This will in no way be controversial https://twitter.com/variety/status/1303494579761459200

What’s interesting, if you read it, is that the first is the most radical because it affects casting and subject matter of films...

...so that’ll take all the heat...

...but the later provisions are hilariously undercutting, because they give wiggle room in hilarious ways!

So: to be eligible for Best Picture (this doesn't affect any other Oscar nominations; wait a few years for that), a movie must meet TWO out of FOUR standards for inclusion.

Standard A: cast and subject matter
Standard B: creative leadership and project team
Standard C: training opportunities
Standard D: marketing, publicity, and distribution staff

Standard A has three ways to qualify:
A1: a lead or major supporting actor is not white
A2: at least 30% of supporting cast from at least 2 of: women, minorities, LGBTQ+, or disabled (including deafness and cognitive disabilities)
A3: the movie is about people listed in A2

(I am honestly not quite sure if A2 requires supporting cast to be, say, minority women, or if a movie can have a 30% supporting cast of all black men and qualify.)

To pass Standard B, you must have ONE of:
B1. At least two creative leadership/department heads must be from a group listed in A2
B2. At least 6 key crew/tech positions must be minorities (e.g. Gaffer, Script Supervisor)
B3. At least 30% of crew must from a group listed in A2

To pass Standard C, you must have BOTH:
C1. Paid apprenticeships or internships in listed departments in the film's distribution or financing company (including major studios) for people in groups listed in A2
C2. Crew training and jobs for people in groups listed in A2

To pass Standard D, your studio or film company must have:
D1. Multiple in-house senior executives from people in groups listed in A2 on their marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams.

This is actually a really interesting standard, because Hollywood being Hollywood you have to take a minute and figure out how people are going to try to game it.

Because they *will* try to game it, and the results will be interesting.

For example: the easiest way to pass A is to cast a supporting actor who happens to be a minority, which many movies already do anyway. The biggest change there is that minority actors stuck at this career level may get somewhat more important roles.

B is the easiest standard to pass: two women or two gay people or two minorities or two people with disabilities in department head jobs.

Not that there aren't already any stereotypical pigeonholings of any of these jobs, like oh say costume designer or editor.

C and D are the most interesting. They're also the least front-facing, the easiest to acquire, and the farthest reaching.

They're the ones requiring apprenticeship and job trainings in both the technical (crew) aspects and business aspects of filmmaking.

And guess what: if you're a major studio who implements both C & D -- which will, in decades to come, have quite a big impact on who has work in making, selling, and distributing movies -- you can forget A & B because every movie you make automatically qualifies for Best PIcture.

Pretty sure that's the selling point the folks advancing this change for the Oscars are hoping people will use in boardrooms. It doesn't look like you're changing anything -- but it's potentially changing your talent pool quite a bit!

This is basically creating a mechanism to put different people in charge of studios a decade or two from now, who will then make different kinds of decisions about what gets made and who gets to make it. It's essentially a change in succession policy.

Reactions -- there will be a variety -- should be interesting.

Belated and possibly devastating addition from the perspective of Hollywood gossip columnists: this is going to push studios from having an incentive to tell their actors to stay in the closet to having an incentive to tell their actors to come out!