself is hypocrisy of the highest order. "How dare Hollywood preach and wave its finger at me and my religion that constantly waves its finger at anyone who doesn't fall in line with our preaching!" Different ideologies, same intolerable bullsh*t.
As for your random evangelical Christianity aside, its core tenant literally argues that only those who agree with its version of the truth can be saved. In other words, it is the very thing you accuse Hollywood of being. That's why all of this same old song and dance coming from people such as yourself is hypocrisy of the highest order. "How dare Hollywood preach and wave its finger at me and my religion that constantly waves its finger at anyone who doesn't fall in line with our preaching!" Different ideologies, same intolerable bullsh*t.
You may be spending too much time on the Internet. Most people out there are good citizens, going about their business, trying to make a better life for their families. That just doesn't make for interesting news or tweets because it isn't divisive or inflammatory.DallasTeleAg said:
I'm already over it. I'm ready for this whole damn country to just burn.
Racial quotas are racist by definition. So, this will just formalize racism in action. The true test of any of these racist practices will be if they continue once white people are in the minority. I won't hold my breath.
Having said that, I don't really care what Hollywood does anymore. That ship has sailed and I stopped paying attention to the Oscar winners a while back. This will just make it all that more political.
For the most part, I'm going to continue watching movies in genres that I like most like sci-fi and fantasy which are automatically diverse because Chewbacca.
Having said that, I don't really care what Hollywood does anymore. That ship has sailed and I stopped paying attention to the Oscar winners a while back. This will just make it all that more political.
For the most part, I'm going to continue watching movies in genres that I like most like sci-fi and fantasy which are automatically diverse because Chewbacca.
YouBet said:
Racial quotas are racist by definition.
Cannot eye-roll this comment hard enough.
TCTTS said:YouBet said:
Racial quotas are racist by definition.
Cannot eye-roll this comment hard enough.
Why? How is it not degrading to tell someone they only achieved something because of an artificial quota that only enabled them by the color of their skin?
TCTTS said:YouBet said:
Racial quotas are racist by definition.
Cannot eye-roll this comment hard enough.
Ok. It's the truth though.
TCTTS said:
Hollywood is full of capitalists who favor conservative fiscal policies/efforts over the those on the left. That is a fact. Just because a bunch of movie stars hate Trump doesn't mean all of Hollywood is "hostile" toward conservative views. If they were, why do people like Clint Eastwood continue to work? Trust me, the actual people writing the checks are more conservative than you know.
As for your random evangelical Christianity aside, its core tenant literally argues that only those who agree with its version of the truth can be saved. In other words, it is the very thing you accuse Hollywood of being. That's why all of this same old song and dance coming from people such as yourself is hypocrisy of the highest order. "How dare Hollywood preach and wave its finger at me and my religion that constantly waves its finger at anyone who doesn't fall in line with our preaching!" Different ideologies, same intolerable bullsh*t.
You've always had a tendency toward supercilious and defensive , but you've more recently drifted into flat out angry and ugly. That kinda anger should probably be a wake up call for you. Maybe shake up your bubble a bit.
Regarding your first paragraph, you can try to deflect all you want, but people in Hollywood feel like they have to hide their conservative views and adopt liberal views simply to get along or get ahead. That's not really an opinion by anyone's account, despite your attempts to bigtime it to the contrary.
Your second paragraph is just an anti-Christian rant, nonsensical and angry. Let's start with the very first line, which makes it clear you're either not willing, or maybe not capable, of engaging in anything close to good faith:
Quote:
As for your random evangelical Christianity aside
There's nothing "random" about it, nor is it an aside. The discussion is ideological diversity vs check-the-box superficial diversity. I gave a clear example of a lack of ideological diversity in Hollywood. Your bizarre and hostile response underscores my point.
I don't even know where to begin with the rest of that paragraph. I'm not going to speculate about the nature of your anger and hostility toward the Bible and Christianity.
The topic is ideological diversity. Nowhere am I asking for a Christian faith and worldview to dominate movies in front of or behind the cameras, nor for the removal of beliefs and ideologies which differ. I'm just talking about diversity of ideology, instead of a steady stream of, well, people like yourself with overt hostility toward Christianity. If the standard "paint by numbers" Hollywood approach is to overrepresent gays by 2-3 times, then can't we get at least 1/2 of the evangelical Christian representation, given that the numbers of the latter dwarf the numbers of the former in the population? There's nothing hypocritical in my stance whatsoever.
And that's merely one example of a lack of ideological diversity, as I said in my original post.
You clearly brought a lot of baggage into that response. Hope you feel better after that at least. And if you want to try to pretend like you're equally exasperated by "people like me" (replete with whatever stock stereotypes you, an exemplar of Hollywood open-mindedness, want to color me with) and the ideologically homogenous Hollywood crowd, maybe save some anger for that myopic, insular, close-minded, and bigoted group. Otherwise, you're just too transparent.
Good grief! If you're single, marry someone from a different race. If everyone does this, we can end racism in a generation or two.
Ok..... did someone say something about Old School 2?
Ok..... did someone say something about Old School 2?
As always, it's the fault of those meanies on Forum 16. Nothing to do with the oscars using politics to change their standards. Nope. Politics only came up because of the meanies on that far right forum 16 that just wants entertainment to leave politics out altogether.
mazag08 said:
As always, it's the fault of those meanies on Forum 16. Nothing to do with the oscars using politics to change their standards. Nope. Politics only came up because of the meanies on that far right forum 16 that just wants entertainment to leave politics out altogether.
That's the thing, though. I'm not saying Hollywood isn't culpable. My first post on this thread literally critiqued this whole endeavor. My issue is with the hypocrisy of F16 for acting in the exact same manner, accusing Hollywood of doing what it does on this site every single day. That, and I was defending my defensiveness. People constantly come here to talk sh*t on Hollywood, and give me sh*t in the process, and then when I spout back, they pull the ol', "Why you so mad, bro?" and "call me out" for blaming them for doing exactly what they came here to do. It's ridiculous.
Completely agree with this. Was fairly taken aback by TCTTS's comments. That was some adamant vehemence against Christianity.
Christianity is not the only religion that claims it is the only truth. I also have never known any other group of people to be more forgiving and accepting of fallen people than fellow Christians. Are there "holier than thou" types? Of course. There are also many who claim to be Christians but I guarantee are only so in name. A true Christian cannot be judgmental of others because being a Christian requires you to accept the fact you are as sinful and fallen as anyone else. I think people like you project onto Christians this idea of being judgmental.
I actually thought there some decent movies made from Christian stories in the last several years. I liked Risen, a lot.
Christianity is not the only religion that claims it is the only truth. I also have never known any other group of people to be more forgiving and accepting of fallen people than fellow Christians. Are there "holier than thou" types? Of course. There are also many who claim to be Christians but I guarantee are only so in name. A true Christian cannot be judgmental of others because being a Christian requires you to accept the fact you are as sinful and fallen as anyone else. I think people like you project onto Christians this idea of being judgmental.
I actually thought there some decent movies made from Christian stories in the last several years. I liked Risen, a lot.
That's a fairly one-sided view point.
As mentioned above, it was not some conservative conspiracy that brought forth this new policy from the Academy.
I would have to push back and say the majority of politics brought up on this board is in response to something Hollywood is doing. Are we just to sit back and ignore it?
As mentioned above, it was not some conservative conspiracy that brought forth this new policy from the Academy.
I would have to push back and say the majority of politics brought up on this board is in response to something Hollywood is doing. Are we just to sit back and ignore it?
I agree completely. Again, my target was the hypocrisy, not Christianity. Ideally, yes, Christians *should* be the least judgmental. And many times they are. Unfortunately, however, the holier than thou types are the ones heard louder than others, and are the ones being hypocritical when complaining about Hollywood touting one set of intolerant beliefs while adhering to ideals of their own that are equally intolerant. Put simply, I don't understand how someone can complain about Hollywood being intolerant and full of itself, when the core tenant of Christianity says that one goes to hell if you don't believe exactly as we believe. That's not a critique on Christianity. That's simply a critique on those not realizing their own intolerances while calling out others, using depictions of Christianity in the process.
I'm not at all saying to sit back and ignore it. I actually enjoy discussing this stuff, when appropriate and not injected. I think this thread is fair game in that regard. I was merely speaking as it related to *my* defensiveness, which was being called out. I was explaining why *I'm* saying what I'm saying in response, in the tone I chose.
What is so wrong about awarding Oscars to the best movie or actor's performance simply because it was the best? Having to meet a quota of different skin colors or lifestyles shouldn't be a part of the equation. It should be who told the best story in the best way possible.
I remember someone famous saying something about how we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I remember someone famous saying something about how we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
TXAG 05 said:
What is so wrong about awarding Oscars to the best movie or actor's performance simply because it was the best? Having to meet a quota of different skin colors or lifestyles shouldn't be a part of the equation. It should be who told the best story in the best way possible.
I remember someone famous saying something about how we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Hollywood has to correct the lack of black winners by awarding trophies to people because of the color of their skin since they don't believe they can win on their own merit.
F16 owns a lot of real estate on this board. It's almost obsession level. Actually it is obsession level.mazag08 said:
As always, it's the fault of those meanies on Forum 16. Nothing to do with the oscars using politics to change their standards. Nope. Politics only came up because of the meanies on that far right forum 16 that just wants entertainment to leave politics out altogether.
mazag08 said:TXAG 05 said:
What is so wrong about awarding Oscars to the best movie or actor's performance simply because it was the best? Having to meet a quota of different skin colors or lifestyles shouldn't be a part of the equation. It should be who told the best story in the best way possible.
I remember someone famous saying something about how we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Hollywood has to correct the lack of black winners by awarding trophies to people because of the color of their skin since they don't believe they can win on their own merit.
It's because the system itself is "rigged."
I'm not saying there are white people in Hollywood actively or maliciously trying to keep people of color out. That's not the issue here. Nor is it "the soft bigotry of low expectations" or that white people "don't believe [people of color] can win on their own merit." It's that the "merit" of people of color isn't provided equal purchase. Not because of any conscious, sinister force keeping it at bay, but because the overwhelming number of white people telling white stories in Hollywood makes it WAY, WAY harder for stories to be told by people of color. It's just a simple, mathematical fact. The system itself doesn't work for people of color in the same way it works for white people. Which is as true for Hollywood as it is for myriad other industries. So, because their numbers are fewer, and thus exists a smaller chance of their stories being told, why shouldn't we do what we can to help them? Why shouldn't we tip the scales, so to speak, to give their voices as much of a platform as white voices have? I refuse to subscribe to this idea that because they're the minority, so too should be the number of their stories or jobs in proportion to whites. Representation matters, and I simply don't know what else to say to those who refuse to acknowledge, for instance, how *seen* black kids felt when they saw Black Panther, or Asians felt watching Crazy Rich Asians. So why can't we do what we can to provide them more opportunities and experiences like that? Why can't we "step aside" in the even the smallest of ways to help people who don't get to see themselves on the screen in the same ways and frequency white people do?
What's stopping y'all from stepping aside? I don't get it. If you truly believe there isn't enough opportunity for non whites to tell their stories in cinema, step aside brother. What's the rub?
TXAG 05 said:
What is so wrong about awarding Oscars to the best movie or actor's performance simply because it was the best? Having to meet a quota of different skin colors or lifestyles shouldn't be a part of the equation. It should be who told the best story in the best way possible.
I remember someone famous saying something about how we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
To that I'll say what I said to a poster in the Lovecraft Country thread recently, which was essentially the same conversation...
Quote:
I know you and others mean well with the "I don't see color! We're all the same!" sentiment. I get it. I do. But the more I've listened to people of color, the more I've come to understand how dismissive that sentiment can be. Because the fact is, in many instances, we ARE different. Beyond just the color of our skin. Our experiences, our history, our traditions, the way we're treated, etc, can at times be very distinct and separate, sometimes in very tangible and horrific ways. So, in that sense, certain black people don't want to hear the platitude that race - i.e. their history, traditions, the way they're treated, etc - is merely a "mental construct." Because it's not. It's so much more than that. Black people are instead saying, "We ARE different, and we want you to accept us ANYWAY." And only when we realize that - when we stop dismissing their experiences and point of view as nothing more than a "mental construct" and "victimhood mentality" - will they be validated in the way they're seeking. But that validation can only come from empathy on our part, which, as I spoke to earlier, is what they're ultimately seeking in these stories they're telling.
In other words, as long as people like you keep saying, "Race doesn't matter, get over it," the more people like them are going to keep making race a priority in the stories they're telling, as a means to try and get you to understand that it *does.* Yes, the goal is to eventually "grow beyond color." But we can't do that until our differences our first acknowledged, and then truly reckoned with.
Urban Ag said:
What's stopping y'all from stepping aside? I don't get it. If you truly believe there isn't enough opportunity for non whites to tell their stories in cinema, step aside brother. What's the rub?
First of all, I'm doing my part. I've put my money where my mouth is.
Second of all, you're essentially asking, "Why doesn't every studio, production company, actor, and crew member put the interest of others above their own personal interest? What gives???" In other words, you're taking basic human nature and trivializing it, as if this isn't the core issue of all humanity. What am I supposed to say to that?
Thanks, I definitely agree telling more diverse stories and getting people involved is good, but also agree this seems really heavy handed. And if there is a stellar movie that somehow doesn't meet the criteria, that rubs me the wrong way as well.TCTTS said:Saxsoon said:
I would be interested in hearing TC's take on this, especially for the requirements behind the camera and if this will make things more difficult for smaller studios (We all know TC has got an Oscar in him)
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, Rick laid out a great defense on the previous page as to why more diverse voices will lead to more diverse stories, and thus more originality down the line. This is obviously true of diversity in any field, and if it wasn't already clear by my arguments in other threads, exactly why I've always been pro diversity in that regard. It's also why I applaud that active and tangible measures are actually being taken here. This is definitely progress.
That said, the Academy forcing the industry's hand in this way *also* rings a bit hallow to me. Because now studios and productions will be trying to meet a quota not because it's the right thing to do, but because they want an Oscar and the free marketing that nominations can garner. It's being a good boy because you want Santa to bring you toys, not because being good is simply the right thing to be. Granted, tangible consequences as a means of enforcing social harmony/change isn't anything new, and if the same result is eventually reached, maybe the means by which that change is reached doesn't really matter.
As for the indie/smaller studio angle, yes, I think these rules in their current form would hurt indies more for all the reasons mentioned. But here's the thing... these won't be the final rules. Enough legit industry types are already b*tching and discussing tweaks that all of this will no doubt be amended before 2024. So I'm not really worried about that angle as much. Nor am I concerned in any way about my own work, either. Looking at our current development slate, there's not a single project that wouldn't already qualify. Granted, from day one, we've made it a point to tell diverse stories, and work with all kinds of diverse talent, so this really isn't an issue for us at all. I don't think we've ever nixed a project for being "too white" or anything like that either. We've just always gravitated toward stories that naturally fit these criteria.
But if an Oscar happens to come our way one of these days, all the better.
He already stated that his production is doing just that and hiring and working with a lot of these folks.
DallasTeleAg said:
I find it funny how people on this board keep arguing about the same things. Liberals want X, so they find a way to coerce people into doing X because of "good for everyone". Conservatives believe in Y, so they want everyone to just leave them alone and allow them Y. And then there are people in both categories who are just power hungry and aren't true believers, either way.
The Academy Awards is a giant leftist circle jerk anyways. It stopped being fun to watch after about 2003. In the grand scheme of things, it just devalues the award in my opinion. These were all basically guidelines they've followed for years, anyways. They just finally put them down on paper.
I'm already over it. I'm ready for this whole damn country to just burn.
When you say already over it, you mean "after about 2003" when it "stopped being fun to watch" and because it is a "giant leftist circle jerk anyways"?
I'm going to google to see what the 2003 watershed moment was about that rendered you ready for the country to burn, but I just wanted to make sure you're still good with the Golden Globes before checking into this.
In 2004 Peter Jackson won best picture for Return of the King. Admittedly that scratches all kinds of itches for me as someone who read the books when young, but it also seems like it would be a highly acceptable flick from a conservative POV.
Featured Stories
See All
Wednesday sports discussions and the friendship forged
by Olin Buchanan
Sdao's struggles persist as pitching falters in 14-8 defeat
by Richard Zane
11:14
9h ago
1.1k
Sauni's RBI double propels No. 15 A&M past No. 11 Georgia, 3-2
by Emily Dreger
Belief in God helped Formby land at Texas A&M
by Olin Buchanan
18:42
20h ago
2.2k
Thurman Merman
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
WesTexAg3
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
Average Joe
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
sprinklerguy12
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5