MPAAS : No diversity, no OSCAR

[KK 3,307]

Everyone here is crying "apocalypse"...but most major films already fall under these conditions. If you actually bother reading them, they're surprisingly loose/flexible parameters.

[bruce marshall 1,314]

I used to say casting director was the worst job in Hollywood.

Now , it's the worst job in America. 😎

8 minutes ago, KK said:

Everyone here is crying "apocalypse"...but most major films already fall under these conditions. If you actually bother reading them, they're surprisingly loose/flexible parameters.

It's the symbolism of it.

Free, ARTISTIC expression is being stifled ; not by the government, but by the very people who produce it.

This is bad news.

[Edmilson 7,367]

The Academy Responds to Best Picture Inclusion Standards: 5 Questions and Answers

[bruce marshall 1,314]

The blacklist .....the Production Code...

The Diversity Protocols....

 

Same philosophy, different methodology..

[KK 3,307]

Good God. This place can be insufferable...

 

 

[bruce marshall 1,314]

Yeah. Because so many have no knowledge of history and are incapable of seeing the larger picture.

Censorship is bad. Always and forever.

 

[gkgyver 1,645]

Most people can at most see how point A gets to point B. If at all. The people behind things like this see from point A to point M. 

Before point A is even made. 

That's why the standard answer when you say things that will happen is "I can't imagine that". 

[bruce marshall 1,314]

Does anyone else remember that story about DISNEY implementing a computer algorithm to detect evidence of ' bias' in screenplays?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

14 hours ago, Arpy said:

That's taboo, Chen!

 

I guess it's a diversity quota when it's in the west, elsewhere no such requirements are imposed. 

The Academy is an American entity. This doesn’t need to apply to international cinema. Parasite doesn’t need white people in it because it’s made in Korea and set it Korea, therefore representative of its country of origin. The United States is not just old white men, yet that’s essentially what’s solely represented in Hollywood pictures. 

 

@KK is the only voice of reason in this thread. Most film productions probably already meet the requirements.

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Why do you loons hate white people so much?

[Chen G. 3,940]

39 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Parasite doesn’t need white people in it because it’s made in Korea and set it Korea, therefore representative of its country of origin.

 

You could just as well look at American films about blacks (Moonlight?) or Asians. Diversity would mean those films would require white people in them.

 

I need to have another look at those rules. As I understand it, a film needs to clear diversity within the cast OR within the crew to be eligible, which is fine. If it needs to clear diversity quotas in BOTH that's going to be much harder to manage.

 

Do we really need to get into the "equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome" discussion again?

[gkgyver 1,645]

1 hour ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

Why do you loons hate white people so much?

 

It's the logical next step once you get taught to think of all white people as offspring of nazis and racists, whose history can be condensed into 20 years. 

 

If the loons followed Morgan Freeman's advice and just stopped talking about "racism", true racism, the few handful of people who are actual racists, would be gone in 10 years max, because it would be wiped from consciousness. 

 

"I stop calling you a white man, and you will stop calling me a black man". 

 

But that wouldn't further the goals of certain people. 

Actual, true racism is not possible in society, and hasn't been possible for an eternity. 

Anti-racism is creating racism because it shifts society's consciousness to racism, paints things as racists that aren't racist, and teaches minorities to feel oppressed about things they didn't feel oppressed about before. 

Like Freeman said, something like Black History Month is damaging, because it falsely implies that black people are still not equal, and moreover, kids grow up thinking they're born into a race struggle, while reality is that people of all color interact with each other on a daily basis peacefully and equally. 

And so is this Hollywood edict harmful because it implies inequality where there is none, and forces actors' and directors' and studios' minds into a framework of race thinking. And that's as racist as anything. 

Think about it: people fighting oh so bravely against race thinking, want all people to think about race. 

Anti-racism creates racism, by forcing everything down a prism of race, period. 

And if you think a predominantly white cast in a movie produced by white people, for a predominantly white society is "racist", then that's tough shit on you. 

 

The fake racism started when people started criticizing the first black president, and that was called racism. It snowballed from that point on. 

 

Imagine immigrating into Japan, and starting to call Japanese produced movies racist for starring an all Japanese cast, and not enough South Americans. 

 

"We can't make Shin Gojira Best Picture, not enough South Americans were stomped." 

[Arpy 4,145]

The Academy is becoming more of an international ceremony valued by artists all over the world, I've never seen it as solely an American institute despite its origin - films from Europe, Australia, Asia have been represented in the past and dominate most of the categories.

 

Anyhow this thread is becoming dangerously close to political discussion, so I'm out before it's locked.

[bruce marshall 1,314]

It was inevitable.😒

My issue is artistic freedom. Not politics.

These dogmatic requirements are anti-art.

[KK 3,307]

It’s sad that this even needs to be posted here, but since people seem to be willfully obtuse about how this works...

 

[bruce marshall 1,314]

Once again you miss the point.

Not talking about eliminating societal injustices.

This is about letting artists create without governments or politics pushing them around.

[KK 3,307]

These social inequities are very real things all artists have to deal with in any sector.

 

Privilege and inequality aren’t just political talking points. They determine artists’ livelihoods.

 

Contrary to the paranoid basement-troll rhetoric here, no one is stifling anyone’s “artistic freedom”. And again, most of Hollywood is either willing to or are already playing ball. The Internet just likes to make headlines way more dramatic than they actually are.

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

The Academy is an American entity. This doesn’t need to apply to international cinema. Parasite doesn’t need white people in it because it’s made in Korea and set it Korea, therefore representative of its country of origin. The United States is not just old white men, yet that’s essentially what’s solely represented in Hollywood pictures. 

 

@KK is the only voice of reason in this thread. Most film productions probably already meet the requirements.

 

 

I'm with you guys as well. Just wasn't planning on saying anything after reading the thread and realized I'd be among the dissenting opinion. Didn't see the point.

 

Look. Quite frankly. However you feel about this rule. Who gives a damn about the Oscars or the Academy anyways? I've been over them for the last decade or more. They've missed the mark far too many times for my taste with predictable and nonsensical decisions.

 

I also highly doubt this is actually going to stop artists from creating what they wan't. I don't see anything wrong with properly representing what's around us. 

1 minute ago, KK said:

These social inequities are very real things all artists have to deal with in any sector.

 

Privilege and inequality aren’t just political talking points. They determine artists’ livelihoods.

 

Contrary to the paranoid basement-troll rhetoric here, no one is stifling anyone’s “artistic freedom”. And again, most of Hollywood is either willing to or are already playing ball. The Internet just likes to make headlines way more dramatic than they actually are.

 

This. All of this.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Not ennuff peepth of colour in your moovey. You are not recognithed

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

Not ennuff peepth of colour in your moovey. You are not recognithed

 

And this is why I originally opted to say nothing in this thread. I simply can't handle the maturity beyond my years of the responses.

 

Have fun everyone!

[bruce marshall 1,314]

" Thank you' , KK for elucidating for  all our benefit , the inequities of society.

What would we do without your worldly wisdom to guide us?

We would be stumbling in the darkness.

I am humbled.

 

Yeah. Screw artistic freedom. That's so bourgeois.

Art should serve The Party

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This is how shows like Cuties get made. Fighting thekthual reprethunnnnnn!

[SteveMc 2,674]

We don't need to get weird in here guys.

 

 

[bruce marshall 1,314]

1 hour ago, SteveMc said:

We don't need to get weird in here guys.

 

 

 

" Weird scenes inside the goldmine..."

 

Oh, sorry- wrong thread!

 

😅

[Koray Savas 2,251]

 

5 hours ago, gkgyver said:

 

It's the logical next step once you get taught to think of all white people as offspring of nazis and racists, whose history can be condensed into 20 years. 

 

If the loons followed Morgan Freeman's advice and just stopped talking about "racism", true racism, the few handful of people who are actual racists, would be gone in 10 years max, because it would be wiped from consciousness. 

 

"I stop calling you a white man, and you will stop calling me a black man". 

 

But that wouldn't further the goals of certain people. 

Actual, true racism is not possible in society, and hasn't been possible for an eternity. 

Anti-racism is creating racism because it shifts society's consciousness to racism, paints things as racists that aren't racist, and teaches minorities to feel oppressed about things they didn't feel oppressed about before. 

Like Freeman said, something like Black History Month is damaging, because it falsely implies that black people are still not equal, and moreover, kids grow up thinking they're born into a race struggle, while reality is that people of all color interact with each other on a daily basis peacefully and equally. 

And so is this Hollywood edict harmful because it implies inequality where there is none, and forces actors' and directors' and studios' minds into a framework of race thinking. And that's as racist as anything. 

Think about it: people fighting oh so bravely against race thinking, want all people to think about race. 

Anti-racism creates racism, by forcing everything down a prism of race, period. 

And if you think a predominantly white cast in a movie produced by white people, for a predominantly white society is "racist", then that's tough shit on you. 

 

The fake racism started when people started criticizing the first black president, and that was called racism. It snowballed from that point on. 

 

Imagine immigrating into Japan, and starting to call Japanese produced movies racist for starring an all Japanese cast, and not enough South Americans. 

 

"We can't make Shin Gojira Best Picture, not enough South Americans were stomped." 

Yo, what is this shit? Racism doesn’t exist?! Not sure what world you’re living in, buddy, but the world’s racism can’t be condensed to 20 years of Nazism. Kinda forgetting about slavery? It’s only been 60 years since the civil rights movement, racism is very much alive and well.

Bruce created this thread fully knowing it was destined for political discourse. @Jay 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

26 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

 

Yo, what is this shit? Racism doesn’t exist?! Not sure what world you’re living in, buddy, but the world’s racism can’t be condensed to 20 years of Nazism. Kinda forgetting about slavery? It’s only been 60 years since the civil rights movement, racism is very much alive and well.

 

 

Yeah from antifa whackjobs who wanna kill white people. And yet most of these weirdos look like they're from the Manson Family!

[Chen G. 3,940]

On 9/9/2020 at 6:29 AM, bruce marshall said:

https://www.wpr.org/new-diversity-standards-best-picture-oscar-nominees-starting-2024

 

I've had another look at this. Only two of the four standards need apply, which makes the thing much more reasonable than it might seem.

 

I bet virtually all movies, as it currently stand, can live up to this, either as-is or with relatively minor tweaks to the production crew or distribution. One of the criteria doesn't apply to the movies themselves, but to interships provided by the company.

[Jay 37,250]

Guys, this is a film score message board.  If you want to politely discuss how these new rules could affect movie production, you can continue to do so.

 

But if you want to try to discuss the wider implications of worldwide politics, you can't.  Political and religious posts aren't allowed on JWFan.  Sorry!  I'm sure you can find other places on the internet to share your opinions on these matters.

 

And Drax, it's time to knock off the mocking gay lisp.  You may think it's funny, but no one else does, and I'm tired of getting reports from multiple users about it.  Just participate in discussions like a normal person, or don't participate at all.  Thanks!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

23 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

 

And Drax, it's time to know of the mocking gay lisp.

 

Why do you assume it's a "gay" lisp? It's just a lisp.

[Smeltington 1,436]

14 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Who gives a damn about the Oscars or the Academy anyways? I've been over them for the last decade or more. They've missed the mark far too many times for my taste with predictable and nonsensical decisions.

 

They can't be trusted to "get it right" in terms of reliably picking the "best" picture, "best" whatever, etc. But they do affect the industry, since they're the biggest platform for art films. If a picture has a chance at Oscar attention, it has a better chance to be greenlit in the first place, especially if it's not blatantly commercial otherwise. So even if you don't watch the ceremony or care who they pick, if you're a film fan, what they do will affect you.

 

I've reached the point where I don't watch the ceremony, but watch most of the major contenders, minus a few each year that I allow myself to skip. I'm glad we have the Oscars to create a platform for these films to get made. Some of them go too far out of their way to turn themselves into Oscar bait, while others manage to seem less cloying and make more of an independent statement. This will probably continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. A lot of my favorite films in recent years have been around the fringes of the Oscar scene, obviously buoyed by the awards season, but not always squarely in the spotlight.

[TSMefford 1,509]

13 minutes ago, Smeltington said:

 

They can't be trusted to "get it right" in terms of reliably picking the "best" picture, "best" whatever, etc. But they do affect the industry, since they're the biggest platform for art films. If a picture has a chance at Oscar attention, it has a better chance to be greenlit in the first place, especially if it's not blatantly commercial otherwise. So even if you don't watch the ceremony or care who they pick, if you're a film fan, what they do will affect you.

 

I've reached the point where I don't watch the ceremony, but watch most of the major contenders, minus a few each year that I allow myself to skip. I'm glad we have the Oscars to create a platform for these films to get made. Some of them go too far out of their way to turn themselves into Oscar bait, while others manage to seem less cloying and make more of an independent statement. This will probably continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. A lot of my favorite films in recent years have been around the fringes of the Oscar scene, obviously buoyed by the awards season, but not always squarely in the spotlight.

 

Funny. Because I feel that most of the art films that are worth a damn to me that aren't widely seen or distributed, that also aren't pandering to the Academy, commonly don't get recognized at the Oscars, with a couple exceptions every year. I'm over them. It hardly effects which films I watch. 

 

Do I watch films that are featured at the Oscars? Sure. But I don't watch them because they're nominated. I watch the ones I'm interested in regardless and commonly before the Oscars if I am able, and these days, an Oscar doesn't mean anything to me in regards to whether or not I see the film.

[Kühni 485]

5 hours ago, Jay said:

Just participate in discussions like a normal person, or don't participate at all.  Thanks!

 

We listen to film scores religiously. We ain't normal persons.

 

And as a gay dude, I take no offense at PuhgreÞiviÞm's "lisp". Sorry, "lithp". 

[TSMefford 1,509]

As far as how these rules will affect the future of filmmaking...honestly, now that I've read the fine print...I don't think it's going to affect much. Or at least we won't see the effects, if any, for several years.

 

Films won't even need to turn in the form until 2022 and they will only have to fulfill TWO of the four very easily obtainable requirements starting in 2024. So, we won't actually SEE any changes, if any, until late 2022 or 2023 at the earliest.

 

When it comes to artistic expression: Only ONE of these FOUR requirements involve anything to do when anyone on the screen. And considering that filmmakers have to only fulfill 2 of the 4 standards and 3 out of 4 of them are to do with Behind the Scenes crew, internships, representation in marketing materials, etc. -plus seeing as how each standard has three separate options that you can pick from to qualify for each standard- I highly doubt this is going to greatly change the actual creative process much at all. Most films already meet these requirements anyways. The worst that's going to happen is this encourages minority groups get a bit more opportunity and more representation in the industry. 

 

None of these requirements say that high profile roles (Lead Actors, Directors, Cinematographers, etc.) suddenly have to change. Is that an option presented? Yes. But for every standard that involves changes to a top position, there are two other routes that can be taken to fulfill that particular standard that affect much smaller roles.

 

Looks to me like a pretty harmless initiative for optics, to me. As I'm pretty sure almost all films can qualify by these standards as is. I have my own personal opinion about what the Academy should be doing as far as initiatives, but I don't think anyone wants that. Lol.

[Jay 37,250]

Thank you for that thoughtful and detailed response!

[TSMefford 1,509]

5 hours ago, Jay said:

Thank you for that thoughtful and detailed response!

 

Thanks Jay. Just to highlight one of the actual standard requirements:

 

Standard B:

Quote

 

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

 

 

I don't know about you guys, but in order to meet this standard, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult or alter the creative vision of the film at all if B2 were fulfilled.

 

That being said, for clarity, I am all for more minority groups being able to showcase their stories in films and have a say in the creative visions of films. But for those worried about this significantly impacting how films are made and it compromising artistic vision, it's easy for a film to fulfill Standard B with B2. If, however, a crew wishes to fulfill it with B1 or B3, I have a feeling they would have done so anyways, regardless of these requirements existing.

 

Not to mention that these standards are only relevant to the Best Picture category and not any of the other numerous categories at the Oscars. The topic headline of this very thread implies that not meeting these standards will disqualify you from every category.

[Kühni 485]

.

[bruce marshall 1,314]

" Art must be in service to  The Party"

   -  Lenin

[gkgyver 1,645]

21 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

Once again you miss the point.

Not talking about eliminating societal injustices.

This is about letting artists create without governments or politics pushing them around.

 

Societal "injustices" are inherent to human societies. Everyone has a different intelligence, differing levels of skill, different upbringing, different motivations... 

If you want to have a society where everyone is forcefully brought down to the same level, you need to travel back in time to communist states. They always end in poverty, misery and destruction. 

 

There are no injustices in movie casting. At least there weren't.

Now there will be, because you need to tell people "we can't cast you because you may have the wrong skin color for our film." 

 

3 hours ago, Kühni said:

"Other underrepresented race or ethnicity"

 

I am descended from Curonians, who after 1945 got expelled from their home regions in the Baltic and are going to dwindle down to nothingness by 2040. What do I get for that?

 

Underrepresented measured by what? The US has 60% white population, 16% Hispanics, 13% Afro Americans, 6% Asians, 1% native Americans, 2% multiple ethnicities, and 0,25% Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders. 

 

Here's the thing: those ethnicities are already adequately represented, and I dare say even more than that. 

It doesn't matter, people will inevitably complain that the ethnic roles weren't big enough, not important enough, falsely portrayed etc. 

If this rule did not exist, nobody would have given a single fuck. 

Now, this will lead to even more race debate. 

Which is the goal, obviously. 

[Chen G. 3,940]

And you can subdivide the thing ad infinitum, basically. Its not just ethnicity, after all, its also gender. But what about accounting for disabilites? Height? Attractiveness? There's simply not end to this.

[TSMefford 1,509]

19 minutes ago, gkgyver said:

Now there will be, because you need to tell people "we can't cast you because you may have the wrong skin color for our film." 

 

I'm going to ignore most of the other stuff you said, but focusing on this... This is not remotely true.

 

As I said above, Casting is ONE of the FOUR standards that you have the option of choosing TWO from. 3 out of the 4 things they're setting standards for have nothing to do with the cast of the film. Most films could easily choose two options not relating to cast at all, and it would be ridiculously easy to meet the qualifications. Again, without making a difference to the artistic expression. You're overreacting.

 

Furthermore, to be clear, Casting is not a required change. No where in these standards does it say definitively that you have to cast a certain way. Like I said, you can simply pick two of the other standards if your cast can't be "compromised". These standards will change virtually nothing.

 

[gkgyver 1,645]

21 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

" Thank you' , KK for elucidating for  all our benefit , the inequities of society.

What would we do without your worldly wisdom to guide us?

We would be stumbling in the darkness.

I am humbled.

 

Yeah. Screw artistic freedom. That's so bourgeois.

Art should serve The Party

 

Had an exchange the other day with someone who said music theory was racist. 

 

"Do you know music theory?" 

"Not that much. I said music theory was racist, not the music!" 

 

That idiot refused to understand that the notes on paper and the sonic interpretation of them are the SAME FUCKING THING. 

That's the level of idiocy at work. It's easy for zombies to regulate and censor things they have no knowledge of or affection for. 

In fact, that's most likely a requirement. 

 

22 hours ago, KK said:

It’s sad that this even needs to be posted here, but since people seem to be willfully obtuse about how this works...

 

 

That's a nice little kindergarten drawing. 

Let me let you in on a little detail about "justice". 

Fascism is not inherently evil people plotting evil things for the sake of being evil. The worst fascists in history were driven by a burning desire to bring to justice a perceived injustice, projected onto a perceived threat, by any means necessary. 

There are no fascists that are aware they're on the wrong side. They think they're on the side of justice. Always. 

[Kühni 485]

7 hours ago, gkgyver said:

It doesn't matter, people will inevitably complain that the ethnic roles weren't big enough, not important enough, falsely portrayed etc. 

 

In the next movie about the end of World War II, I wanna see Hitler portrayed by a black guy/SE Asian/a Yanomami native. Share the spoils, share the foils, eh?

 

6 hours ago, gkgyver said:

Fascism is not inherently evil people plotting evil things for the sake of being evil. The worst fascists in history were driven by a burning desire to bring to justice a perceived injustice, projected onto a perceived threat, by any means necessary. 

There are no fascists that are aware they're on the wrong side. They think they're on the side of justice. Always. 

 

Pretty much this.

 

Off to Augsburg to get my weekly dose of diversity. Wearing a mask, of course...and a condom, just in case. 

 

[Excessive sarcasm was used in writing this post. Complaints may be filed at the Bavarian Embassy of your respective country.]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Ze joyfulness iz oveh!

[Sweeping Strings 2,342]

Last few posts brought this sketch from the BBC's 'That Mitchell And Webb Look' to mind - 

 

 

[Loert 2,509]

To the people saying things like "Most films would fit these standards anyway" or "Only 2 of 4 standards have to be met"; there are a few points that I think need mentioning.

 

Firstly, if a requirement is imposed which is already 99% met, that doesn't mean the requirement is justified. Anybody could show this using examples. (Just one example: All film composers are required to be male. Defenders of this can say: "Well, virtually all film composers are male anyway so this requirement won't make much difference." But we can all clearly see how ridiculous this sounds.) Therefore, "most films would fit these standards anyway" does not prove that the standards are justified.

 

Secondly, it is true that the film itself doesn't need to contain, or be about, people of a certain group identity to pass the test. They can offer apprenticeships to under-represented groups, or have under-represented groups in their marketing, publicity, and distribution teams. But what if one of these can't be achieved? Well then you have to meet one of the first two standards - so they do have a function (obviously). And, as a slight offshoot, imagine if a member of the Academy came up and said "Don't worry about standards A and B, just do the internships and get a diverse distributor and you'll be fine" - what kind of message would that send?

 

But I think my overarching worry is this: At the end of the day, the Academy (who indisputably have a major influence on the world film industry) are sending the message that a film production which contains people of a particular race/gender is better than a film with people of another race/gender. If this trend continues (which it has every reason to), then I am certainly worried for the future of film.

 

Finally, here's a re-worded version of standard A to help highlight its more "sinister" (as I see it) side:

 

Quote

 

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 isn't white.
 

A2. General ensemble cast

No more than 70% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles can be from two of the following groups:
• Male
• White
• Straight
• Able-bodied/mentally healthy

 

A3. Main storyline/subject matter

The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is not centered on able-bodied, mentally healthy straight white men.

 

 

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

Meh. Nevermind. This thread isn’t really going anywhere with or without my commentary. Enjoy everyone.