Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Oscars to disqualify films that do not have enough black, gay and disabled workers

Have you heard about Aperture 2025?

It may sound like a Roland Emmerich sci-fi movie, but it’s actually more frightening. And much more controversial.

It’s the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’s latest initiative to make Hollywood more equitable and diverse—more woke—by changing the rules by which films are eligible for Best Picture nominations.

Here’s how it works: Starting in 2024, producers will be required to submit a summation of the race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status of members of their movie’s cast and crew. If a particular movie does not have enough people of color or disabled people or gays or lesbians working on the set—and what is “enough” will be determined by a knotty tangle of byzantine formularies—then that movie will no longer be eligible for an Oscar.

Not surprisingly, the plan is not being universally applauded in Hollywood. Critics say it’s invasive, anticreative, opens the door to privacy issues, and is spectacularly unfair to actors and crew members, who may want to keep their sexual orientation or health profiles to themselves, not to mention to producers and directors who have enough to worry about while shooting a movie than to be saddled with the thankless task of tallying up the identity markers of their creative partners.

“I mean, why aren’t animals in this?” sneers one industry insider. “What if the main character is a horse?”

Last year, the Oscars drew an all-time low of 9.85 million viewers—less than what an episode of The Big Bang Theory used to get. At its height in the 1990s, the ceremony was pulling in as many as 55 million viewers in the United States. Even into the 2000s, it was drawing at least 40 million. But by the 2010s, the numbers started falling into the 30 millions and, by that decade’s end, had dropped further, into the 20 millions. The audience for the last pre-pandemic Oscars, in February 2020, was 23.6 million, less than half of its one-time peak.

“They just don’t want to hear from the public. They don’t want to get ideas from the members. They have circled the wagons in this bubble,” says Michael Shamberg, the Oscar-nominated producer of Erin Brockovich. He argues that the Academy has been merely shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic and ignoring calls for a much more drastic course correction. “There’s an iceberg up there, and they’re sailing toward the iceberg and the captain isn’t asking anybody for help. It’s a perfect storm of inertia.”

That iceberg appears to be getting closer and closer as the ceremony continues to grow duller and duller every cycle, becoming something like an infomercial for a product nobody wants to buy. Last year’s was so excruciating, comedian Bill Maher cracked that the Academy seemed to be saying, “We dare you to be entertained.”

“It’s filmmaking by affirmative action,” adds an Academy member who, like several people interviewed for this story, asked for anonymity out of fear of retaliation and loss of work opportunities.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 131March 28, 2022 7:59 PM

Yeah, I'm sure this will bring back the viewers in droves.

by Anonymousreply 1March 25, 2022 5:06 PM

[quote] Here’s how it works: Starting in 2024, producers will be required to submit a summation of the race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status of members of their movie’s cast and crew. If a particular movie does not have enough people of color

Where does that say "black", you fucking race baiting moron.

[quote] Yeah, I'm sure this will bring back the viewers in droves.

The policy is designed to promote equal opportunity employment is an industry where the vast majority of the people in front and behind the camera are white heterosexuals.

by Anonymousreply 2March 25, 2022 5:11 PM

I see the right wing concern troll CUNT is awake.

by Anonymousreply 3March 25, 2022 5:11 PM

R2 Is that maybe because the majority of the country IS white heterosexuals?

by Anonymousreply 4March 25, 2022 5:12 PM

Artists aren’t going to worry about that kind of strict regulation. They’ll just shrug and not bother to submit their work or campaign for the awards. Other awards will become more significant.

I’m thinking about productions where inclusiveness is obvious, and some diversity character was shoehorned in, to meet the quota. Bleccch.

by Anonymousreply 5March 25, 2022 5:13 PM

[quote]It may sound like a Roland Emmerich sci-fi movie, but it’s actually more frightening....It’s the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’s latest initiative to make Hollywood more equitable and diverse—more woke—by changing the rules by which films are eligible for Best Picture nominations.

Republicans are a bunch of pussies if they're "frightened" of a rule that AMPAS has created for one of their own awards.

"More frightening!" Incredible. Weak-ass baby men.

by Anonymousreply 6March 25, 2022 5:14 PM

[quote] [R2] Is that maybe because the majority of the country IS white heterosexuals?

Um hm and discrimination does not exist. Racism and homophobia don't exist. Only white heterosexuals are qualified for those jobs.

by Anonymousreply 7March 25, 2022 5:16 PM

You're creating a strawman there, calm your tits sweetheart.

by Anonymousreply 8March 25, 2022 5:18 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9March 25, 2022 5:21 PM

Just call Ava DuVernay if you need any help with these inclusion rules, okay?

Ava DuVernay On Thursday’s Launch Of Array Crew: On-Set Inclusion, Getting Studios & Streamers Onboard & How “This Isn’t The Yelp Of Job Searches”

Ranging across 45 primary categories from editors to Covid-19 safety supervisors, cinematographers, accountants, art directors, drivers, production assistants and more, the studio- and streamer-backed platform allows crew members of different age, gender, race, disability, language and more to load up a profile for potential employers. Today’s launch goes live with more than 3,000 profiles already loaded up, and an app version of Array Crew is set to follow in the coming months.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10March 25, 2022 5:28 PM

Will Jada be ok if the film is all Asian trans disabled people?

by Anonymousreply 11March 25, 2022 5:29 PM

So, this is Affirmative Action for the movies.

by Anonymousreply 12March 25, 2022 5:37 PM

R2, you and everybody else knows that this applies mostly to blacks, women, and a few trans. Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, disabled ( or is it " otherly abled") etc. weren't the concern of the AMPAS when they came up with there edict. To hell with the most qualified. And it has nothing to do with the right wing and everything to do with the far left controlling the narrative.

by Anonymousreply 13March 25, 2022 6:53 PM

^know

by Anonymousreply 14March 25, 2022 6:53 PM

If not enough people of sufficient quality in the underrepresented groups can be hired, then production companies will have to hire ghost employees to satisfy the quotas, in addition to the real crew. There will be new companies whose sole purpose is to provide quota employees.

by Anonymousreply 15March 25, 2022 7:04 PM

R9 having worked in a few different parts of the industry, my experience anecdotally is that this is not a high bar to clear. In fact, most productions probably meet these requirements already. It might seem a bit gauche to have to list out and itemize which employees “check the boxes”, it’s kind of a necessary evil until the processes change at a systemic level.

by Anonymousreply 16March 25, 2022 7:09 PM

Does this mean that the underrepresented will replace the Jews?

by Anonymousreply 17March 25, 2022 7:18 PM

And yet, Black movies will be able to have all Black casts. But now they have to be shoehorned into white people narratives. This is a new kind of tyranny.

by Anonymousreply 18March 25, 2022 7:33 PM

THIS NEEDS MORE TRANS! NEXT!

by Anonymousreply 19March 25, 2022 7:36 PM

" Even More frightening? ". The writer sounds like a parody of the supposedly hysterical sjw types. The truth is that American culture is prone to histrionics in general but it's constantly painted as only a feature of the " un-liberal left" that a lot of elite boomer NYT/ Atlantic/ New Republic types are always blathering on about. You don't have to agree with this proposal ( it's not very practical) but it's not particularly frightening or likely to even come to fruition. I'm just surprised that this article was written in LA mag. This type of pearl clutching about left wing overreach is usual more seen in East Coast D.C./ NYC publications.

by Anonymousreply 20March 25, 2022 7:41 PM

With all the black servants, gay Ashley Wilkes and wounded and disabled Civil War soldiers, Gone With The Wind would still be an Oscar contender.

by Anonymousreply 21March 25, 2022 7:42 PM

[quote] when they came up with there edict.

Oh, dear!

by Anonymousreply 22March 25, 2022 7:49 PM

How can they ask someone their sexual orientation?!

Isn’t that illegal?

“Hey, I’m vying for an Oscar here. Are you gay? No? Sorry, you’re great for the role but I can’t hire you.”

by Anonymousreply 23March 25, 2022 7:50 PM

R21 And don't forget...Prissy was trans.

by Anonymousreply 24March 25, 2022 7:50 PM

Can you even imagine?

“Sir Olivier, have we got a vehicle for you! Wait’ll read the…oh, wait. Never mind. Sorry.”

by Anonymousreply 25March 25, 2022 7:53 PM

Male frontal nudity should be a prerequisite for more inclusion, though. Yes, big black dongs will do.

by Anonymousreply 26March 25, 2022 7:56 PM

I'm gay and disabled and this is a bad idea. Hire people with merit and experience.

by Anonymousreply 27March 25, 2022 7:59 PM

Does this included closeted gays? Or do they have to voluntarily or be outed by someone to qualify for an Oscar to fill the criteria?

by Anonymousreply 28March 25, 2022 10:48 PM

Great question r28!!

by Anonymousreply 29March 25, 2022 10:54 PM

Yes, nothing says inclusion as loud and clear as male full frontal nudity. What in front of the camera is as important as what behind it.

by Anonymousreply 30March 25, 2022 10:56 PM

[quote]Does this included closeted gays? Or do they have to voluntarily or be outed by someone to qualify for an Oscar to fill the criteria?

Yes, we'd like to know the answer to that question.

by Anonymousreply 31March 25, 2022 10:59 PM

R15 This is where the bullshit is. The idea that white people are the only truly qualified people isn’t true.

Especially seeing as China is overtaking Hollywood in dominance.

by Anonymousreply 32March 25, 2022 11:06 PM

r32, you didn’t read it correctly. It didn’t say there aren’t people who are qualified. The suggestion is that there may not be be sufficient quantity of the best workers to provide every production enough to meet quota.

by Anonymousreply 33March 25, 2022 11:27 PM

[quote] [R2], you and everybody else knows that this applies mostly to blacks, women, and a few trans. Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, disabled ( or is it " otherly abled") etc. weren't the concern of the AMPAS when they came up with there edict. To hell with the most qualified. And it has nothing to do with the right wing and everything to do with the far left controlling the narrative.

Um hm, like how the Black Civil Rights Movement has benefited other nonwhites more than black people. Like how affirmative actions chief beneficiary is white women.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34March 25, 2022 11:27 PM

Drilling down further into the demographics, among directors of color, black filmmakers had the highest percentage of overall feature directors in 2018 (10.7%) and 2019 (5.5%). Only 4.3% of directors in 2018 and 3.4% in 2019 were Asian, and only 0.7% in 2018 and 2.1% in 2019 were Latinx. In both years, zero feature films measured by the study were directed by indigenous peoples.

Women directors, by contrast, have seen some appreciable growth in the past decade, from 4.1% of all directors in 2011 to a record high of 15.1% in 2019. Women of color, however, were far less well represented, and as Hunt and Ramón state in the study, women as a whole “remained underrepresented by a factor of more than 3 to 1 in this employment arena in 2019.”

After remaining largely stuck under 10% for most of the decade, screenwriters of color did at least enjoy a rather large uptick in the last two years, from 7.8% in 2017 to 13.9% in 2019. The percentage of women writers also grew over the same period, from 12.6% in 2017 to 17.4% in 2019 — but almost all of those women were white. And in both cases, screenwriters in 2019 were still considerably whiter and more male than the general population. Hunt and Ramón note that it’s impossible to conclude whether the increasing diversity within screenwriters is part of a trend or “just a momentary spike in an employment arena that has been notoriously resistant to change.”

And then there are the executive ranks. According to the study, 91% of studio heads are white and 82% are male. Senior management is similarly monolithic: 93% white and 80% male. And while execs who oversee core studio operations — marketing, casting, legal, etc. — are approaching gender parity, with 59% male, they are still 86% white. Hunt and Ramón note that these figures are “a slight improvement” over figures from the 2015 Hollywood Diversity Report, when studio heads, for example, were 100% male.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35March 25, 2022 11:32 PM

Non-white Audiences Kept Hollywood Afloat During Pandemic: Study

Audiences of color were major drivers of box office revenue in Hollywood last year, a report revealed Thursday, making up the majority of ticket sales for opening weekend for most blockbuster movies.

The findings continue a years-long trend that has seen filmgoer demographics shift over time in the United States, even beyond changes in the wider population.

"Every time there was a big movie that exceeded expectations or broke a record, we see that between 53 percent and 60 percent of opening weekend audiences were people of color," said Ana-Christina Ramon, co-author of the Hollywood Diversity Report.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36March 25, 2022 11:34 PM

The Oscars have been irrelevant for the last decade…this will drive the final nail into the coffin. Good riddance.

by Anonymousreply 37March 25, 2022 11:34 PM

[quote] "Every time there was a big movie that exceeded expectations or broke a record, we see that between 53 percent and 60 percent of opening weekend audiences were people of color," said Ana-Christina Ramon, co-author of the Hollywood Diversity Report.

Does that mean PoC audiences like movies made by white males? Maybe Hollywood is already giving PoC audiences what they want.

by Anonymousreply 38March 25, 2022 11:40 PM

[quote] Does that mean PoC audiences like movies made by white males? Maybe Hollywood is already giving PoC audiences what they want.

Does the fact that gays pay to see heterosexual movies produced by heterosexuals mean that gays don’t need representation behind nor in front of the camera?

by Anonymousreply 39March 26, 2022 12:00 AM

r39, do I need to see Matt Bomer on the big screen? I could take it or leave it.

by Anonymousreply 40March 26, 2022 12:09 AM

Why does everyone assume that the only people who can be hired to fill the quota must be black?

by Anonymousreply 41March 26, 2022 12:09 AM

R41, because everyone knows that “POC” means black. No one else is allowed to claim the appellation.

To be fair, no one else wants to claim it, either.

by Anonymousreply 42March 26, 2022 12:31 AM

They fucked up The Oscars years ago. I'm in the industry and I haven't watched them in six years.

by Anonymousreply 43March 26, 2022 1:05 AM

oh, dear. Maher is going to have a field day with this one.

by Anonymousreply 44March 26, 2022 1:29 AM

[quote] we see that between 53 percent and 60 percent of opening weekend audiences were people of color,"

In other words the people least likely to obey social distancing rules

by Anonymousreply 45March 26, 2022 1:36 AM

They left out the trannies, you have to have trannies.

by Anonymousreply 46March 26, 2022 2:34 AM

R43 Me, neither But I'm not in the industry. Just an avid watcher since my teens in the '90s. 2015 was the last telecast I watched. I was really turned off by the #OscarsSoWhite bullshit the following year, I didn't even bother. I tuned in briefly a few years later in 2019 and was shocked at how low-rent it had become. Lots of D-list 'celebrities' and the glamour seemed to be gone. It felt more like the People's Choice Awards or something.

by Anonymousreply 47March 26, 2022 8:32 AM

[QUOTE] The story must center on women, LGTBQ

oh would you look at that, they managed to move the ‘T’ up a slot, pushing back ‘B’. How long will it be until it reads TLGBQ?

by Anonymousreply 48March 26, 2022 8:44 AM

R27 Exactly. All of this will just breeds mediocrity, because you're not hiring based on skill/talent. Thus, the end result will be mediocre or worse. We're already beginning to see how woke-ism is negatively affecting Hollywood. The movies in the past 5-6 years have been horrid! Awful camera work, editing, writing, sound, etc.

by Anonymousreply 49March 26, 2022 8:45 AM

Are POC-financed films required to include white people?

by Anonymousreply 50March 26, 2022 9:03 AM

If you think this is the end of the Oscars you aren't paying attention.

There is already a huge divide in mainstream culture, where half of the country hates Hollywood and its politics. Have you seen the ratings recently? It's over.

by Anonymousreply 51March 26, 2022 9:13 AM

I think it sounds fine. Hopefully it means more gays will be getting hired in the film industry.

R49. So ALL the movies in the last 5-6 years were bad? That's a bold claim. The truth is, there is a plethora of talent out there and plenty of capable gays/other minorities capable of doing the jobs needed.

So many right-wing trolls out in force today.

by Anonymousreply 52March 26, 2022 9:31 AM

And the GOP have another "WOKE" Card to play in the fall.....

by Anonymousreply 53March 26, 2022 9:31 AM

Who cares R53? The GOP will print whatever cards they want to play in the Fall, like all this fake outrage about CRT or whatever their latest issue is.

Substance means nothing to the Right. It's all sound and fury.

by Anonymousreply 54March 26, 2022 9:34 AM

Remember when some of the cast members of the female re-make of Oceans (8?) got all upset at the bad reviews and that men weren't going to the film.

Turned out half the reviews were from women and since when does anybody have to spend their $$$ and their time on any movie that they have no desire to see.

by Anonymousreply 55March 26, 2022 9:47 AM

#oscarssowhitesadlastdays

by Anonymousreply 56March 26, 2022 9:53 AM

"Sorry, this movie can't be nominated."

"Why not?"

"Retard and cripple counts aren't satisfactory."

by Anonymousreply 57March 26, 2022 10:13 AM

[quote] The truth is, there is a plethora of talent out there and plenty of capable gays/other minorities capable of doing the jobs needed.

I’m sure there are. But to hire them simply because they’re gay or a minority is ludicrous.

by Anonymousreply 58March 26, 2022 10:59 AM

They can still change nothing and have their white hetero men just self identify as trans women (Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine kind) - already the boxes for women and LGBTQ are filled.

by Anonymousreply 59March 26, 2022 12:03 PM

Do Jews count in the box ticking? If so, then most movies have nothing to worry about.

by Anonymousreply 60March 26, 2022 12:27 PM

Jews don't count; only blacks.

by Anonymousreply 61March 26, 2022 12:34 PM

Why R58? If they can do the same work to the same satisfaction and level as a white straight guy, what's the problem? Is someone on DL, a gay site, actually arguing against giving gays opportunities?

by Anonymousreply 62March 26, 2022 12:42 PM

They’ll have diversity in hiring but still only make superhero movies,

by Anonymousreply 63March 26, 2022 12:42 PM

Superhero movies are money makers R63. What would you like them to make? Airplane disaster movies?

Movies go where the market is. I'm sure in <10 years there will be a spoof of superhero movies and the genre will fade away as we all move on to the next thing.

by Anonymousreply 64March 26, 2022 12:44 PM

R62 yes, because to the people not steeped in identity politics, while we do recognize the value in diversity and brotherhood, we also value things like "doing your job" and "not injecting woke nonsense into literally every conversation." It's just a preference!

by Anonymousreply 65March 26, 2022 12:46 PM

What R65? Why do you think hiring someone gay means "injecting woke nonsense into literally every conversation?". I don't even know how to respond to that.

Look the basics are, if you think gays can do the job as good as a straight guy, then it makes sense to hire gays - who are underrepresented in Hollywood. Gays can do the job and keep it professional. If you think they can't than that's a whole different issue.

by Anonymousreply 66March 26, 2022 12:50 PM

As the Oscars become less and less significant because of this, so there will be little desire to jump through the hoops to become eligible. Purity tests have no place in Art. NONE.

The idiots who pushed this through aren’t in the remotest way significant film makers, and Academy members are already pissed off by the panicked mass inclusion of diversity people after the So White nonsense — many of those briught in have slender to no connection to film — it’s been a traducing ofindustry standards for a knee jerk gesture. They’re in quiet panic mode and ridiculous diversity grifters are making hay of it.

by Anonymousreply 67March 26, 2022 12:55 PM

[quote] it’s kind of a necessary evil until the processes change at a systemic level.

You’re the unnecessary evil that’s part of the problem, R16.

by Anonymousreply 68March 26, 2022 12:55 PM

Talented people are always hired because of their talent. Gays are the least discriminated, both on the tech side, and performance side.

by Anonymousreply 69March 26, 2022 12:59 PM

R67. Try to drink a little less before posting. Those last two lines are a bit of a mess.

Really R69? I'm sure all those gay actors who felt they couldn't come out for the sake of their careers were just imagining it then. I don't know about the tech side but I'd love to see some stats about how many openly gay writers, animators, technicians, cameramen etc. there are in the industry.

by Anonymousreply 70March 26, 2022 1:01 PM

The Oscars are simply a marketing tool and each year prove less effective. They’ll be gone by the end of the decade.

by Anonymousreply 71March 26, 2022 1:05 PM

Knock it off with your stupid shit-stirring, R62/R66/R70. No one here is speaking against hiring gay people and you know it. Leave the conversation to the adults.

by Anonymousreply 72March 26, 2022 1:06 PM

Kind of sounded like R58 was R72 but perhaps you have a more generous read of the situation than I.

I just think this sounds like a fine decision. People getting themselves tied all in knots over it seem very reactionary.

by Anonymousreply 73March 26, 2022 1:08 PM

The list of fantastic films that would be disqualified by this moronic edict makes a laughingstock of what is left of the Osacars. For one thing, it would immediately disqualify any film representing a slice of life and history and that can't logically feature the correct recipe of humanity. What would happen to film classic like:

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie How Green Was My Valley The Red Shoes The Corn is Green Marked Woman All About Eve The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

Fill in a dozen musicals, starting with Oklahoma

The Importance of Being Ernest

Rebecca, Psycho, Notorious, Strangers on A Train, Vertigo, et al.

Blithe Spririt

Bell, Book and Candle

Easy Rider

Isadora

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

The Apartment

Some Like It Hot

Double Indemnity

The Best Years of Our Lives

Dead End

Wuthering Heights

White Heat, Cagney's magnum opus

The 1950s Angry Young Men era-Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

Morgan

A Streetcar Named Desire

THE FUCKING GODFATHER

All the President's Men

The list covers everything from spoofs to suspense to romance to historical films.

Every one of these fantastic films would be disqualified because their casts and story lines are white.

Art doesn't do well under political dicta.

Art comes out of a cauldron, not a Cadbury sampler box.

I'd rather have pencils stuck in my eyes than dignify awards structured to pander to sociopolitical trends with so much as a nano second of attention.

by Anonymousreply 74March 26, 2022 1:35 PM

I don't think that's true R74. The quota sounds like it only applies to "people working on set". You can have diverse people working on set who aren't in front of the camera. That would make those slice-of-life films eligible.

Art will be fine. This isn't the Hays Code.

by Anonymousreply 75March 26, 2022 1:40 PM

R60 Jews not only don't count, even nods to Native Americans will be few and far between unless they're wearing feathers and moccasins.

But if the Italians Aren't White Troll is around, he'll sniff that of course The Godfather, Juliet of the Spirits, La Dolce Vita (never mind it's two blond leads), and Two Women have nothing to worry about, because, you know . . .

Oh, dear, there goes Belle du Jour. Gilda, Georgy Girl, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold . . .

by Anonymousreply 76March 26, 2022 1:44 PM

R75 Read it again. It says, "cast and crew". Everyone working on set. The cast works on set, too.

by Anonymousreply 77March 26, 2022 1:47 PM

[quote] I think it sounds fine. Hopefully it means more gays will be getting hired in the film industry.

Yes because if there’s anywhere with a dearth of gay workers, it’s Hollywood 🙄

by Anonymousreply 78March 26, 2022 1:48 PM

What proof do they require if crew members identify as Trans (since it's just a feeling they have.)

by Anonymousreply 79March 26, 2022 1:48 PM

Sorry R77. What I meant was that lots of people work on set alongside the cast. So if the quota applies to a summation of everyone on set than you can fill the quota by hiring a number of diverse people behind the scenes and having whatever demographic your slice-of-life movie is about in front of the camera.

Besides, it's not like gay actors have "GAY" written on their forehead. They can easily step in front of the camera for A Streetcar Named Desire or any of those other movies.

This is really nothing to stress about.

by Anonymousreply 80March 26, 2022 1:52 PM

Who approved of this fascist bullshit?

I swear to God, people like Ava Duvernay need their race-obsessed skulls cracked. She IS the true pigment-obsessed racist.

by Anonymousreply 81March 26, 2022 1:55 PM

R78 Hollywood may be fine representing gays in media (except Disney), but I don't know if they have as many gay workers as people believe. They love to write for gay characters but when was the last time one was actually played by an openly gay actor?

by Anonymousreply 82March 26, 2022 1:55 PM

Tranny gaffers?

Lesbian best boys?

Black homo script girls in wheelchairs?

by Anonymousreply 83March 26, 2022 1:56 PM

Is this a follow up to Biden's "I'm going to pick a black woman for the next Supreme Court judge" instead of picking the most qualified?

by Anonymousreply 84March 26, 2022 2:21 PM

They better include crew members who AREN'T covered in tattoos and piercings since they are needles in haystacks.

by Anonymousreply 85March 26, 2022 2:27 PM

Please just don't fuck with the Gayest Night of the Year!! The Tonys.

Cue the sparkle dust and feathers.

by Anonymousreply 86March 26, 2022 2:30 PM

Something tells me this isn’t about anti-Asian discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 87March 26, 2022 2:30 PM

The Oscars is as relevant as a dog eared magazine in a suburban doctor's waiting room.

by Anonymousreply 88March 26, 2022 2:45 PM

Are gays really underrepresented in Hollywood? How would one actually know?

by Anonymousreply 89March 26, 2022 3:08 PM

Why on earth do movies need to meet a higher standard than most companies? Another reason not to watch the Oscar’s.

by Anonymousreply 90March 26, 2022 3:13 PM

There are a few things that concern me with this. One is that entertainment employers are going to have to ask employees to disclose private personal information that normally would not be something about which we feel employers should know about. Second, who will keep the data and how will the data be used? When it comes to sexuality it will force people out of the closet in order to work, but that is a personal decision and each person should decide for themselves when to come out. What if you qualify because of a hidden disability, should you now have to share that you are disabled in order to work? I suspect major lawsuits and scandals as this gets implemented. The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution, but the courts have ruled that we have one, it is the basis for abortion rights, gay rights, and many other civil liberty decisions. So the academy and the studios keeping lists of who is gay, black, autistic, etc... makes me uncomfortable.

It will also increase the numbers of people just claiming to be "queer." If you are a white, non disabled, male who only fucks women, just spray a streak of blue coloring in your hair, tell them you are queer and you are good to go.

by Anonymousreply 91March 26, 2022 3:39 PM

[quote] Look the basics are, if you think gays can do the job as good as a straight guy, then it makes sense to hire gays

We’re saying your sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., should have no bearing at all on whether a person is hired.

by Anonymousreply 92March 26, 2022 6:52 PM

[quote] perhaps you have a more generous read of the situation than I.

Well, I KNOW we have a more generous read of English grammar.

by Anonymousreply 93March 26, 2022 6:53 PM

Broadway, in solidarity with Hollywood, has mandated that at least one member of the male chorus of every musical be gay.

by Anonymousreply 94March 26, 2022 7:42 PM

R94 If they want diversity they would need to mandate that at least one has to be straight, hell just a top would be a novelty.

by Anonymousreply 95March 26, 2022 7:54 PM

Can you just claim to be Native American or half Hispanic or will they want proof. What if you're a white looking biracial person? And anyone can say they are gay or lesbian. Even if you're married to an opposite sex person you can still identify as non binary. Lots of opportunities for people to game the system.

by Anonymousreply 96March 26, 2022 8:01 PM

R96 That is why quotas don't work. I knew a black female, who came to work where I was because she left her previous job when she didn't get a promotion. She knew the company had really made it clear to promote minorities, but they did it by how many boxes the people ticked. She thought being a black female veteran, in addition to being qualified would be enough, but instead they promoted a less qualified white disabled lesbian with a Latino sounding surname.

by Anonymousreply 97March 26, 2022 8:10 PM

So R92, in a situation where you have two completely capable potential employees, both able to do the job to the satisfaction and level that you require, how are you making your hiring decision? Flipping a coin?

In a situation with this quota, candidates who are equally capable but diverse will be preferred. What's wrong with that?

by Anonymousreply 98March 26, 2022 9:28 PM

[quote] So [R92], in a situation where you have two completely capable potential employees, both able to do the job to the satisfaction and level that you require, how are you making your hiring decision? Flipping a coin?

I certainly wouldn’t ask what their race or sexual orientation is, I’ll tell you that.

by Anonymousreply 99March 26, 2022 9:32 PM

I got Vanity Fair this month and I saw the cover and wondered why I had never noticed before Cher was cross-eyed. Turned out it was some black tranny.

by Anonymousreply 100March 26, 2022 9:34 PM

Laverne Cox was on the cover of Vanity Fair?

by Anonymousreply 101March 26, 2022 9:44 PM

So how do the box-checkers verify you’re a woman? You just SAY you are.

How do they verify you’re gay/lesbian?

How do they verify your race?

I suppose you can get a doctor to certify a physical disability.

by Anonymousreply 102March 26, 2022 9:57 PM

My work at the Academy is certainly moving forward. Praise be to God.

by Anonymousreply 103March 26, 2022 10:02 PM

Dunkirk will have to return its awards. It received eight nominations at the 90th Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director for Nolan, his first Academy Award nomination in that category. It went on to win three awards for Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.

USA Today Review Bemoans Lack of Women and Minorities in ‘Dunkirk’

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104March 26, 2022 10:05 PM

The Oscars will be canceled soon so no need to worry about silly forms.

by Anonymousreply 105March 26, 2022 10:08 PM

[quote] How do they verify you’re gay/lesbian?

That depends.

Are they hot?

by Anonymousreply 106March 26, 2022 10:08 PM

Standard E

If a character dies in the film then the actor must die as well.

by Anonymousreply 107March 26, 2022 11:01 PM

I thought Hollywood was already gay. According to DL, every male actor is gay.

by Anonymousreply 108March 26, 2022 11:38 PM

That’s not true.

Only the good looking ones.

by Anonymousreply 109March 26, 2022 11:39 PM

R94 That should work a real hardship on Broadway producers. 😉

by Anonymousreply 110March 27, 2022 12:13 AM

R106 The mind boggles at the prospect of the casting calls.

by Anonymousreply 111March 27, 2022 12:14 AM

[quote] Is this a follow up to Biden's "I'm going to pick a black woman for the next Supreme Court judge" instead of picking the most qualified? Jackson would be the most experienced trial court judge to join the Supreme Court in almost a century.

Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923. Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also served as a District judge, Circuit judge and Supreme Court justice. Jackson would bring more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices combined.

Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed. Jackson would be the first public defender to become a Supreme Court justice in the history of the Court.

She would be the first justice with substantial criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991. JACKSON HAS WON BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND PRAISE

Jackson has been confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis three times. In 2021, Jackson was confirmed to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia with the support of Republican Sens. Murkowski, Collins, and Graham. Former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: “My praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity – it is unequivocal.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “Very impressive background … extensive trial court experience.” Republican-appointed judge Thomas Griffith, who supported Jackson’s elevation to the D.C. Circuit after observing her work as a judge, recently said: “Her academic record is remarkable. She has a breadth of experience, which is really quite unique.” When Jackson was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, she received support from Supreme Court clerks for Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, and O’Connor. INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS: JACKSON IS ‘HIGHLY QUALIFIED’ WITH A ‘GLITTERING RESUME’ AND A ‘VERY DISTINGUISHED RECORD’

CNN: “She has a very distinguished record as a trial court judge and now an appellate court judge.”

Boston Globe: “A sterling educational background, a distinguished track record on the federal bench, and a reputation for both brilliance and an even judicial temperament. … A reputation as brilliant and meticulous”

PBS: “Jackson has a resume seemingly tailor-fit for the moment.”

Vox: “Well qualified for the job. … Significant judicial experience.”

CNN: “A glittering resume.”

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: “Top-flight academic qualifications”

Elie Honig, CNN Senior Legal Analyst: “Ranking among the absolute finest judges I’ve ever seen in action … a truly exceptional federal judge”

Paul Bulter, Washington Post Columnist: “[A] résumé … from central casting”

SCOTUS Blog: “She would bring a wide range of experiences”

Bloomberg: “The most complete resume [among frontrunners on Biden’s reported list] for a seat on the high court.”

LA Times: “Those who know Jackson say she always drew praise and respect.”

Financial Times: “Her rise in the legal profession has been widely regarded as formidable”

Slate: “A deep understanding of labor law”

by Anonymousreply 112March 27, 2022 2:12 AM

[quote]USA Today Review Bemoans Lack of Women and Minorities in ‘Dunkirk.

Reminds me of when the Netflix movie THE HIGHWYMEN (about the manhunt for Bonnie & Clyde) was released a few years ago. I and many people thought it was really good -- reminded me of the beautifully shot/acted Depression-era dramas that Hollywood used to make in the '90s -- but it got mixed-to-bad reviews from critics (mainly of the liberal persuasion) because the movie didn't feature enough POC nor positive female characters. The only black characters were a couple of extras (I think only one had a line or two and he was a chauf-feur) and the only major female parts were a supportive wife and an antagonistic governor who each had less than 5 minutes of screen time.

The movie was mainly devoted to two, old, white lawmen. That was a major complaint of many critics. That the stars were two white men. And that the film featured mainly a white cast. And very few women.. Never mind about the content/quality. And God forbid they tried to be true to the real story. Unlike many modern period movies, THE HIGHWAYMEN was able to transport me back because it tried to be true to the times and the real history. Plus, it was an engrossing story, telling the Bonnie and Clyde story from the posse's perspective.

by Anonymousreply 113March 27, 2022 2:22 AM

[quote] Top-flight academic qualifications

Yet still can't figure out what a woman is

by Anonymousreply 114March 27, 2022 2:25 AM

[quote] We’re saying your sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., should have no bearing at all on whether a person is hired.

White men = 30 percent of the US population.

Yet:

[quote] And then there are the executive ranks. According to the study, 91% of studio heads are white and 82% are male. Senior management is similarly monolithic: 93% white and 80% male. And while execs who oversee core studio operations — marketing, casting, legal, etc. — are approaching gender parity, with 59% male, they are still 86% white. Hunt and Ramón note that these figures are “a slight improvement” over figures from the 2015 Hollywood Diversity Report, when studio heads, for example, were 100% male.

"Sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., should have no bearing at all on whether a person is hired." However, it does now. As it always has. You support the status quo anti discrimination that discriminates against everyone but white men. You support good ole boy networks quota system. Where you hire and promote only white men.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 115March 27, 2022 2:30 AM

[quote] Yet still can't figure out what a woman is

Idiotic Republican senators couldn't figure out that she is much more intelligent than they are. Certainly intelligent enough not to take their bait on nonsense questions like that.

by Anonymousreply 116March 27, 2022 2:33 AM

[quote]White men = 30 percent of the US population.

76% of the US population is white. Assuming 50/50 split, white men should be about 38% of the population.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117March 27, 2022 3:28 AM

Hold me Don. I'm scared.

by Anonymousreply 118March 27, 2022 4:03 AM

R117 And the white share might actually go up. 58% of Hispanics identify as white. If that number holds or grows the idea of a non-majority white nation flies out the window.

by Anonymousreply 119March 27, 2022 5:07 AM

Just imagine applying this to the medical and/or teaching professions for example.

Having said that I have had teachers and doctors from all sorts of background and ethnic groups and they were all great because they all got there on their merits.

by Anonymousreply 120March 27, 2022 7:58 AM

Merit is racist

by Anonymousreply 121March 27, 2022 8:09 AM

Gonna be a problem for the hugely popular Korean film industry being unapologetically homogenous with almost nonexistent gay characters or plots.

by Anonymousreply 122March 27, 2022 9:23 AM

It is kind of a thing in the medical profession R120, at least in some countries. There's a recognition that patients trust medical professionals who share their ethnicity more, especially when we're talking about ethnic groups who have been mistreated or ignored by the medical profession. Also, there's a cultural understanding between those doctors/nurses and the communities they serve, which isn't present when we're talking about white doctors/nurses treating certain minority groups. That cultural barrier can be a real impediment to treatment and positive health outcomes.

by Anonymousreply 123March 27, 2022 10:13 AM

So are we going to start forcing the NBA to start representing the general population, too?

by Anonymousreply 124March 27, 2022 12:33 PM

R124, thus is the hypocrisy of liberals.

by Anonymousreply 125March 27, 2022 1:59 PM

So will Jews be considered an underrepresented minority? In which case, EVERY Hollywood film will qualify for the Oscars!!

by Anonymousreply 126March 27, 2022 2:49 PM

this benefits blacks only and you know it.

by Anonymousreply 127March 27, 2022 3:25 PM

Let's slap some excitement back into the Oscars.

by Anonymousreply 128March 28, 2022 1:08 PM

As usual, the liberals go totally overboard in an attempt to appear in favor of "diversity." In doing so, they inevitably create a Frankenstein which destroys the entire reason for the attempt.

by Anonymousreply 129March 28, 2022 3:08 PM

R129 nailed it.

by Anonymousreply 130March 28, 2022 7:02 PM

Well this is working well so far.

by Anonymousreply 131March 28, 2022 7:59 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!