Official 2023 Oscar Nominations And Discussions Thread (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

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."

Yes, because Oscars never go to famous, successful directors.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You don't know if "Oppy" qualifies for nominations?

WTF?

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 nominated but they won't receive awards if they have not met the new standards. I don't know enough about who worked on Oppenheimer behind the scenes to allow it to qualify but in front of the camera and Nolan himself seem not to meet the standards. I'm just glad I don't have to sort these things out.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, because Oscars never go to famous, successful directors.

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 with behind the scenes quotas. Essentially, I think we need to come to terms with the idea that the awards are not going to be about how great a filmmaker or actor you are, they are going to be about putting the spotlight where they prefer to put it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

These are not hard qualifications to meet.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

These new standards don’t mean what you think they do, or you were too busy making a reactionary post to actually read them.

The world is not going to end and filmmaking is not going to be ruined because the Academy is asking studios to give consider providing internship and marketing opportunities to other groups in addition to white males.

Oppenheimer most certainly qualifies under these standards. Multiple department heads on the film are women and/or minorities. Interns on the film are from a diverse background. Studio employee who worked on the release are from diverse backgrounds.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

These are not hard qualifications to meet.

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 you want your film to qualify for an Oscar, Head of Oscar Compliance Rules.

I assume with Oppenheimer and Napoleon they had someone figuring out how to meet the behind the scenes requirements because those films are DQed on most of the other A+B requirements...I think.

It also eliminates pictures from consideration based on nothing to do with filmmaking. Why would you do that if your intent was to choose the "Best" of anything with regards to filmmaking. Kind of makes the whole process nonsensical and certainly not fair even to the people they are trying to encourage nominations for.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

These new standards don’t mean what you think they do, or you were too busy making a reactionary post to actually read them.

The world is not going to end and filmmaking is not going to be ruined because the Academy is asking studios to give consider providing internship and marketing opportunities to other groups in addition to white males.

Oppenheimer most certainly qualifies under these standards. Multiple department heads on the film are women and/or minorities. Interns on the film are from a diverse background. Studio employee who worked on the release are from diverse backgrounds.

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 vote based on these rules. So, I am fairly certain based on the people I spoke to, that the "winners" will now be slanted toward the meeting of these standards over any quality of filmmaking. Which is fine, but doesn't that put a guy like Nolan and the cast he has in front of his camera at a disadvantage? Or Scott with Napoleon? Marty's picture most certainly checks the right boxes and so does Barbie. So, now as you make your guesses as to what may win an Oscar, I would keep those rules in mind. The more of the boxes you check, the more likely your picture is to win...that's what I was told.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Multiple department heads on the film are women and/or minorities. Interns on the film are from a diverse background. Studio employee who worked on the release are from diverse backgrounds.

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

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You said you didn’t think the film qualified for an Oscar. I just pointed out that it did. That’s all.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You said you didn’t think the film qualified for an Oscar. I just pointed out that it did. That’s all.

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 qualified for a "Best of" award.

I mean, did anybody ever say "Boy, I loved that movie because they had diverse hiring practices for the marketing people and the interns!"

Or "Hey, Nolan did a decent job but the diverse group of people in marketing really made this film Oscar worthy!"

You have to admit, this is funny stuff to determine if a film should be nominated for an Oscar.

I say, have fair hiring practices but don't apply them to if a film is a quality picture.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You’re clearly not reading the qualifications on your way to outrage.

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.

Again, read the criteria.

For a film to meet the qualification, it needs to fulfill two of four categories. Two of those categories are studio level decisions that have nothing to do with putting any impositions on the filmmaker. A filmmaker doesn’t hire the interns on the production. A filmmaker doesn’t hire studio executives. The new guidelines are aiming to fight institutional bias where “white male” is the default hire because “white male” has always been the default hire.

Oppenheimer certainly meets it on category B because Nolan has multiple department heads who are women. This is not because he is trying to meet some kind of quota. These are people he has worked with before in his career and chooses to work with because he likes working with them.

I’m really not prepared to discuss this further with you because I am not comfortable with your continued willful misreading of the guidelines to insinuate that something is awful happening, nor am I enjoying your continued false speculation that a film which is clearly eligible is somehow not.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You’re clearly not reading the qualifications on your way to outrage.


Again, read the criteria.

For a film to meet the qualification, it needs to fulfill two of four categories. Two of those categories are studio level decisions that have nothing to do with putting any impositions on the filmmaker. A filmmaker doesn’t hire the interns on the production. A filmmaker doesn’t hire studio executives. The new guidelines are aiming to fight institutional bias where “white male” is the default hire because “white male” has always been the default hire.

Oppenheimer certainly meets it on category B because Nolan has multiple department heads who are women. This is not because he is trying to meet some kind of quota. These are people he has worked with before in his career and chooses to work with because he likes working with them.

I’m really not prepared to discuss this further with you because I am not comfortable with your continued willful misreading of the guidelines to insinuate that something is awful happening, nor am I enjoying your continued false speculation that a film which is clearly eligible is somehow not.

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 anything to do with if a picture is a great picture. Nothing in category A, nothing in category B, nothing in category C and nothing in category D.

If they want to use those standards for their hiring practices at Disney, Warner, Sony, wherever, great. I don't see how any of those standards make a film a better film...never mind a "Best" film. It's truly a headscratcher.

I'm not angry in the slightest about it, I just can't see these new rules having anything to do with making a great film that would qualify for an Oscar. I mean, if they want to create a new Oscar for most diverse hiring practices, or Best Picture Based on an Underrepresented Group or Best Diversity Casting...go ahead. Then those rules would make sense for Oscar qualification. As they stand now, they make no sense.

I mean keep in mind that a guy like Nolan is working for a huge company where meeting the behind the scenes standards are much easier and they have all kinds of people to take care of that for him. On small productions, well, if they want to get Oscar consideration, they need someone to run around and figure out how to meet the quotas. So, in many ways, this would favor big companies over small ones.

I mean, I think this creates a bizarre aspect of unfair and is going to impact the way people vote, because now it won't be about "Best" it will be about, "Oh, I will vote for this because it checks the right boxes."

So, people will question "Did Greta win because she is a woman?", "Did Spike win because of the color of his skin?" and that's not at all fair to them. In art the playing field should be level, judge based on the art. That's what I am saying.

I have no outrage or anger, I mean I think in most cases over the last 20 years or so, they really aren't giving out Oscars based on what is best anyway. So, like I say, that's fine but I do see the humor in it.

Peace.

 

[Joe Wong]

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 way to reward what they truly would like to reward with an Oscar statuette. It seems as if what this next Oscar award season will be about is telling people like Nolan, Scorsese, Scott to step aside. I see them as not likely to win any personal awards and probably only Scorsese's film would have a shot at best picture out of those three. I could be wrong, but I really believe these next Oscars are going to be much more about making a point than filmmaking. Which is fine, the best films almost never get awards anyway.

I’d like to think that any direction you’re alluding to are not “new requirements”, but as a reflection of the current membership of the underlying artistic bodies.

For example, if the Academy now has a larger proportion of younger people, maybe the films that get nom’d or win would skew towards the tastes of younger people.

Times change, and so does the Academy. And in the end, when all else is said and done, who or what wins the Oscars are based on a set of opinions anyway.

EDIT: correction, I see from your comments on the other threads that you’re referring to the minimum hiring standards criteria (if I understand correctly). Apologies for the confusion.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

^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_

 

[Malcolm R]

Now, I've been told pictures will still get nominated but they won't receive awards if they have not met the new standards.

I don't think that would happen. What if all the nominees don't meet the standards? Do they not award the Oscar?

Seems like if they're nominated, and people vote for them, they'll still win. If they're disqualified from winning, they should be removed from the list of nominees before voting begins.

But as Josh says, these guidelines are not a high bar to meet, so I don't foresee it being a problem.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't think that would happen. What if all the nominees don't meet the standards? Do they not award the Oscar?

Seems like if they're nominated, and people vote for them, they'll still win. If they're disqualified from winning, they should be removed from the list of nominees before voting begins.

But as Josh says, these guidelines are not a high bar to meet, so I don't foresee it being a problem.

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_

 

[Tino]

People love to dump on the Oscars but I happen to believe they are still very relevant and get it right the vast majority of the time.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I’d like to think that any direction you’re alluding to are not “new requirements”, but as a reflection of the current membership of the underlying artistic bodies.

For example, if the Academy now has a larger proportion of younger people, maybe the films that get nom’d or win would skew towards the tastes of younger people.

Times change, and so does the Academy. And in the end, when all else is said and done, who or what wins the Oscars are based on a set of opinions anyway.

EDIT: correction, I see from your comments on the other threads that you’re referring to the minimum hiring standards criteria (if I understand correctly). Apologies for the confusion.

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, personally, I have no idea what they will do to the process. I do think if you read them, they seem to not make any sense because in section A they literally tell you what is a preferred topic for a film to get nominated. I thought, bizarre, why would you tell people what their film should be about. Also in section A it refers to who you should cast. OK, well again why would you tell someone who to cast. Now, it will be quickly pointed out that you do not have to follow these standards and the new rules have 4 sections and you can comply with section B,C, or D. You only need to comply with two of these sections. These sections have to do with behind the scenes workers and they are pretty easy to pick a couple to comply with. If your hair and make-up people are women, that counts. If the person doing costumes is female, that counts. If you have women working in other positions in marketing or other jobs, that counts. So, you don't at all have to pay attention to section A, they give you an out for that.

Now some people say that because it is so easy to get out of complying with section A these rules have not gone far enough. I think that is absurd, but whatever. These rules only must be adhered to if you want your film to be eligible for an Oscar and so my take is, make the film you want to make and don't worry about Oscars.

Here's a funny thing, I would always tell people that want to make movies to "ignore the rules" and follow your instincts if you believe in your ideas. Try to create something outside the box because that will be exciting and memorable to people. Now, I think that would be bad advice because if you want your picture to be eligible for an Oscar, then the correct advice would be read and follow the rules. Write about topics they prefer and hire the people they prefer. Then your Oscar chances go way up.

So, everybody knows about the "slippery slope" and these new rules have the movie business on that slope. Once you step toward those new rules, well, the next time will likely go deeper into those rules. So, whereas right now section A is one of the options, it could easily become mandatory.

The key enemy of these rules is actually what drives the movie business, money. So, probably what happens is, fewer companies take an interest in Oscars. Oscars don't pay the bills and those new rules are not about making money. So, my guess would be that the business itself does not change much but the interest in Oscars goes down. We'll see, I may be wrong, but reading those rules and discussing them with people...well...they seem to be a bad idea that will not cause good things to happen.

I believe anybody should be able to make a film about anything they want to make it about. What generally prevents that happening is the people with the money say "Well, that's not going to make any money." and so they don't make it.

There's no profit in making films about smaller groups of underrepresented people. Simply because there are far fewer of them and so likely far fewer people interested in seeing them. So, I have no doubt why section A of those new rules is so easy to go around...but that will probably eventually piss someone off.

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?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

People love to dump on the Oscars but I happen to believe they are still very relevant and get it right the vast majority of the time.

Well, if Oppy wins quite a few, including at least one of BP and/or BD, and Barbie doesn't win any of the bigger Oscars at all, that would probably quiet some folks about that (at least for a spell anyway), LOL.

Will have to see...

_Man_

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't think that would happen. What if all the nominees don't meet the standards? Do they not award the Oscar?

Seems like if they're nominated, and people vote for them, they'll still win. If they're disqualified from winning, they should be removed from the list of nominees before voting begins.

But as Josh says, these guidelines are not a high bar to meet, so I don't foresee it being a problem.

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 and probably it is and the reason for that is...money. I think it is going to anger some people how easy these new standards are to get around.

If we use Oppenheimer as an example, here is a movie made by a white director, written by white writers, featuring practically an all white cast. Every major role is a white person. OK, if it wins Oscars, particularly the big awards, people will complain about that. So, what do Oscar voters do? Probably give the Best Director award to Gerwig.

As people point out, Barbie is not a bad movie so it is just a matter of a few opinions if it is thought to be the best picture this year.

Killers of the Flower Moon is a safer film to vote Best Picture than Oppenheimer, it's got much more racial diversity, and is a story about white people treating Native Americans horribly. Perfect for an Oscar and the new standards.

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.