Oscars have new rules for best picture in 2024

So - using a movie like Dunkirk as the example - the only way it could win an Oscar under such rules would be to use minority/women/LGBT as producers and staff (just about no women or non-white people in the British army at Dunkirk.)

OR the studio could have senior execs who are minority or female. And the movie can have minority or female interns. It really doesn’t look hard to meet these guidelines.

STANDARD 2: At least one of these three things must be true:

A. Two major creative leadership positions ( Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer ) must be women, from non white ethnic group, LGBTQ, or disabled, and one must be the ethnic group category.

B. Six other major positions are from the above noted groups, or

C. 30% of the entire crew is from the above noted groups.

Standard 3: Substantial internship or training opportunities must be offered to minority groups

Standard 4: Substantial representation from above mentioned groups in senior executive leadership in studio or film company.

As even the thread title says, the rules apply only to the Best Picture Oscar, so a movie like Dunkirk could win a pile of Oscars even if every actor, crew member and studio employee were white men. But they’re not. The rules are not that difficult to meet today.

Please, please, please, read the new requirements before commenting. You clearly did not, and so are wrong twice over:

  1. “Twelve Angry Men” could absolutely be considered for Best Picture even with an all white cast. Please read the requirements.

  2. Even if the other conditions were not met, these only apply to Best Picture. Not any of the other 23 Oscar categories.

Thank you for making it clear that a movie like Dunkirk absolutely could win Best Picture. (For one thing, it had a female co-producer, Emma Thomas)

So these rules are essentially worthless. It’s all virtue signalling.

There are no movies you can think of which would fail this test that would be within a light year of getting an Oscar nomination.

Almost certainly, nobody in this thread is in a position to know if any specific movie passes these criteria. 12 Angry Men didn’t pass the first. Probably didn’t pass the one about having a minority intern outreach program. The others? I don’t know the race of anyone involved in the film who wasn’t on screen or the director. I wouldn’t be surprised, given the time it was made, if the film made in 1957 would have failed to pass these criteria. The point is, that could have been corrected without changing anything about the film you actually ended up seeing. That doesn’t make this rule change “worthless” - equality of opportunity behind the camera is important, too.

I would be interested to see a list of movies that had been nominated for “Best Picture” (which this rule only seems to cover) that would not meet their new criteria.

The more we talk about this the more it seems the Academy carefully crafted a nothing-burger of rules aimed to make them look cool and progressive without actually doing anything at all.

Anyone remember Keeping Up With The Joneses, starring Zach Galifianakis and Jon Hamm? The one with Isla Fisher as Zach’s wife, and fourth-billed Gal Gadot as Jon’s?

Would that, right there, pass A1? Gadot’s role is, I’d think, ‘leading’ or ‘significant supporting’; so my question is, is Israel MENA?

Again, ahistorical bullshit.

Israel is in the MENA, but what’s that got to do with rule 1A (which I take it you meant by “A1”)?

Per the site,

Leaving aside that it’s listed as A1 rather than 1A, I’m asking whether Gal Gadot qualifies under the bit where — well, see, the entry just above Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander? That one right there.

Regarding 12 Angry Men, a potential remake could have an all-white, all-male jury and still qualify. Recall that there are actually thirteen characters, including the baliff who periodically visits the jury room to deliver transcripts and evidence. Just cast a black lesbian transgender handicapped person in that role, and you’re golden.


I actualy run into that problem often if a link is in a block of text. Something about how the color render on my screen and my eyesight make it easier to miss the difference in the colors. (e.g. I barely can see that @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper’s most recent post contains a link) It’s why I’ve been manually underlining my links in those situations.

If anyone else has problems, I might suggest it be changed in the skin(s). Otherwise, it may finally be my first userscript for the new site to just add underlining.


I agree with everyone else about the rules, and I think I’m going to enjoy seeing who gets upset about them. They really are the bare minimum one would expect.

And I’m very much anticipating an “article” whining about all the old ones that wouldn’t qualify–which I would actually find interesting anyways.

This is my feeling as well. A lot of the comments here seem to say that most movies meet the criteria already or could meet them with just a trivial amount of tweaking. If that’s the case, then it seems like the criteria is more for show than for really affecting social change.

I still don’t see why Rule 1c. requires a single cast member to be anything but a ‘white man’.

Aah, sorry, I was going by RickJay’s summary numbering.

Anyway, I think the main part of the rule supercedes the individual lists, and I think you’ll struggle to argue that Ashkenazi Jews are “an underrepresented racial or ethnic group” in Hollywood.

Let’s be real here - by “Middle Eastern/North African” they mean Arab and related ethnicities, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It’s exactly the same level of “cleverness” as saying Charlize Theron is an “African actress.”

Maybe promoting social justice is a way to promote the art of film making.

The Academy is there to promote the image of the film-making industry. It does that by promoting quality in motion pictures, but it can also promote it by advancing social justice within the industry. The Academy threw out Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Roman Polanski, not because they made bad movies, but because they damaged the image of the industry.

How relevant is the Academy to anyone’s choice in what movies to watch these days?