Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

New Inclusion Requirements to Get a Best Picture Nomination


Recommended Posts

I wrote this in another thread earlier this morning--

Why wait till 2024? Why not start it this coming year?

Also, the Oscar is in the image of a man, something they overlook and do not address. 

Shouldn't the Oscar be unisex in order to represent both men and women?

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As i commented elsewhere, this would have negated the Best Picture nomination of 6 of the 9 contenders last year (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 1917, The Irishman, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, and Ford Vs Ferrari) alone. So, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I wrote this in another thread earlier this morning--

Why wait till 2024? Why not start it this coming year?

Also, the Oscar is in the image of a man, something they overlook and do not address. 

Shouldn't the Oscar be unisex in order to represent both men and women?

make it look like a h ot babe then the left can go after the academy for being misogynistic.

:D

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is SO ridiculous. Have they lost their minds??? Will picture nominations be cancelled if they dont follow the rules after the votes come in? Or will pictures be declared ineligible before voting begins?  Sorry, you can't vote for this film! The Academy has become a laughingstock. It's no wonder few people watch the show anymore.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

As i commented elsewhere, this would have negated the Best Picture nomination of 6 of the 9 contenders last year (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 1917, The Irishman, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, and Ford Vs Ferrari) alone. So, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Poorly, surely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I wrote this in another thread earlier this morning--

Why wait till 2024? Why not start it this coming year?

Also, the Oscar is in the image of a man, something they overlook and do not address. 

Shouldn't the Oscar be unisex in order to represent both men and women?

Why start it at all? The "guy" has no sexual organs, so in a way he has no sex.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Why start it at all? The "guy" has no sexual organs, so in a way he has no sex.

The name is male though. Oscar is not a unisex name. 

So as much as they want to make this all inclusive and politically correct, they are locked into the past.

Something like the Golden Globes are more gender neutral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hibi said:

This is SO ridiculous. Have they lost their minds??? Will picture nominations be cancelled if they dont follow the rules after the votes come in? Or will pictures be declared ineligible before voting begins?  Sorry, you can't vote for this film! The Academy has become a laughingstock. It's no wonder few people watch the show anymore.

Probably the latter, be deemed ineligible before voting begins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

Probably the latter, be deemed ineligible before voting begins. 

I don't see this lasting for more than a year. It's a form of censorship. Just ridiculous. They are making themselves even more irrevelant.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hibi said:

This is SO ridiculous. Have they lost their minds??? Will picture nominations be cancelled if they dont follow the rules after the votes come in? Or will pictures be declared ineligible before voting begins?  Sorry, you can't vote for this film! The Academy has become a laughingstock. It's no wonder few people watch the show anymore.

Yeah I haven’t watched the Oscars in years (although I might flip over there for a minute or two at the end.) There are never any surprises and that used to be the best part. I don’t watch any awards shows anymore except the AFI Life Achievement & Kennedy Center Honors. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

As i commented elsewhere, this would have negated the Best Picture nomination of 6 of the 9 contenders last year (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 1917, The Irishman, Joker, Jojo Rabbit, and Ford Vs Ferrari) alone. So, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Yea,  we are talking about money here,  a lot of money.     While I can see an initial response from studio executives, producers and directors to be:  I'm going to make films the way I always made them.  If a  film doesn't qualify,  so-be-it.         BUT after they see the lost in revenue by not being nominated,,,,   what percentage will change how they make films? 

I would hope NONE, but again,  this is all about money for all involved.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering... will the many critics and social commentators who have excoriated the Hollywood Production Code and the Breen Office will come forth now to observe this new regulation is in substance the same type of artistic censorship?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TopBilled said:

The name is male though. Oscar is not a unisex name. 

Incorrect. ¬†The official name of the award is: ‚ÄúThe Academy Award‚ÄĚ. ¬† The unofficial nickname could easily be dropped from future press releases (and no need to redesign the statue).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Davehat said:

Incorrect. ¬†The official name of the award is: ‚ÄúThe Academy Award‚ÄĚ. ¬† The unofficial nickname could easily be dropped from future press releases (and no need to redesign the statue).

I think it will be hard for them to drop the Oscar name. 

Interestingly the Tony Award is named after a woman-- Antoinette Perry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoinette_Perry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaah, then MY money's gonna be on next year's Best Picture Oscar winner being the film I hear is presently in the pre-production phase.

(...Hitler's Rise to Power, starring Idris Elba)

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oscars are going to PC themselves right into obsolescence.

Its not their job to dictate how a movies should be made. That's the job of the viewing public. Their job is to simply vote on movies. They can't seem to get that right either.

You can look at past Best Picture winners and see they were also very popular at the box office. Not anymore. Now its whatever looks artistic whomever they feel sorry for this year. 

They started with eliminating streaming movies and now this. They are more into saving their own old system than celebrating good movies.

Just like so many parts of America are changing so fast, this is another institution that can't seem to keep up. Nor find their place in this new normal.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there are some rules that disappear without a trace after one go, like "Minor Sound and Technical winners receive the awards in their seats, to keep the show moving along." ¬†ūüėĄ

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule would make some movies impossible to make.... like 1776 or Romeo & Juliet or Julius Caesar.

Because the world of the past was 99% male-led and dominated.  And if the movie is set in Europe pre-1800, then it was nearly all white.

The Academy Awards have essentially censored 90% of historical movies.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it as outright censorship.  It's a qualification for receiving an award, not for making a film.  

Only a small fraction of films made each year are nominated for Best Picture.

Even if the cast is all male and/or all white, there are other rules that would make historical epics eligible for Best Picture.   Hiring within underrepresented groups of behind the scenes personnel will make a film eligible from what I read.  It's not just about the people you see on screen.

I don't agree with this approach.  It's a carrot and stick approach.  Change needs to come from within.   But it accomplishes one of the Academy's  goals - to remove the criticism against them (not the filmmakers) for having Best Picture nominees that are too male or too white.  It won't solve the problem, in general, in the industry.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Davehat said:

The rule would make some movies impossible to make.... like 1776 or Romeo & Juliet or Julius Caesar.

Because the world of the past was 99% male-led and dominated.  And if the movie is set in Europe pre-1800, then it was nearly all white.

The Academy Awards have essentially censored 90% of historical movies.

YEP!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

I don't see it as outright censorship.  It's a qualification for receiving an award, not for making a film.  

Only a small fraction of films made each year are nominated for Best Picture.

Even if the cast is all male and/or all white, there are other rules that would make historical epics eligible for Best Picture.   Hiring within underrepresented groups of behind the scenes personnel will make a film eligible from what I read.  It's not just about the people you see on screen.

I don't agree with this approach.  It's a carrot and stick approach.  Change needs to come from within.   But it accomplishes one of the Academy's  goals - to remove the criticism against them (not the filmmakers) for having Best Picture nominees that are too male or too white.  It won't solve the problem, in general, in the industry.

Of course it isn't anything close to censorship.    This is just a private industry award event set up my the film industry to promote films.    Those crying censorship are as misguided as the fools that created these new requirements.

That behind the scenes personnel;   It will be interesting if there are many too-many-whites-on-screen films (man I hate that term but they made me do it!),   get nominated because they qualify with behind-the-scene personnel.         What changes will they make then?    Require all promotions for the film to mention these behind the scene people?  Otherwise think of the protest?       

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

I don't see it as outright censorship.  It's a qualification for receiving an award, not for making a film.  

Only a small fraction of films made each year are nominated for Best Picture.

Even if the cast is all male and/or all white, there are other rules that would make historical epics eligible for Best Picture.   Hiring within underrepresented groups of behind the scenes personnel will make a film eligible from what I read.  It's not just about the people you see on screen.

I don't agree with this approach.  It's a carrot and stick approach.  Change needs to come from within.   But it accomplishes one of the Academy's  goals - to remove the criticism against them (not the filmmakers) for having Best Picture nominees that are too male or too white.  It won't solve the problem, in general, in the industry.

Great post.

Last night I finally got around to watching TITUS (1999) which I loved, despite the over-the-top violence.

We have a lot of white men (mostly British) in the battle scenes at the beginning. But then the film starts to focus on other races. Harry Lennix has a key role as Aaron, a moor. And Jessica Lange takes center stage as Tamora a queen of the goths. Her character has a mixed race child later on. And then there's the fact that the film itself was directed by a woman, Julie Taymor.

So it is possible to do historic films, even Shakespeare, and have it fit the Academy's new guidelines. The filmmakers will just have to be more creative but also reach that point where inclusivity  is so embedded in the texts that it will seem like second nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Censorship can exist inside private organizations like the Academy, so the term is appropriate.  What filmmaker or studio would want to make a historically film, if they know they are disqualified from winning an award?

The Supreme Court in previous decisions called¬†this ‚Äúa chilling effect‚ÄĚ on freedom of expression.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...