You know, I was watching the Oscars with my niece last year, and she saw a director who looked like her win Best Picture. She didn't just clap—she sat up straight and said, "I could do that." That's what this mandate is really about. It's not about checking boxes; it's about breaking down these invisible walls that kept talent locked out for decades. Look at the numbers: before 2016, only about 8% of nominees were people of color. Now we're seeing 30-40% in recent years. That's not a coincidence—that's a system responding to pressure. Sure, some films might feel forced, but isn't that better than having no representation at all? The mandate's forcing studios to look beyond their usual circles, and that's bringing fresh stories to screen. We're getting better movies because of it, not worse ones.

Look, I hear you on the "organic growth" thing, but come on—how many decades were we supposed to wait? Before the mandate, the numbers barely budged for 50 years. That's not organic, that's a logjam. You're right that we need behind-the-camera changes too, but the mandate's already nudging that. Studios are diversifying their development slates because they know diverse films can actually win now. That's a domino effect. And this "tokenism" argument? It assumes diverse talent isn't already there, which just isn't true. Ava DuVernay, Chloé Zhao, Ryan Coogler—these aren't quota hires. They're brilliant filmmakers who finally got a shot because the system had to look beyond the usual suspects. Is it perfect? No. But it's moving the needle faster than "waiting patiently" ever did.