Sorry, Raiders of the Lost Ark, at least to me, will always be a piece of masterful artistry.
People are focusing on Standard 1, but that’s just one of four standards, and the only one that would be apparent to moviegoers. The others just involve diversity behind the scenes.
Even Standard 1 should be easy enough to meet, unless the cast is extremely limited (like My Dinner With Andre) or it’s a historical drama that takes place entirely on a Viking ship in the 10th Century. If it’s set in medieval Europe, you can have 30% of the cast be women. If it’s in an all male setting, like the army or a prison, you can have ethnic diversity. There are very few plots that couldn’t accommodate those rules, and even so you could satisfy some of the others instead.
Anyone have any idea of how many of the past Best Picture winners or nominees would have been be excluded under these guidelines?
You could figure out Standard 1 fairly easily, but the rest would be tough without extensive research. You might often be able to identify women by first name, but not always, and you couldn’t identify most African Americans by just names as listed in credits. And before recent decades few if any movies would have qualified on Standard 3.
Love that.
My Dinner With Eric Andre
Das Boot would fail miserably. All 9 hours of it. 
Even a sausage fest like Das Boot did have a couple of (small) female roles, and a few of the creative directors were women. (Not enough to qualify, though.)
Probably lots. But that’s the point, of course. It would take minimal adjustment to fit, and now they have motivation to do so. And if they don’t qualify, oh well, no awards. You can still make your movie, just no gong for you. But then, you also wouldn’t get an Oscar if David Spade was in the cast.
I don’t think “Lawrence of Arabia” would qualify, either. It’s been a long time since I saw it, but I don’t remember seeing a single woman in that whole 4-hour epic.
There are some women on the cathedral steps in the funeral scene, but I don’t think any of them speak. See at 3:03 here:
However, it could qualify on the basis of featuring an LGBTQ person. Lawrence was widely suspected of being homosexual (although he may have been asexual). The film hints at his relationship with his teenage male servants Farraj and Daud, and also his homosexual rape when taken prisoner by the Turks. If it were made today no doubt these hints would be made more explicit.
Has anyone opposed to this new rule actually read it?
Plenty of non-White actors in that one - including main character actors Sharif (Egyptian) and Quinn (Eskimo)
ETA: that last one is a joke. Quinn was actually Latino.
It’s probably not that difficult to meet two of the standards anyway but the whole idea of creating quantitative criteria for roles/storylines to qualify for an award strikes me as silly. No one should take the Oscars seriously anyway and now there is even less reason to do so.
However, Quinn did play an Eskimo in The Savage Innocents,, probably the source of Dylan’s reference.
Realistically, if Lawrence of Arabia were made today, some of the Arab or Turkish roles would be played by actors of the right ethnicity. That a movie made over fifty years ago with many non-white roles is full of white actors is irrelevant.
More likely the song The Mighty Quinn. He’s an Eskimo. I do remember the movie, but I think the song is more well known.
I know - well, he played an Inuit, at any rate. But the catchy tune made for a better link…
I think you missed my link