Oscars: Only diverse films will be considered for best picture

FunLover18

Seems to me the only people who are worried are those unhappy with this news. If they actually took the time to read it, they might realise that no one is going to stop making movies overloaded with white men who are of course the real victims here.

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

They’re just somewhat empathetic humans and looking to be a tiny amount more inclusive. It’s really not hard to understand.

I know that’s hard to understand for people who have no empathy, but you can’t seriously be unaware of the *existence* of empathy.

Tiny amount more inclusive has become straight out discrimination and censorship
Thanks god more and more people are waking up

Mic 1972

FunLover18 wrote: »

Seems to me the only people who are worried are those unhappy with this news. If they actually took the time to read it, they might realise that no one is going to stop making movies overloaded with white men who are of course the real victims here.

Overloaded with white men?

Now replace the word white with another color and see how bad it sounds
How come you can't see the racism when it's directed at white people?

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Overloaded with white men?

Now replace the word white with another color and see how bad it sounds
How come you can't see the racism when it's directed at white people?

It’s not racism bud, pure and simple.

FunLover18

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Overloaded with white men?

Now replace the word white with another color and see how bad it sounds
How come you can't see the racism when it's directed at white people?

Hollywood is run by white men. In the history of Hollywood movies, most of them are written by, directed by and about white men. You don't see anything wrong with that?

johnny_ultimate

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Thanks god more and more people are waking up

With all due respect Mic 1972, if ‘waking up’ means wilfully ignoring or rejecting objective facts about the nature of these rule changes even when they’re clearly and straightforwardly laid out, I’m happy hitting the snooze button.

Mic 1972

FunLover18 wrote: »

Hollywood is run by white men. In the history of Hollywood movies, most of them are written by, directed by and about white men. You don't see anything wrong with that?

Do you have an issue with Bollywood movies being predominantly written, directed and interpreted by Indians?
Italian movies being predominantly written, directed and interpreted by Italians? and so on


Why is it now all of a sudden unacceptable that Hollywood would have a history of white actors/actresses and writers. They created that industry.

Over the years Hollywood has become inclusive of all minorities, there is no need to count one by one how many people of each minority are represented.
What you are asking is social engineering and it has no place in the free liberal western society

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

It’s not racism bud, pure and simple.

Racism against white people is not racism?
that's interesting

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Racism against white people is not racism?
that's interesting

Because it’s not racism against white people. Are you actually 48 years old and arguing that ‘racism is good actually’ on a message board? What have you done with your life!

pixelburp

I love this cute idea of Hollywood - and The Academy - are some bastion of idealistic, pure art. As if "art" isn't itself inherently about diversity of opinion - or Hollywood isn't a corporate beast; one that'd remaster "Triumph of the Will" if it thought there was a market.

If this is some argument about "art" for its own sake then anything that encourages difference and new explorations of alternate perspectives should be welcomed. Even though that's not what the proposal is about but we're past mere facts here.

Hollywood is inherently about the artistic status quo, or whatevers trending as "Oscar bait" that year. the Oscars themselves a yardstick for people who don't watch movies. I guarantee next year's entries will be as mediocre and bland as they often are. After that there'll be some new "controversy" to give the "pc gone mad" of modernity to get upset about, for the brief time they give a shít about cinema. So it goes.

MJohnston

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A movie can be created by and acted in entirely by Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.. But not white people. It's so blatantly treating a race differently, you have voluntarily sacrifice all critical thought to not see it.

And as I mentioned before, a list of recent winners than broke these rules would be helpful for context because every time we mention a movie, we get told it would have won fine. I want to know why the rule even needs to exist. Why should a white male sound technician not get the job because of some Oscar rule.

It’s addressing a massive, long running imbalance in the industry which has benefited white men most of all. If you don’t think addressing that is important, then just say that instead of inventing some false racism boogeyman.

Doing so requires you, yet again, to ignore the fact that the rules consider crewmembers or execs who are women (including WHITE Women), non-hetero people (including WHITE non-hetero people), and non-cisgender people (including WHITE non-cisgender people) to cause movies to become eligible for Best Picture. Even when they’re not appearing onscreen at all.

It’s not about racism against white people, simple as that.

I’m reminded of the paraphrased quote “when you’ve only ever experienced privilege, equality feels like oppression” - fully applicable here.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only straight white men, crewed by only straight white men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ straight white men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

Because it’s not racism against white people. Are you actually 48 years old and arguing that ‘racism is good actually’ on a message board? What have you done with your life!

I'm arguing that racism is equally bad, whether is against black or white.

You are the one saying that racism against white people is not really racism, which is a contradiction in terms, typical woke double standards

Spon Farmer

gimli2112 wrote: »

I think the Oscars have become a lot more irrelevant, maybe diluted a little by the plethora of awards. I don't see this as a good thing but am unsure if this makes me a racist.

Everything makes you a racist so don't worry about it.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

It’s addressing a massive, long running imbalance in the industry which has benefited white men most of all. If you don’t think addressing that is important, then just say that instead of inventing some false racism boogeyman.

Doing so requires you, yet again, to ignore the fact that the rules consider crewmembers or execs who are women (including WHITE Women), non-hetero people (including WHITE non-hetero people), and non-cisgender people (including WHITE non-cisgender people) to cause movies to become eligible for Best Picture. Even when they’re not appearing onscreen at all.

It’s not about racism against white people, simple as that.

I’m reminded of the paraphrased quote “when you’ve only ever experienced privilege, equality feels like oppression” - fully applicable here.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only straight white men, crewed by only straight white men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ straight white men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

I included male in my post so I am well aware of the women thing. And list the recent movies that would break these rules because if movies haven't been breaking them, they're not addressing any imbalances.

Anyways, you've fallen into the trap where if you can't replace a word with Jewish, you shouldn't be saying what you're saying.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only straight black men, crewed by only straight black men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ straight black men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only gay Jewish men, crewed by only gay Jewish men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ gay Jewish men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

If the idea that straight white men making a good movie is laughable to you, you're an absolutely massive racist and sexist. You're not even talking about equality anymore. You're just a bigot.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

I included male in my post so I am well aware of the women thing. And list the recent movies that would break these rules because if movies haven't been breaking them, they're not addressing any imbalances.

Anyways, you've fallen into the trap where if you can't replace a word with Jewish, you shouldn't be saying what you're saying.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only straight black men, crewed by only straight black men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ straight black men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only gay Jewish men, crewed by only gay Jewish men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ gay Jewish men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

If the idea that straight white men making a good movie is laughable to you, you're an absolutely massive racist and sexist. You're not even talking about equality anymore. You're just a bigot.

Perfectly said

FunLover18

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Do you have an issue with Bollywood movies being predominantly written, directed and interpreted by Indians?
Italian movies being predominantly written, directed and interpreted by Italians? and so on


Why is it now all of a sudden unacceptable that Hollywood would have a history of white actors/actresses and writers. They created that industry.

Over the years Hollywood has become inclusive of all minorities, there is no need to count one by one how many people of each minority are represented.
What you are asking is social engineering and it has no place in the free liberal western society

I'll reiterate my facts from earlier and ask if you really want to talk about social engineering.

In the 90-year-plus history of the Academy Awards, just five female filmmakers have been nominated for best director and one has won. Only 14 actors of colour have won Academy Awards.

MJohnston

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I included male in my post so I am well aware of the women thing. And list the recent movies that would break these rules because if movies haven't been breaking them, they're not addressing any imbalances.

Anyways, you've fallen into the trap where if you can't replace a word with Jewish, you shouldn't be saying what you're saying.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only straight black men, crewed by only straight black men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ straight black men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

The most laughable idea here is that a present day film featuring only gay Jewish men, crewed by only gay Jewish men, and produced, distributed, and marketed by companies that will only employ gay Jewish men would ever have been good enough to be up for Best Picture.

If the idea that straight white men making a good movie is laughable to you, you're an absolutely massive racist and sexist. You're not even talking about equality anymore. You're just a bigot.

No I’m just a realist. A movie that is created with straight white males all the way down through the crew and studios has done that on purpose, because there’s ZERO chance that happens by accident. That movie will be trash, pure and simple.

As for which recent movies would have broken these rules — that’s my fúcking point! None of them would, they’d all be eligible for Best Picture, I guarantee it.

To be clear — my argument isn’t that these new rules are going to be in *any* way effective, but that they’re so utterly minor and ineffective that anyone complaining about their existence is either woefully misinformed or just hates *any* moves towards diversity no matter how small.

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I'm arguing that racism is equally bad, whether is against black or white.

You are the one saying that racism against white people is not really racism, which is a contradiction in terms, typical woke double standards

I’m saying that it’s not racism against white people AT ALL. You haven’t shown me anything that suggests that it is.

Mic 1972

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'll reiterate my facts from earlier and ask if you really want to talk about social engineering.

In the 90-year-plus history of the Academy Awards, just five female filmmakers have been nominated for best director and one has won. Only 14 actors of colour have won Academy Awards.

How many women were even directing movies in the 90 years?

Today Hollywood is inclusive, there is no need to count one by one how many members of each categories are represented in each movie. That's social engineering and we dont do that in the western world
We hire people against skills and talents, not against their category

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

How many women were even directing movies in the 90 years?

Today Hollywood is inclusive, there is no need to count one by one how many members of each categories are represented in each movie. That's social engineering and we dont do that in the western world
We hire people against skills and talents, not against their category

If you think Hollywood is inclusive, why are you freaking out so much about these changes?

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

I’m saying that it’s not racism against white people AT ALL. You haven’t shown me anything that suggests that it is.

You have been saying there have been too many men directing, writing and all. That is racism
If you don't get that it's because you are applying double standards as woke people do.

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You have been says there have been too many men directing, writing and all. That is racism
If you don't get that it's because you are applying double standards as woke people do

Men are a race now? Jesus you’re stupid.

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

If you think Hollywood is inclusive, why are you freaking out so much about these changes?

because they are rules for social engineering, you have been answered multiple times already on previous posts
This is the western world, not the Soviet Union

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

Men are a race now? Jesus you’re stupid.

you conveniently left out white men
and cut the insults or you will be reported

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Folks, dial down the rhetoric and heat please or we will have to start issuing cards. Thanks.

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

you conveniently left out white men
and cut the insults or you will be reported

I didn’t conveniently leave out white men because you only wrote “men” in your post.

MJohnston

Mic 1972 wrote: »

because they are rules for social engineering, you have been answered multiple times already on previous posts
This is the western world, not the Soviet Union

This doesn’t even make sense - you said Hollywood was inclusive so how can it be social engineering to have absolutely minimal standards for inclusion?

I find it bizarre that people can't understand why this stuff bothers people. It's becoming more and more common for white men to be singled out across loads of avenues in life. The supporters of these things only look at them in vacuum and wonder why that one specific thing is an issue whereas the fact is, it's a trend that is only gathering pace.

And then we get branded as backwards or right-wing for even caring that segregation and treating people differently based on their sex and race is the new progressive. All of this new race-related stuff in the US is a direct result of the actions of people who purport to hate racism yet constantly stoke it.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it bizarre that people can't understand why this stuff bothers people. It's becoming more and more common for white men to be singled out across loads of avenues in life. The supporters of these things only look at them in vacuum and wonder why that one specific thing is an issue whereas the fact is, it's a trend that is only gathering pace.

And then we get branded as backwards or right-wing for even caring that segregation and treating people differently based on their sex and race is the new progressive. All of this new race-related stuff in the US is a direct result of the actions of people who purport to hate racism yet constantly stoke it.

I couldn't have said it better

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

I didn’t conveniently leave out white men because you only wrote “men” in your post.

You have been replied to this point several times before
Western Society isn't going to accept social engineering.
White men aren't going accept being discriminated against

MJohnston

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it bizarre that people can't understand why this stuff bothers people. It's becoming more and more common for white men to be singled out across loads of avenues in life. The supporters of these things only look at them in vacuum and wonder why that one specific thing is an issue whereas the fact is, it's a trend that is only gathering pace.

And then we get branded as backwards or right-wing for even caring that segregation and treating people differently based on their sex and race is the new progressive. All of this new race-related stuff in the US is a direct result of the actions of people who purport to hate racism yet constantly stoke it.

Again — us straight, white, cos males have been super privileged for centuries. Letting go of that is hard, I understand, but that’s all equality is asking of us (and it’s actually very rewarding and easy to do once you do let go!) and to ensure everyone has the same opportunities.

Affirmative action is only necessary because of the existing, long-term deficit in diversity which tends to reinforce itself.

It’s as simple as that, and there’s nothing sinister about attempts to push for more diversity. Anyone reacting against that needs to seriously question why they’re so afraid of women or people of various different colours being able to have the same opportunities as them.

With that, I’m done. This could have been an interesting discussion but has been ruined by people being deliberately ignorant.

S.M.B.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I couldn't have said it better

You asked "How many women were even directing movies in the 90 years?" fully aware that the answer is along the lines of "Not a lot" and you fully endorse the quoted post saying that this is somewhat of a slight against white men.

So what do you propose the industry does to resolve the lack of diversity behind the camera? Or do we just carry on as is for the next 90 years?

FunLover18

Mic 1972 wrote: »

How many women were even directing movies in the 90 years?

Today Hollywood is inclusive, there is no need to count one by one how many members of each categories are represented in each movie. That's social engineering and we dont do that in the western world
We hire people against skills and talents, not against their category

Ok so how long have women been directing? Kathryn Bigelow did Point Break in 1991, so that's 30 years. Do you really think 5 female directors nominated in that time is reflective of an inclusive industry.

Let's look at the blockbusters. How many Superheroes movies have been directed by women? How many have been directed by POC?

Either they're not getting the opportunity for "some" reason or white men are naturally better at directing films.

Mic 1972

MJohnston wrote: »

Again — us straight, white, cos males have been super privileged for centuries. Letting go of that is hard, I understand, but that’s all equality is asking of us (and it’s actually very rewarding and easy to do once you do let go!) and to ensure everyone has the same opportunities.

Affirmative action is only necessary because of the existing, long-term deficit in diversity which tends to reinforce itself.

It’s as simple as that, and there’s nothing sinister about attempts to push for more diversity. Anyone reacting against that needs to seriously question why they’re so afraid of women or people of various different colours being able to have the same opportunities as them.

With that, I’m done. This could have been an interesting discussion but has been ruined by people being deliberately ignorant.

Women and people of various different colors can write, direct and act in movies, no one is stopping them. There is no written rule in Hollywood saying that a movie requires a higher number of white men in it.
Pushing diversity by social engineering is a form of racism. We aren't going to have it

Spon Farmer

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it bizarre that people can't understand why this stuff bothers people. It's becoming more and more common for white men to be singled out across loads of avenues in life. The supporters of these things only look at them in vacuum and wonder why that one specific thing is an issue whereas the fact is, it's a trend that is only gathering pace.

And then we get branded as backwards or right-wing for even caring that segregation and treating people differently based on their sex and race is the new progressive. All of this new race-related stuff in the US is a direct result of the actions of people who purport to hate racism yet constantly stoke it.

Star Trek has warned us about this.

Mic 1972

FunLover18 wrote: »

Ok so how long have women been directing? Kathryn Bigelow did Point Break in 1991, so that's 30 years. Do you really think 5 female directors nominated in that time is reflective of an inclusive industry.

Let's look at the blockbusters. How many Superheroes movies have been directed by women? How many have been directed by POC?

Either they're not getting the opportunity for "some" reason or white men are naturally better at directing films.

How many women have expressed an interested and ambition in directing a superhero movie? Once again, you are confusing equal opportunities with equal outcome

Spon Farmer

FunLover18 wrote: »

Ok so how long have women been directing? Kathryn Bigelow did Point Break in 1991, so that's 30 years. Do you really think 5 female directors nominated in that time is reflective of an inclusive industry.

Let's look at the blockbusters. How many Superheroes movies have been directed by women? How many have been directed by POC?

Either they're not getting the opportunity for "some" reason or white men are naturally better at directing films.

How movies directed by a woman in that 30 years deserved to be nominated for an Oscar but were not?

That is not a snotty retort - it is genuine honest question.

Spon Farmer

Mic 1972 wrote: »

How many women have expressed an interested and ambition in directing a superhero movie? Once again, you are confusing equal opportunities with equal outcome

I would like someone to post examples and evidence of Kevin Feige not hiring a woman to direct a Marvel movie because she is a woman.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Again — us straight, white, cos males have been super privileged for centuries. Letting go of that is hard, I understand, but that’s all equality is asking of us (and it’s actually very rewarding and easy to do once you do let go!) and to ensure everyone has the same opportunities.

Affirmative action is only necessary because of the existing, long-term deficit in diversity which tends to reinforce itself.

It’s as simple as that, and there’s nothing sinister about attempts to push for more diversity. Anyone reacting against that needs to seriously question why they’re so afraid of women or people of various different colours being able to have the same opportunities as them.

With that, I’m done. This could have been an interesting discussion but has been ruined by people being deliberately ignorant.

No, it was never going to be interesting if your belief is that white men have had privileged lives for centuries. It's particularly remarkable for someone in Ireland of all places to believe this.

Good luck.

Spon Farmer

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it was never going to be interesting if your belief is that white men have had privileged lives for centuries. It's particularly remarkable for someone in Ireland of all places to believe this.

Good luck.

I'm a straight, white, (raised) Catholic Irish male who has been on the receiving of prejudice behaviour and comments. Both in Ireland and abroad.

pixelburp

Talking of Irish Catholic prejudice muddies the waters of an inherently American social construct and problem. America has systemic racism problems to this day, while Hollywood has been an industry dominated by, yes, white males; modern America was intentionally built to benefit that demographic through laws like Jim Crow et al and has been well documented down the years. (even something presumed rigorous like medical research has been skewed by a historical refusal to use women or people of colour in test groups. Drugs recalled because it was never tested on [say] women).

Spon Farmer

pixelburp wrote: »

Talking of Irish Catholic prejudice muddies the waters of an inherently American social construct and problem. America has systemic racism problems to this day, while Hollywood has been an industry dominated by, yes, white males; modern America was intentionally built to benefit that demographic through laws like Jim Crow et al and has been well documented down the years. (even something presumed rigorous like medical research has been skewed by a historical refusal to use women or people of colour in test groups. Drugs recalled because it was never tested on [say] women).

I was not saying that there isn't racism in America or that Hollywood isn't dominated by whites males.

Why would you think I was saying this?

I simply stated that I've been o the receiving end of prejudice because I'm white, straight, etc.

I think you jumped to a conclusion because I said I said I straight, white, (raised) Catholic Irish male

FunLover18

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I was not saying that there isn't racism in America or that Hollywood isn't dominated by whites males.

I'm not sure what you're point was but there are people on this thread and this is seems to exactly what they're saying and these measures which seek to address the imbalance in a very small way are seen as an attack on white males and their dominance of the industry.

I'm taking MJohnston's lead and bowing out.

Mic 1972

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're point was but there are people on this thread and this is seems to exactly what they're saying and these measures which seek to address the imbalance in a very small way are seen as an attack on white males and their dominance of the industry.

I'm taking MJohnston's lead and bowing out.

MJohnston was reported to the mods for insulting, that's how he bowed out

Spon Farmer

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're point was but there are people on this thread and this is seems to exactly what they're saying and these measures which seek to address the imbalance in a very small way are seen as an attack on white males and their dominance of the industry.

I'm taking MJohnston's lead and bowing out.

I've been on the receiving end of prejudice - that is my point.

What have to do with other people on the thread who one opinion or the other? Why are you grouping me with anyone?

I'm actually prejudiced against white actors. I'm tired of the same old pasty faces. And I prefer looking at a movie that has mainly women in the main cast. And I want them to keep their clothes on.

I never said anything was an "attack on white males". However the way the imbalance is being addressed is nonsense.

You don't balance the scales by favouring the "underrepresented" of any skin colour or gender, etc.. You balance the scales by treating everyone the same.

You that by removing the cause of the imbalance.

Why are the Oscars unfair? Money.

Movies with money get marketed to to the voters. A movie that doesn't get that push only makes by sheer chance - word of mouth tells the voters this was popular or "hip".

You tell the studios to off off with their schemes and you tell the voters no more free gifts. If they want to be members it has to be for the love of movies. So go to the cinema, get a Netflix subscription, or buy the blu-ray.

Vote for the movie, not the gift pack.

Spon Farmer

Mic 1972 wrote: »

MJohnston was reported to the mods for insulting, that's how he bowed out

What did I post that caused offence to Funlover?

Mic 1972

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I'm actually prejudiced against white actors. I'm tired of the same old pasty faces. And I prefer looking at a movie that has mainly women in the main cast. And I want them to keep their clothes on.

are you crazy??? who are you to tell women to cover up? free women can go naked in the street if they want :D

Spon Farmer

Mic 1972 wrote: »

are you crazy??? who are you to tell women to cover up? free women can go naked in the street if they want :D

See, a straight white (raised) Catholic white Irish male cannot win in this world.

I can't imagine what life is like these days for straight white Catholic white Irish male

:eek:

santana75

FunLover18 wrote: »

In the 90-year-plus history of the Academy Awards, just five female filmmakers have been nominated for best director and one has won. Only 14 actors of colour have won Academy Awards.

So you're saying theres a conspiracy to keep women and people of colour down by the academy and Hollywood in general? Like theres a group of white men sitting in a room some where plotting to prevent anyone not white or male from winning awards.......give over with this victim nonsense will you. If a woman makes a high quality film it will be noticed and rewarded, firstly by the people who go to see movies and then by awarding bodies. Quality will always be noticed, whether that is from man, woman, black or white. Quality work wont be ignored for long, it speaks for itself.

Spon Farmer

santana75 wrote: »

So you're saying theres a conspiracy to keep women and people of colour down by the academy and Hollywood in general? Like theres a group of white men sitting in a room some where plotting to prevent anyone not white or male from winning awards.......give over with this victim nonsense will you. If a woman makes a high quality film it will be noticed and rewarded, firstly by the people who go to see movies and then by awarding bodies. Quality will always be noticed, whether that is from man, woman, black or white. Quality work wont be ignored for long, it speaks for itself.

Yes, but it called a cabal.

They dress like Mr. Monoply - monocle with top hat and tails.

They gather regularly clucking their tongues, stroking their beards and wondering how best to subjugate the "undesirables" like females and such.

Whereis a Simpsons moment I never thought I could use in my lifetime :P