Official 2023 Oscar Nominations And Discussions Thread (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think he only meant the voters will be influenced to lean more that way in their voting, not that there would necessarily be some hard cutoff regardless of the voting.

_Man_

Yes, I think the new rules are meant for the people making the films and the people voting for them. They are a roadmap. While you don't have to comply with section A, if you do, I'd say your chances of winning an Oscar skyrocket.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

^Well, as you alluded, the Oscars haven't really been about what's actually truly the best on the screen (and the sound) in some time, so this latest thing isn't that surprising I guess and maybe inevitable.

I haven't read about those new requirements/standards, but yeah, I don't really love such being applied to a longstanding, prestigious group of awards that were never supposed to be about those things, but oh well, the Oscars had been trending in that direction for quite some time, and I hadn't really cared that much about the awards (or at least who specifically wins) in a long time anyway. So I guess I might end up caring even less going forward... although it won't (or at least shouldn't) meaningfully change the way I view any of the films that win or not, get nominated or not -- nominations or lack thereof probably does impact whether I might happen to notice a film at all... but that's probably about it, not actually influence what I think upon viewing/experiencing it.

Having said that, sure, I'm also very glad that Gerwig's building some clout w/ Barbie and actually enjoyed Barbie myself... though I certainly wouldn't vote for Barbie (at least for BP and probably not BD either) if I'm an Academy voter. I actually want to love Barbie, but I'm not quite there... because it's really just not that great as a film critically speaking although it certainly seemed an (perhaps overly) ambitious attempt of sorts... as partly suggested by Gerwig's watchlist...

Anyhoo, I'll probably have Barbenheimer in my collection whatever happens w/ the Oscars -- I wasn't sure about owning Barbie on disc at first, but I'm leaning more toward that now. Maybe someone will create a Barbenheimer slipcase for displaying them together or something, LOL.

Oppy certainly deserves some wins at the Oscars, and who knows? Maybe it will win quite a few, including the big ones...

_Man_

Personally, I think Oppenheimer is a far better film than Barbie on a topic that basically changed the course of human existence. Barbie, I think, is a good film that turned out to be a far better movie about a toy than we should have ever expected to get.

I think the fact that it surprised me is what I most liked about it. I don't feel any desire to return to it so probably will not purchase a copy of it but I had fun seeing it in a theater. Overall, I think it is kind of sloppy, kind of unfocused, does not do the best job of making its point, and though I love Robbie, this is not the best work she has done. It's solid, the Ken storyline is funny. The film, to me, was actually a little depressing. I really laughed at what Barbie's big reward was in the end. Gerwig is a good filmmaker who deserves a shot to make whatever film she wants to make now. I'm fine with them giving her best director and hope if they do it increases her chances to make whatever she wants to make. If they want to do another Barbie movie or a Ken movie, she should, in my opinion, avoid them. Do another film that she wants to make.

Of course, as I am told over and over and it is true, if they throw vast amounts of money at her to make Barbie sequels you can't tell a person to say no to getting fabulously rich. Although, I still love her as an artist and want to see her do something she really wants to do.

 

[Joe Wong]

• At least one “lead or significant supporting actor” from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. Or ...
• At least 30 percent of a cast in secondary and minor roles from two underrepresented identity groups. Or ...
• A main storyline or subject that centers on an underrepresented identity group.

A lot depends on the definition. What does “underrepresented racial or ethnic group” include?

If Jewish people are part of this grouping, then for Opps, Benny Safdie would satisfy the criterion. I would venture that his Edward Teller plays a pretty significant part in the story.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

My opinion is people will see the formula to make a sure Oscar winner and will go for it. If you want to win an Oscar ignore the "or" in these phrases and just do these things.

• At least one “lead or significant supporting actor” from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. Or ...
• At least 30 percent of a cast in secondary and minor roles from two underrepresented identity groups. Or ...
• A main storyline or subject that centers on an underrepresented identity group.

Well, at the risk of getting in to hot waters here, if those criteria are met, are those groups still underrepresented? Considering they have just won an Oscar? As opposed to other groups? That did not win. Even white males?
I may be missing stuff from local politics here, I think ... Am I am glad I do, this identity thing seems big over at your end of the pond.
.

I thought Oppenheimer was magnificent. Haven't seen Barbie yet, but pretty sure I'll love it. Don''t really see the problem here from a European distance

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A lot depends on the definition. What does “underrepresented racial or ethnic group” include?

If Jewish people are part of this grouping, then for Opps, Benny Safdie would satisfy the criterion. I would venture that his Edward Teller plays a pretty significant part in the story.

Honestly, Joe, I have no idea. That's part of what makes it so comical. Mel Brooks could have made a movie about these rules. In truth I would guess that Jewish people would not be considered an underrepresented minority in the film world. Mel Brooks, Woody Allen (himself totally incorrect), the Coen Brothers, we have a rich history of great Jewish filmmakers, in front of and behind the camera.

Your question is valid though. Who is deciding these things? What's the criteria for "underrepresented" in film? Does the Academy now have a designated group that is checking every picture to see what percentage of what people are cast? Are they sitting there with a checklist watching films ticking off boxes for each racial group, the sex of each person on screen, how many lines that person has, deciding if their part is significant enough? Really, to me, all they have done is to open the door to many, many more complaints.

I think these just lead to a mess of all kinds of people complaining and these "rules" open the door for even more people demanding more rules based on nothing to do with the craft of making films and everything to do with meeting someone's idea of a quota.

I have to say, this is not what the movie business is good at, they are supposed to be making films. Pictures, not counting how many people are what color or what their sexual preference is. Really, people should have no business asking you what your race or sexual preference is to get a job...least of all people that work in the arts.

So, yes, what does “underrepresented racial or ethnic group” include? Who decides? Should we favor the smallest of groups? Is someone counting who is the smallest group so we can give them the most preference?

Funny aside, my wife is this stunning beautiful brown skinned woman, not that I am bragging it is what it is, but she always complains that people always ask her "What are you?" because not only is her skin color confusing to them but she also speaks about 12 languages so she could throw just about anything at you. She always refuses to answer the question or says "I'm a person, just like you." in whatever language they ask her in.

She also has never judged art based on the racial, ethnic, nor sexual preference of the person that made it. I honestly don't think it works that way. If you can create a good story, good characters, nobody cares about these things.

I kind of think it is a horror show that this is becoming the approach to deciding what a best picture is or if a film should be nominated. I'm just one guy though so, what do I know.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

These are just more issues with these rules. The issues start with these rules have nothing to do with filmmaking and nothing to do with making a better film...they are just rules about what they prefer you make your film about and who they prefer you hire. Those should be company policies, not Academy standards to qualify for an Oscar.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely.
And should be a no-brainer on a film forum, IMHO.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

A thread about Oscar noms and eligible films is not a 'proper context'?
Man, I should really just read, and not post from now on ...

 

[Robert Crawford]

A thread about Oscar noms and eligible films is not a 'proper context'?
Man, I should really just read, and not post from now on ...

That's fine, but this isn't a thread about Oscar noms and eligible films. This thread is about a movie that isn't being released until October 20th. Can we at least watch it first before Oscar talk and such.

By the way, I am not admonishing you, but just stating the obvious.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

That's fine, but this isn't a thread about Oscar noms and eligible films. This thread is about a movie that isn't being released until October 20th. Can we at least watch it first before Oscar talk and such.

By the way, I am not admonishing you, but just stating the obvious.

Sure, but that was not what I commented on, or what you replied to, I made a comment to another post, but nevermind, we have had discussions before, let's not go there again. Your board, your rules.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Funny aside, my wife is this stunning beautiful brown skinned woman, not that I am bragging it is what it is, but she always complains that people always ask her "What are you?" because not only is her skin color confusing to them but she also speaks about 12 languages so she could throw just about anything at you. She always refuses to answer the question or says "I'm a person, just like you." in whatever language they ask her in.

I haven't (usually) been bothered by that (or similar) question myself (unless it's asked clearly out of malice, blatant prejudice, ridicule or the like)... and no, I'm probably not considered beautiful by most and definitely am not "brown" nor a woman (though I've certainly wondered on-and-off for a very long time how it'd feel like to be one... and somewhat oddly, have actually had recurring dreams of having a "brown" daughter many years ago)... but yes, I do often get asked (though not usually quite so bluntly that exact question... well, probably because I'm in NYC at least 98% of the time other than during my early childhood and when I went away for college, heh)...

Actually, "funny aside", I have been momentarily mistaken for a woman (mostly from behind), LOL, when I've let my hair grow long enough over a decade or so in the past -- also happened maybe once or twice during the early part of the pandemic in (large?) part due to masking.

It's also amusing when I sometimes confuse "my own people" what I am (besides the woman thing), LOL -- well, actually, I'm not completely sure what my own people really should be (other than my personally chosen one that defies/transcends the typically assumed categories for such), LOL...

Anyhoo, it's also interesting that Oppy itself is predicated on a (albeit loosely) related issue (or two?) that runs throughout the film and would probably (at least somewhat) similarly interest similar kinds of Academy voters in the past, but maybe not quite nearly as much at this moment I guess...

_Man_

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sure, but that was not what I commented on, or what you replied to, I made a comment to another post, but nevermind, we have had discussions before, let's not go there again. Your board, your rules.

Yes, nevermind.

 

[WillG]

You know it's been done, right? Heck, 2 of the last 3 have gone to female directors.

There's no "groundbreaking" aspect of a female BD winner, so I don't see what makes it so "tempting".

Still a very small list overall, still comes off as progressive to honor women. I can’t predict the future obviously and how Q4 pans out but if Nolan/Gerwig do emerge as the frontrunners, I don’t think Nolan would be a sure thing

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Still a very small list overall, still comes off as progressive to honor women. I can’t predict the future obviously and how Q4 pans out but if Nolan/Gerwig do emerge as the frontrunners, I don’t think Nolan would be a sure thing

I didn't say Nolan would be a sure thing either. But the notion that it's a foregone conclusion a woman will win doesn't make sense to me.

 

[WillG]

I didn't say Nolan would be a sure thing either. But the notion that it's a foregone conclusion a woman will win doesn't make sense to me.

I personally never said it was a foregone conclusion

 

[Wayne_j]

You would have to go out of your way not to meet the Oscar eligibility requirements. Groups C and D should be automatic for any major studio.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't really see the issue here. They're still going to be voting for what they think the best picture is. I can't think of any major film released recently which wouldn't qualify under those rules.

 

[Wayne_j]

People think Group A is the entire diversity requirement and they freak out when a movie they like doesn't meet it. Groups B, C, and D are there to give films that are unable to meet group A due to being historically accurate or other reason a chance to meet the requirements.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Exactly. It only needs to meet two of the four requirements. But it's easier for people who don't know any better to think about Group A because the cast are who we see on screen. Oppenheimer absolutely qualifies via the other ones.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, at the risk of getting in to hot waters here, if those criteria are met, are those groups still underrepresented? Considering they have just won an Oscar? As opposed to other groups? That did not win. Even white males?
I may be missing stuff from local politics here, I think ... Am I am glad I do, this identity thing seems big over at your end of the pond.
.

I thought Oppenheimer was magnificent. Haven't seen Barbie yet, but pretty sure I'll love it. Don''t really see the problem here from a European distance

I don't know the answers to those questions but they highlight how those rules do nothing but present more problems.

I assume there would be a sliding scale. You cover an "underrepresented group" in a film and then hope someone covers a different underrepresented group in another film. And if a group gets a film about them, then you hope someone else is working on a film about a different group.

If a group got too many films about them, then they would probably be put on the list of groups that need to not be covered while other groups get their turn...all while hoping people want to go and see these films in numbers that will make them profitable.

I'm not really cool with the idea that the Academy is going to ask everybody to provide information, that really is nobody's business and should not be asked for someone to get a job, about their race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, what gender they identify as, or how they like to dress...that to me is way out of line. However, these new rules mean the Academy demands to have this info on your production.

Personally, I would tell anybody that asked those questions about the people I am working with to go jump in the lake. I don't have to tell you that and you have no right to ask those questions. I thought working in the arts protected you from this kind of thing. The answers to those questions should not matter, but now to the Academy they do? Makes no sense.

The other day I saw an ice cream flavor being sold here that had French fries, pommes frites, in a malt flavored ice cream...I don't know what sort of group would invent something like that nor the group that would eat something like that, but my guess is they are small groups that have no representation in film.

I definitely have a bias toward anybody that would eat cold French fries slathered in ice cream. Just stop that, really, and if you do, we'll do a film about you. It would be eligible for an Academy award but I mean, who wants to watch people that would eat ice cream with French fries in it? The French maybe? They do think Jerry Lewis is a god.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

People think Group A is the entire diversity requirement and they freak out when a movie they like doesn't meet it. Groups B, C, and D are there to give films that are unable to meet group A due to being historically accurate or other reason a chance to meet the requirements.

Group A is pointless because they built the rules so you can completely ignore that section. Yes, you just pick from groups B, C, and D which are easier to comply with and mean you don't have to make any films that comply with Group A. So, Group A is just like, a toss in or afterthought. Nobody needs to pay it any mind is exactly how they built it.