Search results

I like to confuse people because from confusion springs new ideas. So, you are on the right track. Plus I am always getting confused by the world and things people do. It's alright though, surprises keep things interesting.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

Honestly, I don't think there would be a case where no nominees met the standards. As has been pointed out, Section A of the new standards is easy to ignore. You can meet the standards just by having women doing some of the behind the scenes jobs. Easy. Some people already think it is too easy...

Yes, I posted the criteria I was referring to in the 2023 Oscars thread at the top of the Movies forum here. So, if someone wants to read them they can. These new requirements are part of determining if a film can qualify for an Oscar. They will kick in at the next Oscar ceremony. Now...

Josh, I have no outrage. I am for fair hiring practices and I most certainly read and understood the standards. These standards are to determine IF a picture qualifies for a "Best" award. Now, looking at the standards, well. they don't make any sense in this context. None of those things have...

I said I did not know if it did, mainly because I have no idea who is working in the marketing department or who the interns were on the film. I also don't think the people working those jobs made what Nolan shot better. So, I just wondered why you would use those things to determine if a film...

That's wonderful, I am all for it. What does it have to do with the quality of the filmmaking though?

I was not being reactionary. I just dislike applying rules to art. I read them and then wondered what they meant so I discussed them with people. I was told that while not meeting probably would not prevent a film from getting a nomination it would mean that Academy voters would be encouraged to...

That's not really what is in question. I'm all for fair hiring practices but when I am a filmmaker thinking about my story and the film I want to create I don't want to have to deal with anyone handing me a rulebook I must read and follow. I suppose it creates a new job position for someone if...

Read the new standards in the Official 2023 Oscars thread at the top of this MOVIES forum and then tell me if you think Nolan would be considered under those standards. I don't think a film about Napoleon would qualify either because...well...based on the standards they would need to meet them...

There are a new set of standards that kick in this year for the Oscars. I posted them in the Oscars thread above. You can read them there. Oppenheimer is based on a true story that I do not believe meets the standards to qualify to win an Oscar. Now, I've been told pictures will still get...

Interestingly, none of these rules have anything to do with actual filmmaking. It also only means that if you want to make a film that you hope can win an Oscar you need to pay attention to these rules. Otherwise, you can ignore them and just make the film you want without having to worry about...

Here are the rules which will determine if your picture is eligible to win an Oscar. Now I am told these rules do not preclude your picture from being nominated, but unless you meet them, your film will not have much chance of winning an Oscar: The first category of standards (which the Academy...

I'm guessing that Gladstone has already been awarded Best Actress. Seems an absolute lock, and so others probably need not apply. Marty's film better straddles the "new requirements" than something like Oppenheimer, so I give it a better shot at awards than Oppenheimer. Barbie looms large, as a...

I think with Nolan, voters will think "Well, he does not need an Oscar. He's already a big name director that can make whatever he wants. Let's not give it to him." Basically, if I am Nolan, I would not even think about Oscars. I would just focus on making the films I want because he can. That...

I would have no issue if Gerwig wins and would not be shocked if they give Barbie Best Picture, but I believe the Oscars are no longer, and really haven't been for a while, about anything "best" and are much more about putting the focus where they want to put the focus. I think they like to...

I think that it checks old Oscar boxes but none of the new Oscar boxes. I think if Gerwig gets a nod for Best Director, look out, she will be favored over Nolan, Scorsese, or Scott and they will be expected to step aside no matter how good their films are. I certainly do not think Barbie was the...

Well, it would be quite a year with Nolan, Scorsese, and Scott all delivering big historical epic pictures. Almost like getting in a time machine that has taken us back to classic Hollywood. All three will be films that are must see in a cinema. Wonderful year for pictures really. To see Barbie...

All judgements should be reserved until the picture has been seen. Some judgements have been made in advance as we enter a new era of how awards are given out. So, putting Gerwig in the favorite position for Best Director makes total sense. I don't think that was the best directed picture...

I'm going to take a wild guess and say Killers of the Flower Moon will win more Academy Awards than Oppenheimer and maybe will win Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress.

I will leave it at that and we will see what happens.

I think the key is how people react after they discover what has gone on. With Harvey, people turned on him when that news came out. I never had an interaction with Harvey and was not privy to anything he was doing until it exploded into the news. For him, that was the end of him making...

I think the appropriate protest would be for everyone in the Academy to vote for Triangle of Sadness for Best Picture, if they leave Top Gun on the list. Then the fictional shit king would beat the real shit king in an epic victory.

Plus, come on, how funny/ironic is it that Triangle of Sadness with the Russian shit king is up against Top Gun, funded by the Russian shit king, for Best Picture? I mean, that's comedy!

You have to admit it's a good story and could at least lead to some interesting moments. I don't think Top Gun will win anything on the televised broadcast but there may be some protesting from the crowd whenever it is announced or when they read it off as one of the candidates for Best Picture...

So, here's an interesting story: The organizers of the Academy Awards have been urged to reconsider the prize eligibility of Tom Cruise's box office smash Top Gun: Maverick following reports it was partially funded by Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. In an open letter to the Academy of...