Academy Awards Best Picture - Know These New Rules Before You Start Production

[DLD]

This is not a personal bias confirmation, it's a business analysis. And I'm not saying that DeSantis is Satan, I'm just saying that always doing whatever is best for business may sometimes clash with one's principles.

The business of politicians is not making money but making votes, i.e., playing to their base. And to borrow a line from a politician more accomplish on the national stage, "the business of America is business". Florida may lose some PC employers but Disney is the one that's really bleeding money in 2023. Florida is experiencing a record amount of tourism, while Disney - an international leisure and recreation company - is suffering in its economic outlook. Meanwhile California is heading in the opposite direction. As is Disney.

[Doug Bee]

You're very diligent in finding your personal bias confirmations.

Just as diligent as you are at confirming yours.

[ahalpert]

Just as diligent as you are at confirming yours.

I was going to say that claiming all statistics are fake is a great way to never challenge your prior assumptions

[ahalpert]

The business of politicians is not making money but making votes, i.e., playing to their base. And to borrow a line from a politician more accomplish on the national stage, "the business of America is business". Florida may lose some PC employers but Disney is the one that's really bleeding money in 2023. Florida is experiencing a record amount of tourism, while Disney - an international leisure and recreation company - is suffering in its economic outlook. Meanwhile California is heading in the opposite direction. As is Disney.

I waa principally interested in Disney's political stance not as a business move. I mean, by your logic we should have done nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. We're blowing tons of money on it, damaging our trade relationships, and weighing on the global economy with sanctions, etc.

Disney Parks revenue increased 17% in the most recent quarter. It's their linear TV and streaming segments that are facing headwinds. You're just aggressively wrong.

• Disney's streaming losses narrowed during the fiscal second quarter, as price increases helped offset the loss of subscribers at Disney+.
• The company posted revenue and profit in line with Wall Street's projections.
• Disney reported significant growth at its theme parks during its second fiscal quarter. However, its linear TV unit struggled.

• https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/disn...t-q2-2023.html

[drboffa]

You know what would really help diversity and inclusion in the film industry?

Paying people fairly and promptly, as groups like the WGA are requesting.

[DLD]

I waa principally interested in Disney's political stance not as a business move. I mean, by your logic we should have done nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. We're blowing tons of money on it, damaging our trade relationships, and weighing on the global economy with sanctions, etc.

As I have mentioned before, Russia was aided and abetted for 20 years by Germany. Merkel still doesn't admit to choosing a "deal with the devil". (Scholz and von der Layen, each of whom worked in Merkel's administration, have reversed the German politics with regard to the energy, Russia and the military). The US role in the war is marginal, only to the extent that it teaches China a valuable lesson and hopefully prevents similar events in the near future.

As to Disney's numbers, it supports my other point about you being diligent in finding statistics and opinions that support your point of view. Disney is doing better than in the Covid years. I am shocked.

[ahalpert]

As I have mentioned before, Russia was aided and abetted for 20 years by Germany. Merkel still doesn't admit to choosing a "deal with the devil". (Scholz and von der Layen, each of whom worked in Merkel's administration, have reversed the German politics with regard to the energy, Russia and the military). The US role in the war is marginal, only to the extent that it teaches China a valuable lesson and hopefully prevents similar events in the near future.

As to Disney's numbers, it supports my other point about you being diligent in finding statistics and opinions that support your point of view. Disney is doing better than in the Covid years. I am shocked.

Disney and Disney parks are doing better than they were pre-covid, which you would know if you ever bothered to look anything up

Screenshot_20230521_195231_Chrome.jpg
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...disney/revenue

Screenshot_20230521_195415_Chrome.jpg
https://disneynews.us/disney-revenue-statistics/

What you said about US in Ukraine completely dodges my point about sacrificing profits for principles, but that's par for the course.

[epsom salt]

Just a heads up racism against white people is still in fact racism. I'm guessing some will probably argue that white people deserve it, or that in this one case, it's helpful to some lofty goal... but it is still by definition racism no matter how it is justified or framed.

[ahalpert]

Just a heads up racism against white people is still in fact racism. I'm guessing some will probably argue that white people deserve it, or that in this one case, it's helpful to some lofty goal... but it is still by definition racism no matter how it is justified or framed.

This seems like saying you're not allowed to exclude non-white people. Rather than you must exclude white people. A production with 70% white people is still pretty white. (And it will probably be whiter than that since white women and white gay people count towards the 30% minority representation.) I think it's hard to argue that this policy is exclusionary towards white people.

[Tom Roper]

Every single person that has been excluded by a quota has been singled out for exclusion.

[ahalpert]

Every single person that has been excluded by a quota has been singled out for exclusion.

So, if a crew is 100% straight white guys, you don't think that's indicative of a de facto exclusionary policy?

[Tom Roper]

The Academy can make its own rules for awards eligibility, but you can't argue they are not exclusionary. You have said it is hard to argue that such policies are exclusionary but it is very easy to see, particularly self evident to every person singled out because of it.

[ahalpert]

The Academy can make its own rules for awards eligibility, but you can't argue they are not exclusionary. You have said it is hard to argue that such policies are exclusionary but it is very easy to see, particularly self evident to every person singled out because of it.

Nobody is singled out by a policy like this because nobody is forbidden from working on the production by this rule. They just didn't make the cut. You might as well say that a company that refuses to hire me is singling me out for exclusion.

In the absence of a policy like this, an exclusively straight while male production is permitted. If you're running a large production and it's staffed by 100% straight white men, I think that's a much stronger indication that you're excluding people. There are plenty of female, gay, and non-white people with talent working in the industry. That's what this is all about. It's not that complicated and I expect it will have little if any actual bearing on staffing changes because most of the relevant film productions already meet these criteria. They're not that hard to meet.

[epsom salt]

This seems like saying you're not allowed to exclude non-white people. Rather than you must exclude white people. A production with 70% white people is still pretty white. (And it will probably be whiter than that since white women and white gay people count towards the 30% minority representation.) I think it's hard to argue that this policy is exclusionary towards white people.

Hah, "This seems like"? You're working extra hard to translate what is being demanded by the academy. They are literally now required to exclude white straight men. I don't understand how you can deny this explicitly stated fact just because it's directed at people you obviously think deserve it. It sets a very real precedent that producers not just can, but *must, hire based on race/sexual preference to even have their work considered. There are currently civil rights laws that say you're not allowed to hire or exclude anyone based on the color of skin and this does exactly that. You have no leg to stand on to argue otherwise.

Beyond that, I see you making claims, that "the requirements are not hard to meet", to which I'd say it's safe to assume you have very little experience in actually staffing a film. "Nobody is singled out by a policy like this because nobody is forbidden from working on the production by this rule", Wait what? They're literally required to exclude any straight white male, at a certain point, even when they make up the vast majority of the applicants for a position. Do you dispute this?

[Doug Bee]

They're literally required to exclude any straight white male

Or

If you want your film to qualify to be considered for an academy award, you need to meet a threshold that more closely reflects the true diversity of the world we live in.

No one is excluding anyone from doing anything. You're making that leap.

I'm pretty sure most films being made today already meet these low bar requirements already anyway.