Just posted by the Academy – this is pretty big! There is no change to the Best Picture voting procedure, however, which is a drag. But this seems like a good way to freshen things up a bit within the ranks.
Goal to double number of diverse members by 2020
LOS ANGELES – In a unanimous vote Thursday night (1/21), the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences approved a sweeping series of substantive changes designed to make the Academy’s membership, its governing bodies, and its voting members significantly more diverse. The Board’s goal is to commit to doubling the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020.
“The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” said Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs. “These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”
Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade. In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award. We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members. In other words, if a current member has not been active in the last 10 years they can still qualify by meeting the other criteria. Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status. Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting. This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars.
At the same time, the Academy will supplement the traditional process in which current members sponsor new members by launching an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.
In order to immediately increase diversity on the Board of Governors, the Academy will establish three new governor seats that will be nominated by the President for three-year terms and confirmed by the Board.
The Academy will also take immediate action to increase diversity by adding new members who are not Governors to its executive and board committees where key decisions about membership and governance are made. This will allow new members an opportunity to become more active in Academy decision-making and help the organization identify and nurture future leaders.
Along with Boone Isaacs, the Board’s Membership and Administration Committee, chaired by Academy Governor Phil Robinson, led the efforts to enact these initiatives.
I feel they should have waited a few months before announcing these changes as it just looks like they have bowed to public pressure. This time next year, I think many people will question whether an actor, film etc has been nominated for the right reasons.
*bowed to public pressure without fully thinking the process through completely.
So Earnest Borgnine still will be an Academy member.
If he hadn’t died….lol… He still might vote though
Oops. I didn’t know he died. Well then . . .
@Robert Peters (is it me or your name is familiar to a former boss of my mums in barristers chambers in melbourne?:P) anyway no you are incorrect arts intitutions where would we be without them? Bauhaus for instance, the Guggenheim institute? Ey? are they existing for their own sake? or have they existed in our history to advance their areas of expertise? Architecture (Bauhaus), and abstract arts in all forms? painting, sculptures etc? (Guggenheim). When a building is designed it SHOULD be for not just the client, but adapt to the living environment with which communities surround a built proposal. When an artist makes a artwork it what they want to make..but something that the public (in most cases) can engage in…yes, some art is not to everyones liking- where to a LIMITED point i agree with your point. But NOBODY does entirely make art in public exhibitions for their own membership base (like the academy sees it) if we did..civilisation would not advance would it? Without Bauhaus, Mies Van de Rohe, LE Cobusier, Frank Lloyd Wright (architects) would not be able to understand what they design how to advance the concept of design their own way but make sure it people (public) friendly buildings- you have buildings out of context.
The argument or point you peddle Robert is at odds therefore with the Academy’s primary function. To be in sync with public sentiment of the films that are critically acclaimed as well as loved by the public..Gone with the Wind was a public phenomena for it time. it won cos it mobilised a entire community to rally behind it message…of hope, inspiration, sense of loss..at a time in real history america at very least if not the world needed inspiration..the academy keyed into the public discourse..they recognized and identified it importance not as film but as something experiential and existential to the public conversation what they wanted what they needed…that why Gone with the Wind won. Same reason for Ben Hur, Bridge over River Kwai, Patton, Platoon, Sound of Music, West Side Story, Titanic, Gladiator, and of course..the equivalent to Gone with the Wind for it time..who could forget? 2001- the year war came to a unsuspecting america..and lo and behold..little people ordinary people combatting a unwelcome evil force to find a way to deal with it in unity. in Lord of the Rings began it justified saturation into the public conciousness..it was too big for oscar to ignore. it was still is the ‘Gone with the Wind’ of our generation.
And the academyt in their blackened hearts know a dormant insitution is bad for the advancement of cinema..(sometimes i wonder as i learnt from a news report here in Australia on SBS, that with majority of oscar voters over 60 that one wonders whether some are sooo old and past it in denial of that fact that they forgotten how to adjust to the times..)
I been searching for the simple condensed version of what differentiates a great oscar winner from a acceptable oscar winner and somewhere in between..what make a oscar best pic winner more memorable a decision by oscar and what does not..and it simple i come to realise..and maybe this should be my catchphrase that i quote at end of each post here from now on (good one Shpiel it only took me since 1998 posting here to work it out:P) scary ey?:P
But quite simply the film that galvanises and unites the critics AND mobilizes the level of public enthusiasm and discussion within each community..during the film screentime and even after..these are the films that deserve to be oscar winners..
finally..consider this: why did oscar announce their ‘diversity change’ policy as i call it? now? in reaction to a public backlash that why..they wont admit it..not even the press on the web sympathetic to hollywood..but the film directors..the black directors..thje black producers the black actors..they not happy…why? you can guarantee on their facebook or instagram..messages of resentment by their public fanbase (imagine Will Smiths page:P) and while i can only guess it logical..Will smith rightfully sees himself championing the African American cause understandably so this encapsulates the Black demographic that part of the wonderful USA (unless Donald Trump gets in as pres omg!:O) therefore..whether by proxy or no the timing of oscars reactive announcement..that realy remains to be seen if real change in embracing not just diverse actors prodcuers ehtnically but also the ethnicity (diversity) of cinema genres as equal chance of winning if they fulfill my above criteria..
I not being racist cos everyone agrees…time to flush out the white over 60 majority of course they should retain their membership but if oscar had any guts and if they self concious about their operating budget – then urge to demolish the unfair majority empirical white 60 something demographic that make up membership to resign..’in interests of the future viability of the academy to the public andf the advancement of the insitution the way it meant to be that it USED to be,.’ (fact is i accept it be a cold day in hell before that happens unfortunately i hope i hope we all do from mos tof your comments again majority rules their announcement will be more than a publicity stunt and affect real change:O)
Fact it used to be this way oscar used to be in lock stop more often than not three times a decade..then the white 60 something majority had amnesia not recovered since..bugger i bagging my own kind here im white..
But i embrace cultural diversity..the idea of multiculturalism in institutions artistic especially..is not new..Guggenheim has achieved it..Architecture has too (really intrigued to study in on the Freedom Tower love to visit it one day evne if understandably it take a few hours to get past security:):P) that building is to accomodate ‘free trade’ globally not just internally..therefore it design is multi cultural need to not isolate and embrace the global context wwith which it intended function is…
I celebrate when there real change..like:
i believe this should be the new demographic of the oscar membership:
1. Cut the 2/3rds majority of 60 something whites to a third.
2. Retain the Jewish demographic that are well under 60 years of age. But cut the 60 something ‘less significant’ ones out..same principle applies to:
3. Muslim, Hindu, Italian, French, Buddhist, and i have mental writers block lol of course Black, African
4. More young voters who had massive success at their age in hollywood (how bout JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon to name a few? Those of the geekish background but who done absolute quality..not to mention those recent phenomena filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson.
5. In fact let be clear…list numbers i oputlined from 2 through to point no. 4. should all share equally a slice of the pie and between all of these groups and please remind me ones i forgotten pnly (due to writers block not intended mind you) BUT FACT IS THAT THE NEW 2/3RDS MUST BE DOMINATED BY THE CULTURAL,. ETHNIC DIVERSITY I OUTLINED IN POINT NO. 5
And are you listening Academy? (of course not to you i a insignificqnt we all are movie goer that feed your profits and not worth you investing back in our loyalty to see your films in return) Academy is supposed to be Hollywood by the way if you know what i mean..
Can you believe it guys? i outlined i believe if they have the guts and drop their self glorification (no guts no glory mentality) but i just outlines a viable realistic guideline for freshening up the membership..of the academy..this ONLY in this way could they return to a level of public prestige and then they can justifiably ONLY then congratulate themselves for keying into the public domain considerably more, and no my system owuld not ensure every sci fi film wins..after all the ‘geek’ squad in my proposal would be equal like the others on 10% evenly split…though the white members over 60 and close to that age havea third..the fact that 2/3rds would be of cultural diversity..not just blacks but all above and more..means a massive cultural shift..no this can be reality..but we know oscar dont have the guts.
to do REAL CHANGE.
dont give oscar benefit of the doubt on their proposal yet./.i dshould nopt have to post such a suggestion the academy hunchos are supposed to think this stuff up not a mere film fan/ informal critic:P so? what you thiunk of my proposal?
Let’s do a trick. With the hand in you heart, cite all the films directed by black directors that actually deserved to win Best Picture and Director, since Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. Off the top of my head, 12 Years a Slave, and maybe Selma and 25th Hour, being generous (I love Inside Man, but wouldn’t have given it Best Picture).
Then, again, we have to consider, how many film by black directors are made, every year, and if we do the math, again, we see the problem is, that black directors, as women, don’t have as many chances to actually develop their projects. That also apply to LGTB directors, who are basically unable to develop non-watered down LGTB projects for big studios. Carol, Brokeback Mountain, are the exceptions, too, not the rule. It took Almodovar ages to win an Oscar, and both films aren’t LGTB (even thought in All about my mother, two transgender characters are featured, but as supporting). Haynes, suffered this, this year, with “Carol”. But we can also shake things up, with foreign language and animated… why, that stupid and arrogant decission, that every year, the best movie, is english-spoken? The only french winner, was mute. The only spanish nominee, was a Woody Allen film, in english, set in Paris.
The race problem, and the gender problem are in the industry itself.
But the xenophobic problem against foreign productions, is in AMPAS itself. Because they DO like Bergman, Almodovar, Fellini, Truffaut, Kurosawa, del Toro, Yimou, Haneke, enough, to multinominate their foreign language films, yet they always give them some Foreign Language, Screenplay, Technicals, to compensate. I think that the most ridiculous was when Zhang Yimou’s Hero was frontrunner in a bunch of technicals (Cinematography, Score, Art Direction, Costume Design and Visual Effects) and a threat for Picture and Director itself, and was ruled out inellegible thanks to having been nominated as Foreign in 2001, despite being qualified as a 2004 film due to its late USA release. Yes, that’s the year Million Dollar Baby and Clint Eastwood won. The only american film on par, with Yimou’s masterpiece, was Scorsese’s The Aviator, in terms of Oscarability. And someone could say, “hey, Slumdog Millionaire!”… yep, an american film by scottish people, set in India, with hindu actors… and sweeping in a year, that “just by chance”, was the same one, that a multimillion dollar agreement was signed to promote Hollywood films in India…
Yes, Oscar, is an American Award. But AMPAS members come from all over the world, and Best Picture is just Best Picture. Not Best Picture in English Language.
I’d like to see a year in which both documentaries, animated, foreign language and english language compete together for the top prize, regardless of their own categories.
Charlotte Rampling for president!
Ryan mate have you noticed i able to post again? thanx so much for your help to direct me after much trial and error i managed to work it out thanx again you not replied yet to me on the forum as a by the by of course to acknowledge one of youre longer serving loyal members are back!. Heh i thought me saying ‘Crash’ would set this topic on fire i was right..needed a injection of controversy or debate..i curious though i going purely on the numbers it only one one or two oscars right? i know from what i heard at least what a achievement it was at the time..i think i admit i not seen it..but in pure quanitity and quality? honestly? the days of Gone with the Wing, the Godfather the days where the ones that one the big won won the most oscars too..are over…as far as i can see but how do you all honestly feel bout Crash it one unless i mistaken less oscars across the board than any other best picture win in a decade at least no? corredct me if i wrong..maybe oscars new ‘diversity’ is splitting the fault lines in such a refined manner that we never get a oscar winner with more than 6 oscars again inc best picture makes 6.
Let’s see..Gone with the Wind won 10, From here to Eternity (i regret i not seen but seeing oscar polls of overall oscar history) got 8, Bridge over the River Kwai got 8 (which i seen), The Godfather got 8-10 for part one right? i think (correct me if my memory hazy guys and ladies)
Here a list of films that should have won more and deserved to for their sheer quality and standards in filmmaking setting new precedents for that matter in most of my lists cases too:
1. Saving Private Ryan- should have won 8 OScars not just 5 and shoulda won best picture at LEAST 8!
2. Gladiator- should have won 10 oscars for sheer brilliant craftsmanship a revival of the great roman epics hollywood used to value, redefining it through adapting funnily enough Private Ryan visceral filmmaking technique result the most realisic experiential engaging ancient epic that still stands the test of time (at least it won best picture but lo and behold the ghosts of oscars past….for Ridley Scott not winning best director was the biggest insult of all…snuibs in the post ‘Ryan’ era err thjat not meaning to snub you Ryan mate never no way sorry my slang cpould get me in trouble 😛 i met ‘Saving PRivate Ryan’ lol.
3. The Aviator- as far as i know the story of a hollywood icon turned aviation pioneer and Dicaprio should have one his FIRST oscar that year for sure..subsequently Scorsese shoulda won best director that year….well bugger that obviously oscar trying to have a bet both ways try to show they ‘over’ hollywoods golden era (when they not when you look at some past oscar winners in between the ‘Gladiator’ and ‘REturn of the King’ years asnd after ROTK) but they proves how irrational they are snubbing the msot authentic recreation of golden hollywood mixed with the true story of and inspiring and at same time tragic rise and fall and rise of Howard Hughes which as far as non violent biographical dramas go, Scorsese made it more compelling i believe to non biographical drama fans converting them to the cause that year..his film keyed into one conciousness for young and old..and with a dicaprio best oscar win ideally, shoulda been a win for Scorsese. should have had 10 oscar wins. Inc i think arguably for the context of the film that was the live phoography of planes in action seen through howard hughes filming is something that daring dANgerous and yet scorsese pulled off the impossible shoulda won cinematography too.
4. People will call me spoilt but i felt..Return of the King the one year i agreed with the outcome as rest of world did given we talking bout the cultural pop culture story that defined and shaped generations of readers and legions of fans sinc ethe publication of Tolkien books in 1939, combined wioth fact nobody expected PEter Jackson to become a household name- elevated up to Spielbergian, Scott, Cameron and Scorcese standards for his vision rich beautiful, dakr and terrible dramatic and amusing but a ride into a parallel earth like no other film ever before where history in Tolkien language very much was so authentically recreated from the most complex fantasy gbook imaginable, i was expecting a record 14 oscar nominations for that film..after a trilogy captured the world by storm, nobody could resist the seductive power of the ‘Ring’ for three years and no other franchise will ever have the collective combined acclaim as the Rings film have..critics compared it to ‘the godfather’ for it epic scope in story and execution, to ‘lawrence of arabia;’ for crying out loud..it should have been nomionated and won 13 oscars and honestly..the writing was on the wall for the lack of acting nods..for certain performances that have since become part of cinema folklore..Gandalf the grey did his disappearing act in oscars eyes rasing the bar in wizardry in performances was ian mckellen , Aragon ala Viggo mortensen should have got a best actor nod and win, and frankly the demands of our central character Frodo Baggins literally carrying the hopes and werights and projecting that burden on his shoulders..Elijah Wood became a household name still is so that would have taken it to 13 oscar noms…clean sweep for 11/11 great but it simply was not enough for bringing with as much precision as realisitcally possible a film of this scale detail, complexity and magnitude toi life from the books.
Now on another note leave Will Smith alone. Hollywood should be grateful for his achievements and for that reason alone given oscar unhealthy obsession he shoulda been nominated this year right? or is it a case his disgust of snubbing of black producers, etc..seriously no wonder he had the right and was right to send a blunt message to the academy..his message is simple it reflects mine: get your head out of the sand and out of your ass.. oscar..get with the times and KEEP to embracing change in the academy,.
To use quotes albeit sensored from one of Will Smiths more twisted but equally brilliant performances esp for a cheesy but fun and engaging well written cops vs crims drama in BAD BOYS . “this is what i do so &%^%$%$ you and &^^%%$#$ the world cos of your ^%$$$% whinging!
This censored message aptly was incidentally aimed at oscar..coming from a actor who deserves and earnt and breathed life in hollywood existence in modern times..proving his diversity and ego bigger than it should be or no..he earnt it..he casn boast about it..few actors can transform themself as mcuh as he did in ‘Ali’ and then back again to the most bankable box office superstar MIB, Hancock, etc etc, independence day , almost every film he stars critics praise him if they smart they praise rather than condemn him and his nearly as talented acting wife for his achievements and rally as a community behind him to ge toscars attention..
there need to be more than beaurecratic change i urge everyone to take oscars self triumphalism out of a knee jerk response to a backlash yet again with a grain of salt.. cultural change is needed not just bureacracy i sceptical changes will see my list of films that deserve to win more when they win that more of same crap happens till 2020 after that we see if real change can happen..where there a will there a way (get it, will smith?:P just kiddin) and that means why take 10 years or just under to get their asses moving ey? that is oscars but right? why so long to do change? cos oscar cant adapt to accept sci fi..scinece themed films and consistently brilliant critically acclaimed mainstream films made with such high quality like the Dark Knight, snub,, that it transcendes it own genre restrictions to rival the finest of motion picture drama that won best pictures in hollywoods ‘better’ but stioll somehwat disappointing era in the 90’s
As per your request:
“Gone with the Wind” won 8 competitive Oscars (from 13 nominations) and 2 special Oscars. For comparative purposes, most go with the 8 category wins.
You’re on with “From Here to Eternity”, it got 8 wins against 13 nominations.
“The Bridge on the River Kwai” won 7 of its 8 Oscar nominations.
“The Godfather” won 3 Oscars (10 noms). And to be thorough: “The Godfather Part II” won 6 (11 noms); “The Godfather Part III” got goose egg from its 7 nominations.
thank you for this highly coherent comment. have you thought about running for governor of Alaska again?
Had dinner with a slew of Oscar voters last night and while many are happy with this change, they all agreed on one thing: Will Smith will never get nominated again.
“He’s a big fucking baby” said the most blunt voter, an editor. “A lot of people, including African Americans, don’t care for him or his entitled wife. They’re jokes.”
I nodded politely but made mental notes in my head that this was serious.
“What about his boycotting?” I asked.
“They don’t care. They’ve already decided he won’t be a member next year. They’re revoking his membership since he thinks he’s deserving of a pat on the back every time he has a movie out. And Cheryl was the first one who agreed to this.”
There you have it folks. And this isn’t my psychic readings either – this is the truth. Bye Will.
Interesting. Although I think this is a bit harsh against Will Smith, but he did lead this fight due to his thinking he should have been nominated. His hubris is finally catching up with him.
He never said that..
WHHOOOOOO CARESS!!!! Just make better movies, people of all races and colors!!!
Right, because it’s just as easy for white people and minorities to make better movies.
I’m starting to wonder what the impact of the Emeritus rule will be on the relative size of each branch. Some branches require a certain number of years in the industry BEFORE an invite (barring a nomination or special circumstances), and now apparently you have to add 30 years after that if you want to be a lifer.
So unless you are recognized as a prodigy very early in your career, or hang on long after most regular people are thinking about retirement, you’re going to have a hard time getting that lifetime status if you’re in one of these “below the line” fields:
Designers – 5 years
Executives – 5 years
Makeup & Hair – 7 years
Casting Directors – 8 years
Sound – 8 years
Visual Effects – 8 years
At Large – 8 years
Stunt coordinators – 10 years
Public Relations – 10 years
Do your best to nail down the current numbers (I believe you’ve already done it).. because I agree, it’s going to be really interesting to see how many drop off into Emeritus status next year.
But honestly, I have a feeling there will be more loopholes and exemptions than the Federal Tax Code in this new plan to cull membership.
Definitely agree with that! It’s hard to imagine that they did a careful look at all their members to see who the biggest name “losers” were going to be in this.
It’s probably going to be people at the end of life who have nothing left but that they’re in the Academy. 🙁
🙁
ok. sad now.
Well, they’ll still be in the Academy. Just not voting. But then why be in the AMPAS…?
Wow, I think I made it worse.
Exactly, the devil is in the detail. LOTS of loopholes.
Just contribute money to a production and voila! – your membership has been renewed for 10 years.
I’m fully in support of the recruitment of new members, doubling of women & minority members, additions to the governors board and exec committees. These sound great to me!
I’m not surprised to see that the Best Picture changes Sasha talked about aren’t included here…. but they might still be coming. It wouldn’t surprise me AT ALL if they are doing membership changes first, as the thing that is getting the most press, and will consider the best picture race during their regularly scheduled review of the rules that happens every year after the ceremonies. I don’t think the general public knows as much as AD readers do, so it’s maybe not as important that it be part of their big publicity push this week.
I’m less enthusiastic about throwing out lifetime voting privileges. Not because we can’t all name some one-hit-wonder that makes us scratch our head about how they got in, but because I think there may be some unintended consequences:
Hollywood has been racist & sexist for a long time. Probably from the beginning. And as hard as it is for women and people of color to breakthrough in the industry, it must be even harder for them to remain “active” for 3 decades. Think of all the actresses who got thrown under the bus the moment the men no longer wanted them at the end of their peen, as Sasha would say. They had their careers cut short by Hollywood sexism, and now they’re going to have their voting rights cut off as a result of the same thing? And while there aren’t nearly enough women directors or directors of color in the academy to begin with, I suspect that *some* of them that do exist are about to be forced out because of Hollywood’s historic practices that disfavored allowing them to keep making movies.
I also worry, truly worry, that a cottage industry is about to be built, designed solely around keeping people on the membership roster. Harvey Weinstein (or someone else as Machiavellian as him), is going to figure out that they can read IMDB just as well as the rest of us can, and start making cheap, throwaway films that just happen to be cast and crewed by folks who are in danger of losing their membership. The films will undoubtedly meet all the requirements, but just barely — they’ll have low budgets but play for a week in a small theater LA.
Or even worse, it will become part of the campaign process for the studio’s lesser known Oscar contenders. Harvey would make Michel Hazanavicius suddenly have to direct a cheap knock off of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel in the months between Cannes and the next next membership cull. Brie Larson stars as a young nurse learning life lessons from the patients at a nursing home — dozens of whom are filmed lying in bed, with just enough lines to qualify. Just imagine how grateful they’ll be!
“Harvey Weinstein (or someone else as Machiavellian as him), is going to figure out that they can read IMDB just as well as the rest of us can, and start making cheap, throwaway films that just happen to be cast and crewed by folks who are in danger of losing their membership.”
If this happens, the results would be hilarious enough to be worth it.
Cheap movies made for the sole purpose of letting somebody spend 10 minutes a year marking a ballot? Cheap like how cheap? $5 million?
I think you’re probably overestimating how much anyone is willing to spend to let a bunch of decrepit has-beens have an Oscar ballot.
Haha! I love it! I think it might actually be worth it for someone like Harvey, who supposedly “knows” what those old folks all like, and has built his business model around getting noms — or at least trying to get noms — out of their favorites. Especially if he focused on the folks that only needed a film or two to complete their third decade. You’ve then got them thankful to you for life!
I can’t wait for the Weinstein-produced Erik Estrada vehicle…maybe Hope Holiday can play his love interest.
They had their careers cut short by Hollywood sexism, and now they’re
going to have their voting rights cut off as a result of the same thing?
Nobody on earth is in a better position to give us some examples.
Names 10 names and we’ll tell you how much of a loss we think it would be.
I’m working on it. Actually want to see if we get an idea about what qualifies in terms of movies/tv/broadway. (There could be a lot if they don’t count the last two). My first priority is tryng to cath all the statements from members who are speaking up right now though. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork!
I’m not surprised to see that the Best Picture changes Sasha talked about aren’t included here…. but they might still be coming. It wouldn’t surprise me AT ALL if they are doing membership changes first, as the thing that is getting the most press, and will consider the best picture race during their regularly scheduled review of the rules that happens every year after the ceremonies. I don’t think the general public knows as much as AD readers do, so it’s maybe not as important that it be part of their big publicity push this week.
I agree with all of this.
Sincerely Yours,
Wishful Thinker
I do think you’re right though — this isn’t the end of the changes.
Yes indeed. Lifetime voting privileges for those who have completed the 3 x 10 year voting rights period is one thing – but to give the same privileges to someone who has merely been nominated for an Oscar seems ridiculous. How can you compare the two sets of credentials?
As much as I am thankful for Cheryl Boone Isaac and the rest of the leadership’s impetus to make drastic (but well-intended) changes, I fear, like the conditions you mentioned, that cronyism will continue to plague the system. More hard line definitions such as what counts as substantial work done in the past decade has to be adressed. I suggest a random nine person committee (each of the members cannot be of the same branch that current member is in and has no previous connect–they can look it up on IMDb) to evaluate the work of that member who desires to renew and have the final say if he or she can renew the membership.
I’m a huge fan of term-limits (we need them in our national political institutions as well), and had suggested that they be a part of some of these Academy reforms, but I remain slightly tentative. For example, I don’t like the fact that “members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms…” Hopefully this isn’t just a loophole for some of the more problematic members to remain enfranchised. I’m trying not to think too cynically about the Academy’s eventual definition of “active,” but it wouldn’t be surprising if that requirement was a rather low bar to hurdle. I would have preferred a set term-limit (20 years of voting privileges and then you’re done), but this is a good start.
I thought I commented on this earlier. Anyway, it’s good news but I don’t think it will change the nomination situation anytime soon. They needed to change the voting or have more nominees for that.
This boycott crap is really silly. One is not entitled to an oscar nomination. Diversity is a great thing and I am excited about it. However, the problem is not with the academy. The problem is with the production companies, minority moviegoers and wealthy minority celebrities. Specifically, Jada and Spike Lee have production companies and are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If you want to see work that represents the community, produce more work. Its quite easy to blame others! People may even applaud that sort of practice. It is more difficult to look in the mirror and take action yourself. Where are all the films produced by minority artist? They do not exist because they do not want to put their own money on the line. Get in the game. Put some skin in the game! Otherwise shut up! And BTW black audiences go to the movies to see “Ride Along” and “Medea goes on vacation” not exactly oscar worthy films. Someone should do a poll and see how many blacks went to see Concussion and those who went to see “Ride Along” ……I’ll wait!
”One is not entitled to an Oscar nomination.” Nor is one entitled to lifelong Academy voting privileges.
oh! 🙂
You know what irritates me : black people that hate on other black people just for the fun of it. It is nothing wrong with a boycott. And guess what? The boycott worked. Honestly, how much power do you think spike lee has? Will and jada has produced a couple African American movies. Were they good? No, but its a start. It’s weird that you blame wealthy black people but you don’t blame the wealthy executives with the money. Sometimes it seems like black people turn against each other for no reason. I’m sorry but other people should be blamed because it’s their job to include minorities. It is studio executives and talent agencies jobs to be inclusive to all which means – minorities. They have been shutting us out for decades but you blame the wealthy black people ,but not the people with the real power.
I’d be curious to see how exactly this effects the membership numbers. Are there that many people in the Academy today who wouldn’t have received lifetime membership?
I read once that there were members of the Academy who hadn’t been involved in making motion pictures since the 1950s! ! Unless you’re Debbie Reynolds, you shouldn’t be entitled cart blanche to a lifetime membership (and unless you’ve won or been nominated).
Agreed, but if any of those people were involved in movies for 3 straight decades they would still have lifetime membership. Maybe that’s more rare than I’m thinking.
“any of those people were involved in movies for 3 straight decades…”
to be precise, they have to be involved in making movie 3 decades after they became Academy members.
bye, Hope Holiday.
This is a really good point. Depending on how they decide to count these things retroactively, this rule could actually have a lot of weight, if it really is three decades AFTER membership. Think of all the people who get in towards the middle or end of their careers. Even if you’ve worked in the industry for 30 or 40 years, if your membership invite comes when you’re about to retire, then you’re really only getting a 10 year invite. Last year alone, Choi Min-sik was invited at 53, and Im Kwon-taek at age 79. So even the more diverse candidates are in danger if they get invited late enough.
Ryan, you’re too funny. I just Googled Holiday, then 75, for her account of ‘Wolf of Wall St.”
”Last night was torture at the Academy–“The Wolf Of Wall Street”—3 hours of torture–same disgusting crap over and over again—after the film they had a discussion which a lot of us did not stay for–the elevator doors opened and Leonardo D. Martin S. and a few others got out then a writer ran over to them and started screaming–shame on you –disgusting”
Good question – as it speaks to the efficacy of the rule change. I suspect that the three-term rule is really just a loophole. With that nuance – I suspect that lifetime membership will be just as prevalent – even while a marginal few will be “emeritized.”
Very nice!… Well done, guys! (I mean Sasha and all others who spoke out loudly enough, it seems.)
Be prepared for Will Smith nominated as Supporting Actor for Suicide Squad next year.
…and Kevin Hart as lead actor
I don’t mind the actors getting questions concerning race by the media, I’m just wondering why directors aren’t being scrutinized as much? They have much more say on who gets hired and who will play what parts than most actors.
Scorsese could have plugged a person of color into one of the major speaking parts of The Departed (I’m talking in lieu of Leo, Jack, Mark or Matt), but he didn’t. And he doesn’t for nearly any of his movies. He’s forced to paint using a varied palette for Silence, as it takes place in Japan, and I’m anxious to see if one or more of the Asians gets some dialogue. Del Toro and Bernal were once in talks to star, but they’ve been replaced with… Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, and Liam Neeson.
I’m interested if Spielberg cast a couple of white kids for Ready Player One. We know he won’t include any material he’s been involved with, like Back to the Future or Indiana Jones, I guess due to “integrity”. I wonder if “integrity” will force him to diversify his cast, or perhaps just pepper it with some tokens in barely audible parts?
Does anyone know if any other “big” directors are working on a diverse cast for their upcoming projects? Maybe something with a female protagonist? Modern settings provide a perfect opportunity!
Are we going to give Liam Neeson grief when he’s nominated instead of the Asian guy for Silence, and give Scorsese a pass because of, you know, Raging Bull and Taxi Driver and GoodFellas? Somehow, that doesn’t seem right.
For the record, Scorsese made ‘Kundun” (1997), about the Dalai Lama, with an all-Asian cast. … And Spielberg produced and directed ”Empire of the Sun,” about a boy growing up during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai in 1941. Plus, he directed ”Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” in which Indiana gets a Chinese boy as a sidekick. Also, it’s set in India and featured numerous Asian actors.
Twenty and thirty year-old examples? Raiders (my favorite movie) had a bunch of Arab extras, but none with speaking parts. Welsh actor John Rhys-Davies plays a Middle Easterner!
And so, because these prolific directors have had a handful (if even?) of ethnic leads in past productions, and none recently, they cannot be called upon to add some color when choosing a protagonist?
Spielberg also produced and directed ”The Color Purple” and ”Amistad.” And he produced ”Letters From Iwo Jima” and ”Memoirs of a Geisha.” (He’s done more than any of us!)
It’s great that he produces films with color. He doesn’t do much directing of films with color – definitely not in awhile.
So, when people talk about his best films, do any of them have a person of color in a major speaking part?
Jaws – No.
Close Encounters – No.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – No.
ET – No (although ET is as minority as it gets)
Schindler’s List – Yes (Indian-descent Ben Kingsley)
Jurassic Park – No.
Saving Private Ryan – No.
^^^ Those films are sometimes/oftentimes found in “Top 100” lists when discussing the “best” films ever made.
Some of his “lesser” films that will not find their way on a major publication/site’s “best” list
The Color Purple – Yes (all black cast with Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Margaret Avery, and Danny Glover getting some juicy screentime)
A.I. – No (the future!)
Hook – No.
Minority Report – No (this takes place in the future!)
War of the Worlds – No (modern setting… although Morgan Freeman gets to narrate…)
Lincoln – No.
Amistad – Yes (Djimon Hounsou and Morgan Freeman… Anthony Hopkins get the Supporting Actor nomination…)
Twilight Zone segment – Yes (Scatman Cruthers as the magical black man – I still love this segment!)
Munich – No.
War Horse – No.
Empire of the Sun – No (and it takes place in China!)
Temple of Doom – Yes (Love me some Short Round – Jon Ke Quan)
The Last Crusade – No (even though a large segment takes place in the Middle East)
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – No (even though a large segment takes place in Central America)
The Lost World – Yes. (Vanessa Lee Chester)
Catch Me If You Can – No.
The Terminal – Yes (Diego Luna and Chi McBride – pretty diverse cast as would be expected taking place in a modern airport)
Bridge of Spies – No.
BFG – Not likely.
Ready Player One – We’ll see, but based on what’s come before, a pair of white kids likely get the major parts.
And so, as far as direct influence on up and coming talent, he typically distances himself from diversity, instead relegating a few projects to his production company.
When cinephiles discuss Spielberg’s best films, they all look rather white, even though most of his “best” take place in modern settings or in exotic locales. Even though he’s incredibly prolific.
He’s a helluva lot better than Scorsese and neither are bad men. I just think they are lazy with their casting and they are most definitely in a position to educate their admirers as they are living legends in the film community.
Some people consider Memoirs one of the most racist films ever made, because it casts Chinese people as Japanese people.
The Departed was set in South Boston, an environment that’s about as tolerant of racial diversity as 50s Birmingham. The movie acknowledges this in a number of spots both by making the Nicholson characters a vicious racist and in that line where Di Caprio tells Anthony Anderson how hard it’s going to be for him being a black cop in Boston. To have had an African American infiltrate a tight-knit Irish American gang would have read completely false.
I see: the ultra-realism of The Departed precluded actors of color from any of the major roles.
And Wolf of Wall Street would have been unbelievable if one of its true-life, publicly recognized characters had been played by an Latino or Asian or Black guy? I’m guessing movie-goers wouldn’t have cared.
I don’t think Scorsese and Spielberg are racist or anything like that, they just lack imagination or are lazy when casting, for the most part. Perhaps they should try to employ non-white actors as protagonists in their films, if for nothing else than to promote diversity.
Counting all the leads from their films and even major supporting characters (throw Anthony Anderson in there if you like!), what percentage are non-white actors. Is it less than 10% or 20%?
A lot of what they do (or don’t do) lends itself to the discussion at hand.
I bring up these two directors because they are prominent players in the film industry and they are critically adored. You could likely add James Cameron (although he does like actresses as his leads, unlike the two above), David O. Russell, Woody Allen, and… holy crap, the list gets pretty extensive!
I just don’t see why modern stories shouldn’t reflect a diverse reality.
Which movie should Scorsese have cast a person of Color in though? Making the detestable 1%er at the center of The Wolf of Wall Street a person of color wouldn’t have been an honest representation of who holds the power in America. Hugo was set in 1920s France. Shutter Island was set in the segregated 50s, The Aviator was a biopic, Gangs of New York was specifically about white racists…
He did find a pretty big role for black people on his Boardwalk Empire series, does that count for anything?
1%ers aren’t all white.
People of color shouldn’t have to play JUST heroes. Then they really would be limiting themselves.
But then others would say they’re feeding the stereotype. It’s narrow line to toe that, most of the time, ends up as a lose-lose situation.
I think Mac makes a GREAT point. The Leo character in WOWS, Jordan Belfort, was the subject of a bio and thus probably couldn’t be color-cast without raising eyebrows (although: “Hamilton” the musical) but ANY of the other characters could have, including those played by Jonah Hill and Kyle Chandler. Why not?
MS had next to nothing to do with BW Empire, especially not the later parts where Chalky’s group had more prominence. However it’s funny you mention Hugo and Shutter Island, because those two movies DID have a person of color in very prominent roles; his name is Ben Kingsley. He passed for white for you, which says something…I’m not sure what.
I think I’ll respond to Mac above…
I forgot that Kingsley was in Hugo or in Shutter Island. But I’ve known he was of Indian descent since… longer than I can remember (unless you are talking to MJS). I even mentioned his heritage when I ticked off the various minorities in Spielberg’s films below.
You make a great point about Hamilton ignoring race while still conquering Broadway!
If we’re going to count ethnic actors who look white and probably still benefit from white privilege we might as well count Martin “Ramon Estevez” Sheen in The Departed as well.
I replied to MJS’s reply to you below, but someone here has to say that Spielberg made The Color Purple and Amistad when absolutely no one else wanted them made. How many movies about black people can you name that are set in some period other than a) around the civil war b) the civil rights movement or c) modern times? (I know of others, like Lady Sings the Blues and Beloved, but it’s an incredibly short list, and Spielberg has two films on it.)
Also I’m not sure who else would have given Jeff Goldblum a black daughter in Jurassic Park II. (Might have been partly autobiographical for Spielberg.)
Having said all that, Spielberg seems to be less into diverse casts in his work this century. I know Lincoln, I get what it was about, but still. So your point is still valid, especially if we think of the longer list of such directors. Matt Damon’s now-infamous mansplanation to Effie Brown may be the most revealing TV moment of 2015.
I’m quite excited about Baz Luhrmann’s The Get Down …. but that’s TV.
Finally some nice decisions.
It’s a good start, let’s not deny that. We will have to see next year if it translates into the final voting as such. I like the idea of the Academy not only being more diverse but also more global. After all, it’s a worldwide thing even if it’s the US Academy.
Let’s just wait and see and stop the senseless criticizing. Will Smith boycotting? Come on !
I’m wondering if the ten-year rule will hurt women more than men, seeing as they have a shorter “shelf life”.
Also, this news isn’t detailed enough to start celebrating. “Active in motion pictures” means what? Contributing some moola to the production and then waiting for your ballot to arrive?
You get admitted to a branch. I would assume that you would need to continue to be active within your branch.
This is a fucking huge and drastic, but desperately needed change. While I was concerned and perplexed by this year’s nominees list, I did not support a boycott, but I understood the reason why people wanted to boycott the Oscars. The changes that are coming are extraordinary and is necessary to make the changes needed for a more realistic, fair, and diverse nomination process. It makes no sense that in most cases, someone who currently votes in the academy has not made a film in over 40 years, and has ideologies that reflect that time frame. The bullshit and politics, sexism, racism (it does exist dammit), homophobia (Carol not in Best Picture), category fraud, is rampant this year and it’s disheartening. To already know who is favored to win is fucked up and disappointing – it just goes to show how easily manipulated and easily persuaded this current group of voters is.
I think it’s an excellent new rule to place irrelevant current voters into Emeritus status because they are clogging up the system and preventing a reflection of the type of films and performances of the 21st century to flourish and be properly honored and recognized. It is very important to have the nomination process reflect the reality of the world. Better late than never, but I think this year is the last year for things to continue as they have been since the inception of the Academy.
For those who disapprove of these changes need to seriously ask yourself why you feel this way. A few of the 20 current nominees have no right being nominated this year. They reflect an idea of what the current mindset of the academy feels is the type of person worthy of being recognized. And for me, I’m just sick and tired of this elitist bullshit, it’s disgusting!
Ok, this is the freshest topic, so sorry for slightly off topic, but… At what time can we expect Producers Guild Awards announcement, cause I can’t find it nowhere. And will it be shown somewhere tv/online?
Not shown online… It’s a ceremony, so there’s no exact time.
I’d expect it in about 4 hours.
4 hours? It’s 3:30 p.m. in LA and it’s supposed to be on 23th.
Oh my bad… I thought it was tonight.
Expect it around 8 p.m. or so L.A. time, tomorrow.
The ceremony goes on forever. As far back as I’ve been tracking that one, it usually winds up being midnight or later for me in Central time. So I wouldn’t expect to hear anything until tomorrow at 10 pm LA time.
Thanks, and thanks to JH as well! Noted! I’ll probably stay up, as I’ve not gone to bed before then in recent days anyway. If not, I’ll wake up to the chaos… 🙂 (Almost no matter what wins this year, it should get at least a bit crazy, because so many people are predicting so many different things, and there’s no real consensus. It’s not like if, for example, Boyhood had won last year. That would have been extremely boring. This year, there’s nothing people would find that boring. Even TBS or Spotlight winning would spark some serious debate.)
Sorry, Rev. Mother Dolores Hart – No more voting priveleges for you. AMPAS doesn’t want God influencing anymore of your selections.
I would really like to know why is anyone so eager to be appreciated by the people referred as “racist old steak eaters”? I’m sure Sasha wouldn’t give a f–k if she was an actress.
As for Rampling… look at it from this perspective: was her role less of an achievement just because she’s white and oscar nominated? Please name one black actress with a movie role in 2015 that you would replace Rampling with.
Karidja Toure from GIRLHOOD.
OK, maybe in a parallel universe, but on planet Earth that was not a remote possibility. 😉 Not to be understood wrong – she was magnificent in it, but that wouldn’t happen even if all 5 nominees were black.
On planet Earth she was nominated for a Cesar… and a best newcomer award in the UK… and although she was ineligible for a Spirit Award nomination, the film itself was nominated for Best Foreign Film…
… just saying!
I don’t see how are the facts you mentioned connected to Oscars.
And off topic… how come there is no hashtag #CesarsSoFrench? 😉
The ‘no more sex for you’ lady from Chi-raq.
Rampling gave the best performance of the year. But the fact she never received a nom before Definitely contradicts her statement. She definitely deserved one before.
”Please name one black actress with a movie role in 2015 that you would replace Rampling with.”
This debate isn’t about replacing white actresses. It’s about the lack of diversity. The lack of black actresses with a sizable movie role only points out how few of them are in Oscar-contending movies. (As opposed to TV, where you can find Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson and Kerry Washington headlining hit dramas.) And should they get the roles, they also need an Academy whose tastes are diverse enough to recognize them.
And here’s who the NAACP Image Awards nominated for Best Actress in a Motion Picture: * Lauren Keke Palmer in ‘Brotherly Love”; Sanaa Lathan in ”The Perfect Guy”; Teyonah Parris in ”Chi-Raq”’; Viola Davis in ”Lila and Eve,” and Zoe Saldana in ”Infinitely Polar Bear.” (I’ll assume Oscar voters saw none of these.)
How is it NOT about replacing white actresses? Don’t they deserve being nominated, the current 5? These are the 5 performances critics were raving about this year. TANGERINE actresses didn’t stand a chance because of how “small” (budget wise) the movie is.
And The Academy did recognize and awarded black actresses in the past, when they had a choice.
I guess I’m a racist because I preferred Jessica Chastain to Octavia Spencer in THE HELP.
Kitana Kiki Rodriguez
Will Charlotte Rampling and Michael Caine still be allowed to vote?
Is Rampling even a Academy member?
As a nominee, I believe that she will be invited to join this year (unless she’s already a member)
Nominees don’t automatically become Academy members, and there’s nothing in the statement above to indicate that they will be from now on.
Easy, Mary…
Read third paragraph.
‘In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award.’
You have to be a member before you earn the privilege of lifetime voting rights, which will be activated if you’ve been nominated before. Nowhere in the above statement does it indicate that a nomination will mean automatic membership. I normally hate repeating myself, but since you couldn’t work it out for yourself, I thought I’d make a wee exception.
Easy, Calgarian… Read the whole thing.
I think they have to be invited first, but if you’re a nominee, I seem to remember that the invitation comes pretty quickly. I mean, the opposite would be counter-intuitive, don’t you think? We think you’re good enough for a nomination but not to be a member…
Not necessarily that quickly. Jon Landau, the Oscar-winning producer of (what were then) the two highest-grossing films of all time in the U.S., Titanic and Avatar, had to wait until just a few years ago to receive his invitation. It was this decade, so long after Titanic’s success and his Oscar win, and not even his last nomination before the invite.
I’m not keen on implementing a ‘nomination-as-invite’ system of admitting members. Cos as things stand, that’d just be a whole bunch more heterosexual Caucasian blokes every year from here to eternity.
If you’re nominated for an Oscar, you’re *eligible* for membership — no auto invite. Or you can be sponsored by two existing members; again, that’s just for eligibility. The AMPAS can extend the invitation at any time after either of those two criteria are met.
And of course, there’s no rule that says one must accept the invitation.
She’s been a member since 2006.
The best possible result for us Oscarbies is if Larson and Rampling somehow tie for Best Actress a la Streisand and Hepburn in 1968.
Marshall knows this, but for the rest of you, the last time this many rule/seniority changes were made, Gregory Peck had just been put in Cheryl Boone Isaacs’ current job, and he shuffled the deck quite a bit. You’re hearing talk now about “aggressive outreach” – presumably Brie Larson is not this year a voting member, but she would be NEXT year under typical convention. But Isaacs *could* make a personal exception for Larson as Peck did for Streisand 47 years ago – he decided, what the hell, the Academy needed her, so on her first-ever Academy ballot she was able to vote for herself (or not) for her debut film role as Fanny Brice in Funny Girl. Assuming she voted for herself (Babs has never and will never answer that question), she very literally (more than most people) got herself an Oscar.
Come on, Larson-Rampling tie!
Definitely one of my favorite ever yarns from Oscar history.
Hope so. I’d rather watch them act until 100 years than watch almost all of the Oscar nominees from the past two years.
Great. But they STILL need to go back to 10 and screw preferential balloting.
Otherwise they will still have diversity problems. Will still marginalize animated, foreign language and documentary films.
Wow, 10 Best picture nominees won’t work at all. Think about it, with 10 nominees and no preferential ballot, a best picture winner could possibly win with 10% +1 of the entire vote. 10% of the support doesn’t say much for a winer…..that means 90% didn’t vote for it. One or the other, not both.
Wrong.
The current way they count may give a movie a nomination if it is placed on number 1 of 5% of the voters. A film that places 4th and 5th of 90% would fail.
If you have 10 slots to fill… Give 10 points to the film in the first slot, 9 to the second… and 1 to the 10th. The nominees are the 10 with more points. Count the winners the same way.
If a voter doesn’t fill the 10 slots, give a smaller weight to his vote. If it fills 6 slots, their votes have weight 0.6. If the whole 10, weight 1.
Much easier and much better than the current system.
Wrong…that is a weighted ballot and not a preferential ballot.
That’s not even how the system works. I mean, they had 10 Best Picture nominees for two years. It obviously works, otherwise those two years just mustn’t have existed…
Yes they had 10 nominees, but not 10 nominees without a preferential ballot. I guess I assumed when he said screw preferential ballot, that a straight ballot was in mind.
Ok. Screw the CURRENT preferential ballot is better.
Like it matters. The winning film ought to be the most loved, not the most liked. It’s conceivable, under the preferential system, that a film could place in 2nd last position at every stage of counting and still win. All a film needs to do is to never be the least liked through all rounds of counting, and it wins. So it comes in at #7 in Round 1, and it stays in contention. Then #6 in Round 2, #5 in Round 3 etc., moving up a place with each round but never assuming first place until the very final round. I’d far rather the most loved film won than whatever that mediocre POS the preferential ballot’s favourite may be.
I guess my concern is with 10 nominees and a straight ballot, a film could win with 10% +1 , and to me that didn’t seem like a very loved film. A Crappy film could get 10% +1 with a straight ballot and win over a film that gets 80% second place votes. You were kind of making my point…10% didn’t seem very well loved to me.
But it’s the most loved. And that’s the most important thing. It inspired the most passionate support out of all the films, no matter how low the portion of the vote.
I guess we will agree to disagree on that one. To Me a film getting 90% of the second place votes to me is more loved than 10% +1.
Not a particularly likely situation, but were it to occur, it’d hardly be a travesty. #1 votes are always what ought to matter most. I mean, how does one get away with naming a film the Academy’s favourite of the year when they can’t even claim it was their #1 film on the ballot? Like, have our Best Picture award cos you were most voters’ second favourite! It’d be ridiculous.
Either situation is not very likely. I think it would be more ridiculous to say we as a voting body say this is the best film of the year…although 90% of the body does not agree. In your scenario…10% +1 would win the vote….it is also possible that 90% have it dead last. Just doesn’t sound like that is a very loved film….if anything it sounds like the least favorite of the voting group. Again, we are just going to agree to disagree. No worries.
A case can be made either way…which is why the Academy switches around so damn much.
You’re basically saying that a well arranged point system would be ideal. Which I would agree with…
I think a weighted ballot might be ideal. They only use preferential ballot on Best Picture category anyway.
And they provided two amazingly diverse lists.
I’m of the opinion that art doesn’t need to be democratic and reliant on expressing the consensus will of the voters. I wouldn’t mind a return to plurality even with 10.
I wonder if naming ten would automatically solve it, though. If they voters had named ten this year, I could definitely see Best Picture nominees being the eight that were nominated plus two of Ex Machina, Star Wars, Danish Girl, Carol. Couldn’t you? Maybe Sicario would get in. I was a little surprised Elba or Del Toro didn’t get in. Never expected both.
If it’s two of those (exclude Danish Girl… Definitely was not 9th or 10th) you definitely prove my point. Two either totally female driven or with female in strong roles would be nominated. Remember: in 2014, zero films with female leads were nominated for BP.
I chose Danish Girl not on its own merits but as a symbol to show the type of Academy-bait film that would normally get in even if there were ten slots. It could end up winning two Oscars; I know one is a stretch. (Production Design)
It doesn’t seem like a terrible number of current members will lose their voting privileges… It would only affect those who have been active in the industry for less than 30 years. It would be interesting to hear how many people get moved to emeritus status. I’d bet less than 3%.
It’s less than ten years, unless members have been nominated or have won an award, in which case it becomes thirty years. Contrary to what you might think, that’s quite a lot. There’s a whooooooole lotta deadwood up in there.
No, there’s an exemption to those who manage to qualify as a member for three decades.
“members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award.”
I assume the retroactive application of these standards for members, might end up saving much of that dead wood, but it will be curious to see how it’s implemented, exactly.
Oh shit, kk now I get it lol. Hopefully, they start applying these standards from today, meaning that members who’ve been there for decades but haven’t worked for decades won’t get to avail of lifetime voting privileges just because of the old rules. If that’s the case, then you might be right: this could be a tiny change when all is said and done.
that is a good shot of reality. But still, in the next few weeks don’t be surprised to see Spike Lee attending and Jada &Will presenting.
I think I read in there somewhere that the changes DO apply retroactively as well. Hopefully, I didn’t misread.
Deadwood… exactly. They are like lumps of hair in a drain pipe… not letting fresh water (thoughts/ideas) through. Get rid of them.
They are modeling behavior for the industry generally. The studios, production houses and the directors should do the same.
Now they just need to make Best Picture 10 SET spots.
Good. Yay. But 10 BP noms, too?!?!?!? NO ??
I wonder if they felt like that would be too much an empty gesture; a Band-Aid solution. It would have been had they done only that. But it would be a good supplement to the very important changes they are making here.
Baby steps..i want 10 spots in BP
let’s make it 20. Just in case someone risks not to be nom
The steps above address the problem MUCH MORE than 10 BP nominees. Those are not baby steps. 10 BP nominees would actually be a baby step by comparison. Changing the make-up of the Academy to more equally reflect the population (and thereby set the tone for the industry to follow suit) is a monster step.
While we’re in the DRAMATIC CHANGE mode, can we all kick out everybody who voted Crash for Best Picture 2005?
Funny.
Crash was a great choice. Brokeback Mountain is so over rated!
Crash was a good movie and a genuinely surprising choice.
But Crash has one of the most diverse casts of a BP winner in history… Just kidding
That’s actually the first question on the “other criteria” paper.
1. Did you vote ‘Crash’ as Best Picture?
If no, then please continue.
If yes, then immediately set this ballot and your Academy membership card on fire
Crash… the most diverse BP winner ever by quite a wide margin…
Well this is good stuff but I hope they’re not just handing out memberships that loosely. The Academy needs to be prestigious and it should not be easy to get into.
cannot have everything…
With all the complaining these members have been doing about how hard it is to actually watch a screener or to come up with 10 -10 oh the humanity!- titles for Best Picture, they should welcome being relieved of these onerous duties
Let’s face it. It is all about African Americans and no one else.
Yeah, um, no.
How so? When Precious and 12 Years of Slave were nominated for all the major categories, Spike Lee and Will Smith’s wife didn’t come out and say “Where are the Latinos? Where are the Asians”? If Creed was nominated for Best Actor, nobody would have given a shit, and you know it. That is the real motivation, the silver lining is maybe this will help down the road to increase the diversity nominations, but it is really about blacks.
Give me a fucking break. Diversity is not something you go one and done with. If Michael B. Jordan managed to pull of a nomination we’d be celebrating the hell out of it but we’d also still recognize that there’s a lot of work to be done in having the Oscars (and the film industry as a whole) celebrate and recognize artists of color, as well as with women filmmakers.
As an Asian this is not about just blacks. This is about all of us. And I’ll be damned as a Deputy Editor around here to let someone like you make this into a wedge issue.
Nope, you wouldn’t if Jordan was nominated
Agreed!
True, sadly
There are some who are trying to turn the argument into a Black vs. White fight, but they’re almost completely in the camp that’s claiming that the Academy doesn’t have a problem. Some have been accusing only black people of complaining, and saying that Asians and Hispanics don’t complain, which is offensive in itself. Given Cheryl Boone Isaacs’ statement the other day, I’m confident that she’s sensitive to the inequality issues faced by people of all races and ethnicities.
it’s just a trophy. The problem is in the board rooms.
It will take them 4 years to double the already minuscule numbers. Well they’re at least acknowledging and brainstorming the problem. AMPAS has finally been shamed into action. This initiative will really only work if there is also a diversity increase in studio hiring practices and movie journalism/critique. It has to be across the board.
Good, in the end life was restored on planet earth. Hollywood has cured the diversity problem and the evil old white men is pushed down in the basement, out of sight and his name should never be uttered again. Jada and Will will be announced as presenters next week, probably they will present Best Picture. It will be a night to remember and the Oscar will never be so white never again. Now, let’s get back to Donald Trump, shall we?!
Preach!
Well I cautiously optimistic. But I say this now. The bureaucratic change will only be as good as real change in voting outcomes. How big is this really? Time will tell the most obvious question is why the he’ll did it take so long to change voting structures? Or membership? Seems a bit knee jerk to me isn’t it funny the academy president reacts AFTER the controversy of the snubs this year not Before dont be fooled public want real change in votibg outcomes diversity in genres of films that in past dont get nominated across board in best pic, best director, and best screenplay and of course black actors producers more women producers etc. Being in the mix. If these outcomes dont happen from oscars triumphalism of a announcement and it hoped it leads to real change and outcomes then i afraid this latest thing will be nothing but hot air to give illusion oscar appeasing the public
Thank god, they did not expand the acting categories to 8 nominations. It is not going to make any difference though. The problem is with the CEO’s of studios not wanting to make films about minorities.
I agree about not expanding the acting categories. But I think these changes WILL make a difference. At least, it’ll put studio CEO’s on notice that they need to be cognizant of diversity, because they don’t want bad P.R. Besides, movies play throughout the world, now, and including more people of color is simply good business sense. Just look at the diverse cast of ”Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”: Felicity Jones, Ben Mendelsohn, Donnie Yen, Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Riz Ahmed, Wen Jiang, etc.
If anything, this might break the Academy’s traditional and unhelpful hostility to smaller indie films come awards time.
I would like to take this opportunity to pitch my series of cheap films starring old Academy members, giving them bit parts so they can retain full Academy membership.
Now accepting investments.
So, does this mean for the next ten years all stays as it is?
I believe not. It seems that, from next year, anyone who hasn’t been active in the industry for 10 years will not be allowed to vote unless they’ve previously been nominated for (or won) an award:
‘We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members.’
Wow! These are actual rational responses and plans. I was expecting the worst because the hysteria was getting out of control.
It’s rare that all of our complaining pays off.
Now we need a retrospective nomination for CAROL.
#OscarsSoCarolless
That ship has sailed. If you still love the film, you should be willing to let go of its once-potential Oscar contention. The Oscars shouldn’t change your view of the film. They have as much a right to like what they like as much as you do.
FYI, Charlotte Rampling has decided to give her two cents: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/charlotte-rampling-oscars-controversy-1.3415443
Yeah, Rampling is crying that the controversy is ”racism for whites.”’ She adds, “One can never really know, but perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list.” Yup, white privilege at its best.
And like Rampling, Michael Caine weighed in, seeing the fight in literally only black and white terms.
Caine cited Idris Elba’s star turn in ”Beasts of No Nation” as a performance that deserved recognition. “Did he not get nominated? Well, look at me. I won [Best Actor at the European Film Awards] and I got nominated for nothing else. Be patient. Of course it will come. It took me years to get an Oscar, years.”
First, it sounds patronizing to tell blacks: ”Be patient.” They’ve been more than patient for decades. It sounds as if you’re telling them: ”Be patient and sit at the back of the bus. One day, you’ll get to ride upfront.” Two, diversity is about more than black actors. Three, I don’t care how long it took 2-time Oscar-winning Michael Caine to win; this debate isn’t about YOU. In fact, in the history of Oscar history, I believe there’s only one actor of color who can even claim to be a two-time winner: Denzel Washington.
So, does Denzel meet the quota? Are we done?
President Trump will fix the issue.
Quotas only seem to apply to people of color. No one ever complains that there are too many white Oscar winners. … When Trump’s comeback on diversity is: ”Whites don’t win BET Awards,” he unwittingly seems to acknowledge that the Oscars are for whites, not blacks. Anyway, Trump has bigger fish to fry on the xenophobic front. He’ll be too busy ”fixing” how to get Muslims out of the country and building a wall to keep Mexicans out.
I will be so conflicted if angry Academy voters “protest” by pushing Rampling into a win.
I think the opposite will happen. I think Rampling pretty much took herself out of the race. It’s not like she was much of a front runner anyway.
Now, if Larson had said that stuff, then things would be interesting.
I don’t think she had any chance whatsoever before this… and still don’t think that she does.
If she does win now, I think it would have to be partially attributed to blowback over this controversy.
FINALLY
I don’t see how this could be a bad thing in any way, shape or form.
I think the only bad thing is the underlying assumption that women members will vote to nominate women and minority members will vote to nominate minorities. This policy is definitely a step in the right direction, but it still will come down to women and minority filmmakers getting the opportunities to get their films made within a system that still needs work.
This is definitely true, but I think there are two more important things:
a) phasing out those who aren’t active in the industry
b) the wake up call to the membership that this issue really does matter to the Academy
I think that’s less the assumption, and that it’s more like this will reflect more modern sensibilities. Younger generations tend, on the whole, to be more sensitive toward inequality than older ones. There’s a lot of old-timers in the Academy who wish movies were more like they used to be, basically meaning artistically conservative dramas and gentle comedies starring clean-cut, familiar white people. They don’t mean harm, but they’re doing it.
Hopefully this change will influence the system, which absolutely does need work. The Academy is a major part of the industry, and has received an enormous amount of criticism this past week. The rest of Hollywood will take notice… I hope!
I like the ten years thing. If you aint been involved with the business in a DECADE, how you still a voting member of the Academy?
This is FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t care who wins or who is nominated for Oscars, their skin color, nationality etc doesn’t matter, i just want them to deserve it, and nominating the likes of Jlaw for farting every year is bullshit. Likewise, nominating a black actor for a pretty good performance doesn’t cut it either. The award season needs to be shorter and winning based on merit and not who has the bigger studio behind them is a must too — hey, i can dream!!
So you’re the decider as to who is and is not deserving?
A lot of people thought Jlaw gave a worthy performance. I’m not sure what black actor you’re referring to, but based on the critics, actors like Jordan and Elba got rave reviews, and they were snubbed.
That is another fight. Oscars voters will probably never go against the campaign and narrative issue.
‘Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade… Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status. Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting. This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars.’
Looks like they were reading my comments! That’ll be it for sure. It was totally my idea, right from the start. I thought of it. Mine!
Actually, I believe the Baseball Hall of Fame got there first. Last summer, they changed their rules, so a voting member has to be someone who’s been covering baseball for the past decade. However, they can be reinstated if they have started covering baseball again. Some Oscar pundits have cited this example.
Congrats to Cheryl Boone Isaacs & the Academy for finally taking a more pro-active move for diversity.
But will it lead to a class-action suit from the ”senior” members, who’ve been enjoying decades of white privilege”? This could be a battle between ”age discrimination” vs. diversity. It could get ugly.
I was kidding. Though, ftr, I had no idea the Baseball Hall of Fame had done this until you brought it up the other day.
the beginning of the end…
Let’s just wait for “Barbershop 3: bitch’s weave” leading the nominations for the 90th Oscars *sigh*
‘Let’s just wait for “Barbershop 3: bitch’s weave” leading the nominations for the 90th Oscars *sigh*’
Yeh, now this rly is racist. Like, this is just so fucking racist. It’s not even funny. It’s just racist.
*turns to the camera*
“Actually, my name is Jiang, and I *do* speak English. Jared likes to say I don’t because he thinks it makes me seem more authentic…And I finished *second* in that national math competition.”
agree, creepily racist. In my experience people who make comments like that will be he first to say they’re not racist.
And then accuse people who stand up for POC of being ‘the real racists’ cos we support measures to increase representation. Ugh.
If I was attempting at being racist, I would’ve said something like: ” Straight Outta Compton should’ve been submitted in the foreign language film category, as it is predominantly in Ebonics.”
It’s funny how most of you fail at spotting obvious traps at eliciting dumb replies. It’s easy to stir the pot here as most readers suffer from pathological political correctness.
Reading this forums make my commutes go fast. Thanks for the joyful laughs.
Yep, cause all those white people love Adam Sandler movies. Which is the equivalent.
Yeah, because POC’s and WOMEN have no taste in anything.
Calgarian,
Yesterday you told me “I don’t need to call you names. I can be an adult.”
What you’re doing in this comment is lowclass juvenile mockery, ridiculing a another race.
It does not matter that the Barbershop movies are meant to be funny. The humor in those movies is good-natured . What you’re doing here is mean-spirited and frankly hateful.
We won’t even get into the fact that your example is absurd. (For one thing, how fucking bad would ANY Barbershop movie need to be before it would be worse than The Blind Side: Bouffant Blonde Saint)
I don’t care about your aggressive flare-ups. We all have those.
What I’m going to ask you to try to hide is your barely disguised disgust for black women.
So watch it, alright? We all see exactly where you’re coming from. Stop acting like this before you get worse.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS to the 10-year status stuff. This will go a long way to righting all these wrongs.
But boo-hiss to the statement that they’ll double minority membership. The way their asinine nomination works, increasing minority membership is only effective if the PERCENTAGE of minority membership increases. Hopefully this will be the case, but that isn’t what is stated.
Yeah, it’s unclear to say the least.
Step 1: Admit you have a problem, though.
It rly ought to be that they’ll make Academy membership reflective of American society, or something in the same ballpark. Double the shitty proportion of the current membership will still be a bit shitty.
Of course you’re right, but these are admittedly only short term changes.
The way I read it, over the next 4 years the Academy hopes to double the number of women voters and double the number of minority voters while the number of white male voters will remain the same.
As they take away the voting privilege of current members who have been inactive in the industry for many years, these two movements should roughly help us reach an Oscar voter proportion that’s in line with what we see in the US population.
…I think…
Don’t you fear, as I do, that even if the Academy works to diversify their membership we still might end up with a list of mediocre films? 🙁
found this:
https://twitter.com/GlennWhipp/status/690675279270785024