I will add my thoughts about the DEI standards following these rule changes.
After last year’s dust-up in the Best Actress Oscar race when a whole bunch of Academy members used their platforms on social media to push for Andrea Riseborough’s nomination and thus, knocked out two Black women – Viola Davis (The Woman King) and Danielle Deadwyler (Till) – the Academy has decided to clarify its rules to address how social media can be used.
I could be wrong but it looks like they may have decided to block members from being interviewed for anonymous Oscar ballots.
You can read changes in full here.
Following are key communications rules for Academy members, motion picture companies, and individuals directly associated with eligible motion pictures:
- You may encourage others to view motion pictures.
- You may praise motion pictures and achievements.
- You may not share your voting decisions at any point.
- You may not discuss your voting preferences and other members’ voting preferences in a public forum. This includes comparing or ranking motion pictures, performances, or achievements in relation to voting. This also includes speaking with press anonymously.
- You may not attempt to encourage other members to vote for or not vote for any motion picture or achievement.
- You may not lobby other members directly or in a manner outside of the scope of these promotional regulations to advance a motion picture, performance, or achievement.
6. COMMUNICATIONS IN PUBLIC FORUMS INCLUDING SOCIAL MEDIA
Members, motion picture companies, and individuals directly associated with an eligible motion picture should be mindful of the impact their public communications may directly or indirectly have on the promotion of a motion picture, performance, or achievement, as well as the awards process.
Public communications, including but not limited to press interviews, articles, speaking engagements, and social media platforms (Instagram, Letterboxd, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Discord, personal blogs and other similar platforms), are valuable ways to promote, celebrate, and support motion pictures, performances, and achievements.
Public communications (including any social media posts, re-posts, shares, and comments) by Academy members, motion picture companies, or individuals directly associated with an eligible motion picture may not:
- State voting decisions, preferences, or strategies.
- Encourage or discourage members to vote for any motion picture, performance, or achievement.
- Reference a motion picture meeting, not meeting, or exceeding Oscars eligibility requirements, such as
- Inclusion Standards or theatrical distribution thresholds.
- Share misleading or false information about a motion picture, performance, or achievement.
Good on the Academy for cracking down. I can’t imagine what it might look like if Oscar voters were out there every year pushing for various films and contenders because then it really does come down to their preferences. That’s what their vote is for.
The DEI Standards are also set to be implemented this year, 2024.
The full text of the complete Representation and Inclusion Standards with all 4 sections can be found here at the Academy’s website.
In the Best Picture category, Inclusion Standards requirements will take effect for the 96th Oscars. Eligibility will be contingent upon submission of the Representation and Inclusion Entry Form (RAISE) and the motion picture meeting the requirements of two of the four Inclusion Standards. The Inclusion Standards were approved by the Academy’s Board of Governors in 2020.
What I said when these were first announced I still believe today, that this is an overreaction to an industry already very much aware of inclusion and diversity both in front of and behind the camera. I have no problem whatsoever where having an inclusive crew is concerned. But when they demand inclusive casting or storytelling they, I believe, destroy artistic freedom.
The other problem is that when they first designed these inclusivity requirements, the bottom hadn’t dropped out of Oscar ratings or the box office. I think Hollywood’s focus on being “politically correct” wrecks the ability of some moviegoers to let themselves go and get involved in a story. We head into this year with a wary faction of the public that already sees Hollywood and the Oscars as too “woke,” and I fear this will only make it worse.
Back in 2020, they could not have known that movies would struggle to sell tickets as much as they have. And even though they boosted their Oscar Night ratings a bit, they’re going to struggle to regain the trust of the public.
Here are the ones I’m mainly concerned with (not that it matters what I think):
STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES
A film can achieve this standard by meeting the criteria in at least ONE of the following areas:
A1. Lead or significant supporting actors from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups
At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group in a specific country or territory of production.
This may include:
• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)
A2. General ensemble cast
At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two underrepresented groups, which may include:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
A3. Main storyline/subject matter
The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
The only question people like me have is why not focus on making better, more entertaining movies? There won’t be an industry left after it’s tinkered with and toyed with to ensure no marginalized person is left behind. Also, I just don’t think it’s fair to artists who deserve to be recognized for their work and not for the category they fit in in order to fill a quota.
The Academy, I understand, is just trying to do the right thing. I get it. But activism has all but swallowed up what entertainment used to be for most people. That isn’t the fault of the minorities who have been left behind, it’s just a matter of whether or not this will help them or hurt them.
70 Comments
For those not in the know, Sasha is misrepresenting these “requirements” She shows the one above without noting there are three other methods of demonstrating inclusion. The above is, in other words one of four. To meet the diversity requirement a movie only has to achieve two of the other four.
The easiest way to meet the diversity requirement is at the studio level. A movie’s studio need only to have diversity/inclusive hiring standards and this includes at the intern level.
These requirements are pretty much a joke and those who use them to advance an ideology in the manner above are vastly overreacting.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/188ac587ce94b3f8aee8e550751ef3146fb63c11abb6e15ed616ee499bbbcb86.gif
The section of the new guidelines included in this post are the aspects that concern Sasha the most — as she says herself in the article.
The section that Sasha wanted to spotlight here is 303 words. That’s what she posted: Section A.
The complete guidelines run to 1,030 words, and include Sections, B, C, and D.
Anyone interested can find the full set of standards here:
https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards
Thank you, Rufus Sondheim. You’re right, of course. It’s only necessary to fulfill 2 of the 4 sections in order to fully meet Oscar eligibility.
As long as movie meets any 2 of B, C, or D, the onscreen cast can be wall-to-wall white… or wall-to-wall male…
or 100% straight, top to bottom. (err…)
“Mandate” has been changed to “Standards.”
(to reflect the Academy’s actual phrasing)
As easy as it will be for any movie to meet 2 of the 4 sections, these gestures toward better representation and inclusivity are still a noteworthy effort, and they deserve to be described accurately.
I think these clarifications get us closer to a better explanation of the new standards.
Thanks, I’d hate to think that remake of My Dinner with Andre was off the table.
Anyone with a brain knows that these inclusion standards are more performative than anything. Does anyone truly believe that a contending film will be disqualified from Oscar consideration moving forward under these suggestions? I don’t.
Ryan it shame but all due respect when I send very clearly like 2 MONTHS BEFORE Sasha raised on R.A.I.S.E I THE ONE WHO SIUNDED.THE ALARM here I even sent link to Sasha via instagram but I got no such thanx for taking initiative BEFORE Sasha or you were aware of R.A.I.S.E … I sent the link I notified Sasha direct to her instagram and u via email.. long before this topic was released. How come nobody thanked me for taking initiative here for both u n esp Sasha? I released the information AS SOON AS LAST OSCARS WERE DONE AND DUSTED. Not for first time trends I foretold long before others here declared it a emerging concern are happening.. I predicted ratings collapse. It happened..I predicted far left socialist activism masquerading as horsheshit ‘ do rite thing ‘ mantra used to upend established order no other reason than to make things ‘inrtersting ‘ I not saying I deserve all credit but pple laughed at me here whrn I sounded caution of what has now eventuated…within reason don’t u think I deserve bit credit here on AD? Something I did not want b right about not at all.. but what I foresaw has come ro pass I say this..R.A.I.S.E is a doctrine for Oscars self implosion … a singularity vortex suck it deeper in a crisis ridden backhoe +)!
“Ryan it shame but all due respect when I send very clearly like 2 MONTHS BEFORE Sasha raised on R.A.I.S.E I THE ONE WHO SIUNDED.THE ALARM here I even sent link to Sasha via instagram but I got no such thanx for taking initiative BEFORE Sasha or you were aware of R.A.I.S.E.”
Aaron, I imagine Sasha ignored you because it’s hard for most people to make sense of things you rant about.
I ignored you because I think your panicky fixation on this topic is boring, and your bug-eyed hysteria is comical bullshit.
Wag another dumb finger at me if you want to get it bitten off.
Err ‘ boring ‘? I not be so quick to dismiss it.. u cannot tell me u accept the way it changed … surely NOT?! I rhink u overreacting to my reaction … suffice to say fact Sasha leading from front pointing out the actual FACTUAL REAL CRISIS ENGULFING THE ACADEMY and you think that it business as usual ? Are you favouring the woke attitude to cinema? Last I looked u don’t stand for that..nor should the academy be doing so.. u are aware I presume Ryan that the reason for rating decline is cos the extent Oscar ignore what bleedingly obvious you say Boring ?? Yet this issue that I raised for years …is FACTUALLY ITREFUTABLY TRUE .it HAPPENING NOW … you know this u can see it.. how else you explain that despite marginal improvement in ratings not even a change of format could reverse the fortunes I DID u know all too well i did warn bout the absolute STRIFE awards season tied itself in.. cos how blind they wrre ro what obvious for us… in end they went for the woke sociological nonsense of EEAAO and snubbed DECADES OF FAR MORE accomplished cinema.. I DID warn bout RAISE 2 months ago… I forego asking for credit but I was right is my point no point denying it… I not waving finger at you … I am just stating as fact i was right as far as decade before anyone else woke up to it.. what exactly wrong me pointing that out ? Nothing… it biut credit where credit due… not to say everything I say is right not at all.. but I predicted this happen unfortunately I think in end number people dismissed my concerns wrre wrong I was right … don’t blame me for that blame the academy ..don’t get frustrated at me… do so at the academy
“I forego asking for credit but I was right is my point no point denying it…”
Aaron, nobody here gives the slightest shit about “RAISE” because nobody has the vaguest clue what you’re rambling on and on about.
(And no, please please don’t try to explain it. I do not care, and all my cringe muscles are exhausted from cringing at your fevered delirium.)
Excellent idea for you to “forgo asking for credit.” I just wish to fuck you would forgo acting like you invented this particular form of hysteria. You’re embarrassing yourself. Makes me genuinely sad to see you fall into whatever frantic spiral of despair you’ve cooked up in your head.
Are you favouring the woke attitude to cinema?”
Good Christ, Aaron, will you please quit chanting nonsensical gibberish like this? You sound like a lunatic. What the hell has happened to you?
That a fair question u right take me to task… no course I did not invent the emerging backlash against woke.. I so sorry Ryan.. you not believe I not make excuses but my mismanagement in timing to msg.. I had resurgence in severe dental pain I admit that as show respect to everyone qt AD esp you and Sasha and incredible team.. it be 6th time I seeing dentist..this time pain so bad I can’t exceed nurofen meds to answer u question it fair question… u rite be concerned… for I am too.. unfortunately Iay exceeded dosage of nurofen.. without realising I fear got to my head.. u not supposed to exceed 6 in a day.. it first time ever I had to .. just when I was turning a corner ey? Esp when something I passionate about none more so out there in world than this R.A.I.S.E. unfortunately nurofen did the damage..I didn’t realise till u pulled me up I hope pray I dobt need 7th dental appointment in 7 months after this one.. tale care mate apologies
I truly hope you feel better soon, Aaron.
Neither you nor I operate on wavelengths that are easy for anyone to tune into, even on our best days. It’s a recipe for inevitable friction when the two of us have taken polar opposite positions on an issue that so many people seem determined to blow way out of proportion.
I wish I could alleviate your concerns about these very tepid guidelines that the AMPAS has felt compelled to verbalize. You just have to please trust some of us who have read the new standards carefully when we tell you what they mean is virtually meaningless.
You will not be seeing any difference whatsoever in the type of movies studios make or films that the Oscars nominate for Best Picture. I assure you.
You should feel free on this site to voice your opinion about whatever is on your mind, ok? Can I offer a little advice? Try to not harp on the same theme in all your comments, because getting stuck in one groove like that is the fastest way to get everyone to tune you out. Also, try to keep it brief, and maybe make a better effort to help people understand what you’re talking about?
(Am I the only one here who has no clear idea what R.A.I.S.E. even is? We don’t have it the USA, and naturally if it’s not an American thing, approximately 70 million Americans won’t be able to understand it.) (And we all know which 70 million I’m mocking, because that’s how I roll.)
Responsible Action on Issues in Society and Ethics — um, how is that bad?
Researching, Advancing and Inspiring Student Engagement — again, what’s the problem?
Rigorous Approach to Inventive Softcore Entertainment — sounds fun, more please.
Rightwing Asshats Infesting Social Encounters — okay, I’m against that.
Aaron, here’s a Challenge:
Explain RAISE to us in 300 words or less, and try to do it without yelling at us in all caps.
Ryan and others not much good me make a point quoting from one many of contemporary cinemas most famous of numerous moments without actual scene itself!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/333e6dbfd9637fa17879daab20f09af07019cca4b097c8b0cf2f002e38caecf2.jpg
Quoting a desperate reckless homicidal lunatic to summarize how you feel is a pretty shitty way to make your point.
After years of people like Aaron and others screaming bloody murder that films that didn’t make money were winning Oscars and genre hits weren’t, when one finally does both things they pivot to “but not THAT one”
It’s sad how she’s turned into this person who looks for the boogeyman of “woke” anywhere.
Are ya satisfied, Andrea Riseborough and your drones, er, colleagues? This is on YOU.
If the Academy really wants to be inclusive, why don’t they nominate more anime movies for Best Animated Feature?
Because most anime isn’t that good? A few Ghibli films have been nominated over the years with one win though.
Well, that SUZUME movie got pretty good reviews.
A moment of silence and appreciation for one of the greatest troubadours ever who passed today.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85a22e6ec6285e14be6c9c0166bdd70870ddcfb904b5f453549396421d861482.jpg
When I was a kid, my mom was a framer in an art gallery, and she said the radio station that played in the framing room played Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald every three hours. She developed a fairly knee jerk hostility to Gordon Lightfoot that is in its 6th decade.
Anyone that can take a shipwreck and turn it into a brilliant 6-minute song gets an immediate fast pass to Songwriter’s Valhalla. Oh, and by the way, you misspelling Edmund is the reason Lightfoot wrote the song. Look it up.
LOL..made the correction.
Links aren’t allowed here but you ought to look up the pisstake NRBQ did on this song.
Disqus filter-bot detains comments with external links by default. But whenever I see that happening for no good reason, I can manually approve them.*
*(Depending on my mood. Just try to keep me happy.)
more kale smoothies for Ryan!
Good thing they don’t, then. They do not demand inclusive casting or storytelling. A film does not have to satisfy Standard A in order to be eligible. Anyone can read the actual rules and see this.
Writers on strike. No more late nigh shows for the near and I fear, long future. Seems like the studios were incalcitrant.
Zaslav is the main villain here apparently.
What a shock.
Kristen Bell is in the running to play Sue Storm in the Fantastic Four reboot. While it would LOOK like Marvel would poach a DCU actress to join them (Margot Robbie), obviously Bell is the better choice.
https://movieweb.Com/fantastic-four-rumor-kristen-bell
We’ll know by week’s end.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the inclusion standards are so broadly written that the only way a film could fail to meet them would be only through deliberate hiring discrimmination. And in the case of what you’re singling out, it would be painfully easy to meet the metrics for A1 and A2. And as Tom points out below, you don’t even need to meet the A metric to be eligible under these rules.
Honestly, members pushing for someone being nominated is as old as the Academy itself, and often much worse than this year. That’s not going to really change, no matter these rules.
No, and these rules appear to be fairly easy to circumvent. I do wish that the Academy would figure out a way to put down the nasty dirty campaigning that is more of a problem for this award than “woke” or whatever the hell the culture warriors are all up in arms about.
By the way, the ratings were way down for the NCAA men’s basketball tourney, and there was nothing “woke” about it, I mean the national anthem got played a LOT during each round.
As someone pointed out last year, the days of 50 million tuning into the Oscars are gone, no matter what. TV doesn’t work that way.
Hell, in the live thread for this year’s ceremony, a bunch of folks asking “where can I watch this online” rather than an actual TV.
The lack of sophistication ABC has shown about the broadcast options is astonishing considering the ESPN wing of the company has figured out a way to have the college football championship literally on four different broadcast channels (the main broadcast, a stats/analytics broadcast, and one channel with broadcasters from each school) AND their streaming site.
Is it really THAT hard for ABC to use the multiple channels they own to do something similar?
As for the campaign rules, there are ways to get around much of the social media rules (using third parties to run the Twitter campaigns for starters). I do wonder if some of these rules are designed to cut down on the sheer volume of dirty campaigning that has gone on with increasing frequency the last ten years or so.
Now if *I* were in charge, I’d put in a rule that campaigns can’t advertise on third party sites that engage in takedown campaigns against nominated films. And I define “takedown campaign” as anyone who says that a film shouldn’t win because of because of the perceived politics of the film, because “ratings will plummet” if it wins, or insinuations that the film is only contending because it has minorities in the lead cast. My last example to me is the most offensive part of Oscar dialogue lately. If this is an award for artistic merit, then let’s keep the discussions confined to artistic merit.
Anything that stops the “anonymous voter” articles is fine by me by the way
STANDARD B: CREATIVE LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT TEAM
A film can achieve this standard by meeting the criteria in at least ONE of the following areas:
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 an underrepresented group and at least one of those positions must belong to someone from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
Underrepresented groups may include:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
Underrepresented racial or ethnic groups may include:
• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)
B2. Other key roles
At least six (6) 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 at least two underrepresented groups, which may include:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
STANDARD C: INDUSTRY ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A film can achieve this standard by meeting the criteria in at least ONE of the following areas:
C1. Paid apprenticeship and internship opportunities
The film’s distribution or financing company has paid apprenticeships or internships that are from the following underrepresented groups and satisfy the criteria below:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
The major studios/distributors are required to have substantive, ongoing paid apprenticeships/internships inclusive of underrepresented groups (must also include racial or ethnic groups) in most of the following departments: production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing and publicity.
The mini-major or independent studios/distributors must have a minimum of two apprentices/interns from the above underrepresented groups (at least one from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group) in at least one of the following departments: production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing and publicity.
C2. Training opportunities and skills development (crew)
The film’s production, distribution and/or financing company offers training and/or work opportunities for below-the-line skill development to people from the following underrepresented groups:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
STANDARD D: AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
To achieve Standard D, the film must meet the criterion below:
D1. Representation in development, marketing, publicity, and distribution
The studio and/or film company has multiple (more than one) in-house senior executives belonging to at least two underrepresented groups on their creative and development, marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams. At least one individual must belong to an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
Underrepresented groups may include:
• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing
Underrepresented racial or ethnic groups may include:
• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)
All categories other than Best Picture will be held to their current eligibility requirements. Films in the specialty feature categories (Animated Feature Film, Documentary Feature, International Feature Film) submitted for Best Picture/General Entry consideration will be prompted to participate in the Representation and Inclusion Standards process.
thank you, it’s kind of absurd to think that most of these weren’t achieved before.
It looks like they were drawn up knowing that 99.9% of the films already met these requirements.
This.
It’s performative. Next to impossible to violate. And frankly the chance of any film being disqualified under these standards is nil, because it would go to a courtroom within seconds of the Academy making the announcement.
Dune 2 teaser TOMORROW (the CinemaCon trailer). One-sheet poster NOW:
https://deadline.Com/2023/05/dune-part-two-teaser-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-1235353963
the first film only got nominated because it was a weak year, you know, pandemic and all.
What Dune gets wrong is organic chemistry. The most basic molecules are water and carbon dioxide, all organic material eventually breaks down into these chemicals (not counting nitrogen). There’s water somewhere on these planets, otherwise they never would have been inhabited to begin with.
And yes, even fans of the books for decades have acknowledged that the sandworms are utterly incongruous to the planet Herbert built in the novels.
I pretty much hate any sci-fi where lack of water is a problem. I guess it’s possible a planet gets so hot that the atmosphere can hold all of the water but if that’s the case i doubt humans could survive that temperature and would never inhabit the planet to begin with.
So Mad Max had this same issue in your eyes?
pretty much. I mean, I can forgive a movie once I realize it’s good.
I am anti-Dune because the main character is named Paul, and there was this guy in high school named Paul who couldn’t shut up about having the same name.
Otherwise, I probably would have read the books at some point.
The Dune diehards don’t want to admit this about the books, but they are paced horribly. LONG passages where characters painstakingly think something, then say something, then the person they say it to repeats the cylce before responding. The world building is incredible but the books are kind of a slog.
sometimes I like painstaking thinking. Infinite Jest is my favorite book.
On a real tangent here, but people often ask “What would you do if you won the lottery?” I think I would take 100 million and produce an Infinite Jest limited series. I think it could be spectacular if done right.
that it would.
I would personally fund Confederacy of Dunces or Canticle for Liebowitz
Read below first – this is an add-on – I only saw Thunderdome and Road Warrior back in the 80’s and enjoyed them quite a bit. Couldn’t get into first Mad Max, can’t recall why.
I hated Fury Road because of the odd mixtures of technology in that, castle/village at the start. And the waste of water. Sure I “understand” why the water was used to more or less torture the people, but I just couldn’t accept that this group of people could survive in such a hostile world/environment without maximum utilization of resources. I’ve gotten more critical with age at these “dystopian” movies. I guess this community was probably at the edge of extinction and should just accept that, but I find it so disheartening to watch. I’d rather just find a character drama even if it’s a bit schmaltzy.
These are good examples and good reasons, rufussondheim, but don’t you think Dune is a bit different because of the way Timothée can make things wet?
When Call Me By Your Name was getting rave reviews I opted to read the book. It was amazing and firmly lodged in my top 10. So when I saw the movie, I quickly got bored as it couldn’t compare. There were a couple of differences that annoyed me and about 30 minutes in I gave up.
Perhaps if he had blonde hair and some muscles like Lucas Hedges, who stole my heart in Manchester By the Sea and then kept stealing it in Ben is Back and Boy Erased.
The only Chalamet movie I can recall seeing in which he makes an impact (notice I am not looking up) was Beautiful Boy with Steve Carrell, which I think is vastly underrated. For me, it’s a completely honest look at addiction and the helplessness a parent must experience. Sure, there are other movies that cover the topic, but both Chalamet and Carrell were top notch.
I’ve always wanted to go back to Call Me By Your Name if only to see that final scene which is supposed to be excellent. And even though it sits there on my Netflix queue now, I just don’t do it. The book was that good.
Off the glass for two…and the foul
Dune is forgiven for all shortcomings because it brought Milena Sidorova’s The Spider to the big screen.
Dune 2 is coming for ALL the Oscars.
If they stick the landing it’s got a great chance. Unless of course Oppenheimer turns out to be as good as I think it will.
Dune’s biggest issue is how the film deals with the actual arc of Paul Atreides. How many casual filmgoers who haven’t read the books actually know how his story turns out.
“I have no problem whatsoever where having an inclusive crew is concerned. But when they demand inclusive casting or storytelling they, I believe, destroy artistic freedom.
The other problem is that when they first designed these inclusivity requirements, the bottom hadn’t dropped out of Oscar ratings or the box office. I think Hollywood’s focus on being “politically correct” wrecks the ability of some moviegoers to let themselves go and get involved in a story. We head into this year with a wary faction of the public that already sees Hollywood and the Oscars as too “woke,” and I fear this will only make it worse.
Back in 2020, they could not have known that movies would struggle to sell tickets as much as they have. And even though they boosted their Oscar Night ratings a bit, they’re going to struggle to regain the trust of the public.”
Sasha firstly I agree 110% with you but pls stop saying ” good pple trying do good things ” these hijackers of common sense in awards season have 0. GOOD INTRNT THEY ARE BORNE OUT OF RABID ABUSIVE CLIMATE OF FEAR AND CANCEL CULTURE U DETEST U BEEN VICTIM OF SO NOTHING REDEEMING BOUT IT …AT ALL IT IS ” DELUDED PEOPLE TRYING NO..INFLUCTING MASS DESTRUCTION BIT BY BIT DETERIORATION OF WHAT AMPAS STANDS FOR AND OSCAR ENTIREKY AT FAULT FOR GIVING THEM UNDESRDVED PLATFORM INC IN POLICY TERMS FOR AMPAS RECIPE FOR DISASTER ! And a imminent warning I sound in kissed opportunity cele rate TRUE NON PC correct all start blockbusters this year’s Oscars upcoming.. in FACT I MAKE ANOTHER PREFICTION films like color purple remake g-d another one..rustin… Salzburn, will be big Oscar contenders leaving likes of opprnheimer, Napoleon… Roosevelt, next goal wins, dune II , Killers, Killers on flower moon , asteroid city, etc to DUST.. like this year it be repeat …
And other thing Sasha I SENT YOU LOMG BEFORE ANYONE HERE link literally on heels of rhis farce or farces Oscar year now past.. weblink on RAISE I insist to ask why u not credit me in part for sounding the alarm over RAISE? DOD u check u instagram ? U c msgs updates I email n send u ? I warned on this long before anyone thought to do article I one who told you out RAISE ok? I gave u the link I foresaw it be a problem when nobody took note of it 2 MOMTHS AGO !
The anonymous ballot thing was completely harmless since they were only published after the vote was closed, but they do make a point that even that is going too far (“at any point”) since it may entail speaking with the press prior to the end of voting. Basically, they can’t even discuss their choices privately among themselves and they can most definitely no longer influence the predictions of major Oscar bloggers with their thoughts.
I think the bigger issue isn’t the anonymous voter articles or the Riseborough thing, it’s the increasingly dirty campaigning that has enveloped every aspect of Oscar season. Studio funded whispering campaigns are bad enough, but how many takedown campaigns have we seen from non-voters the last ten years. And I’m not just talking about the idiocy of the Green Book or Three Billboards spleen venting. Some of what has been said about the last four BP winners in some corners that had NOTHING to do with the films themselves walked right up to the line and in a few cases tumbled right over it.
I agree with you on dirty campaigning, so annoying, but I’m not sure the new communications rules even address that since the takedowns are usually done by supposedly independent commentators who are neither academy members nor officially linked to a contender.
So unless it can be proven they are acting in cahoots with people involved in the making of a rival film, such takedown attempts would still be allowed and I do think to an extent they can be justified, say if there’s a biopic about someone and that person or someone close to them strongly objects to some of the content, they have a right to say it.
These types of articles damaged the Academy’s reputation:
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/award-season-focus/proof-that-oscar-voters-are-clueless-about-animation-109456.html
I like to look at the bright side: these two films did get nominated, which was hardly a done deal and reflects well on the Academy’s reputation.
As offensive and ignorant as some of these people sound, not all of them, not even most of them, but yes some of them, it’s sort of the logic of the voting process that branches and opt-in chapters are supposed to make knowledgeable choices in the nominations phase while the entire voting body will yield more populist choices in the final voting phase.
These new rules are probably just going to drive problematic behaviour underground, instead of stopping it altogether, and that’s worse for its reduction of transparency.
Cannes Jury Unveiled
Ruben Östlund, Swedish director (President)
Maryam Touzani, Moroccan director
Denis Ménochet, French actor
Rungano Nyoni, British-Zambian screenwriter & director
Brie Larson, American actress
Paul Dano, American Actor
Atiq Rahimi, Afghan Author
Damián Szifrón, Argentinian director & screenwriter
Julia Ducournau, French director
Source: Festival de Cannes
John C. Reilly, American actor, to head Un Certain Regard jury
Source: Festival de Cannes
The best movies may not get nominated….but the best movies that hit all the quota will be.
Every movie will hit the quota.
“But activism has all but swallowed up what entertainment used to be for most people.”
Some straight, white people, maybe.
The Hays Code was a terrible idea, but it didn’t “ruin” movies then, and these changes, as frankly weak as they are, aren’t going to “ruin” movies now. But the failure of older audiences to return seeing movies at the cinema certainly will.
So… GofGv3 is kind of doing well enough… Friday b.o. is great (48 million domestic opening day), 68 on MC (not bad for a Superhero sequel) and 81% RT… those are numbers to not fully discard it, if it is a weak year… what does it need, weak year aside? To fuel a SAG Ensemble nom (extremely difficult but the narrative of the farewell to a team that has become classic) and a GG Comedy/Musical nomination (which is quite possible).
I am saying no, but… won’t discard it just yet. It’s not out and its best quality is the underdog status…
By the way, I haven’t seen it – so please, no spoilers – and won’t be able for several days yet… but heard that it’s more adult and touching than the ones that came before… which would make it seem as a more serious bet.
No way.
It wasn’t as good as the first two.
not what I am hearing… some highlight the first one, but I’ve heard several comments on this being great and most importantly, poignant. Still, it’s a longshot (an extreme one), but hits a couple of points that could make it a player, if it is a disappointing year (if films like Barbie and Oppenheimer, which aim to be blockbusters, flop, the blockbuster spots will be more open to anything with a likeable ensemble)
Well, if you’re that closely guarded about the effects of influencing the awards, I would ban them all from voting for the SAG. I would love it if the Oscar voters had no overlap with any other voting body