New Academy Rules

[Greg]

. . . Especially if we use the standard of, say, 1975 (maybe the best roster ever). . .

The one thing that could have improved the roster is replacing Barry Lyndon with Amarcord.

[Mister Tee]

The tricky thing is balancing A) What deserved a nomination? vs B) What would they have given it to? Like, 1999 leaps to mind instantly, as it should have, but for all we know the sixth nominee was The Hurricane. At five nominees, the Academy embarrassed themselves in The Great 1999.

1962 and, I'd say, 1969 were similar, in having so many impressive options that you can't believe how many stinkers got on the ballot instead. But that was always part of the game. (The saving grace in each of those three years was that, none of the stinkers won -- though I know some disagree about 1999.)

That said, I think 1997 would have featured a very respectable group of ten nominees. And even if there were bound to be some I didn’t like or love, 2001 and 2008 probably warranted an expanded roster. And I certainly thin 2012 and 2019 did and in retrospect certainly 1993.

Of course, it's not as if you can't find individual years where there were enough strong candidates to fill a wider slate. (2013, 1991, 1988, 1979, beyond those you mention.) But, prior to 2009, everyone understood there were only five slots, and it made the achievement of securing one of those slots more prestigious. If you miss a field of 10, only a niche group is going to care.

Because you're not a baseball fan, you probably don't appreciate the baseball analogy, but, from the establishment of the major leagues until 1995, you had to win your league or division to get to the post-season; suddenly, the Wild Card meant some deserving runners-up also got to compete (which retroactively would have eliminated some legendary pennant races fans savor to this day). Bob Costas put it in a way that resonated for me: "The Wild Card is for people who think Casablanca would be a better movie with two Ingrid Bergmans, one to stay by Paul Henreid's side and the other to go off with Bogart."

It just all feels part of the participation-trophy culture: let's make more people feel like they're special, too, instead of trying to truly award excellence.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote

Sabin wrote
And let's be honest: how many years over the last ten years have there really been ten movies that come close to deserving to be nominated?

Go bigger. How many times in all Oscar history? Especially if we use the standard of, say, 1975 (maybe the best roster ever), or even 1974, where 4-of-5 met a high bar. Some of the years in the 50s approach laughibility as is; expand to 10 and they're ludicrous.

The tricky thing is balancing A) What deserved a nomination? vs B) What would they have given it to? Like, 1999 leaps to mind instantly, as it should have, but for all we know the sixth nominee was The Hurricane. At five nominees, the Academy embarrassed themselves in The Great 1999 with The Cider House Rules and The Green Mile. That said, I think 1997 would have featured a very respectable group of ten nominees. And even if there were bound to be some I didn’t like or love, 2001 and 2008 probably warranted an expanded roster. And I certainly thin 2012 and 2019 did and in retrospect certainly 1993.

[danfrank]

But, hey, I'm an old fart who still thinks the Wild Card in baseball wrecked the game.

I’m with you, though the true ruination of the game was the DH! And don’t get me started on the automatic man on second in extra innings!

As for the certain 10 nominees, it further erodes the prestige of the awards.

[Mister Tee]

Other films that might not have made the cut: American Sniper, Mad Max: Fury Road, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther, Little Women...

Don't forget Selma. Duvernay's film barely cracking the best picture list was the only thing that stopped an 8-level controversy zooming to 11.

And let's be honest: how many years over the last ten years have there really been ten movies that come close to deserving to be nominated?

Go bigger. How many times in all Oscar history? Especially if we use the standard of, say, 1975 (maybe the best roster ever), or even 1974, where 4-of-5 met a high bar. Some of the years in the 50s approach laughibility as is; expand to 10 and they're ludicrous.

Of course, I say this as someone who's never worshiped at the shrine of 1939 (Dark Victory and Love Affair are fun movies, but the world would have gone on just fine if they were merely acting contenders). As for the other years in the '36-'43 expansion, Oscar completists know the pain of enduring Three Smart Girls, Test Pilot, Alexander's Ragtime Band, All This and Heaven Too, One Foot in Heaven (that one especially smarts), Wake Island, Madame Curie...

There are movies from the 70s that didn't get best picture-nominated which are held in high regard today: McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Mean Streets, Badlands, Days of Heaven; others that got acting/writing nods but didn't quite make it in the big category: Women in Love, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Paper Moon, Shampoo. No one thought these films were besmirched by not making the best picture list. People argued about them (don't get me started on the late-in-decade Manhattan). But no one said we needed to change the rules to make sure they got in. But that's pretty much the argument today.

[Sabin]

The only good thing that the expansion has done is it has prophetically diminished vitriol over exclusions. I'm not sure that Inception would have been nominated in 2010 considering its lack of a Director and Film Editing nomination. Other films that might not have made the cut: American Sniper, Mad Max: Fury Road, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther, Little Women... put aside whether or not they deserve the nominations, a conversation about Little Women missing out on a Best Director nomination is different from Best Picture. The expansion of the roster has made it easier for the Academy to show that they care about the things that they want to be seen as caring about (popular films, social justice films, patriotic films) while more often than not voting for the movie about themselves. The expansion of the lineup is just cover.

But spotlighting the occasional blockbuster hasn't brought in new viewership. You can say that it possibly helped it from getting lower or cancelled. But I don't buy it. By spotlight smaller movies and helped them get a little bump. But considering we're moving into a new era where everything is streaming... is it as essential to spotlight a struggling little Netflix or HBO Max movie? And let's be honest: how many years over the last ten years have there really been ten movies that come close to deserving to be nominated?

[Mister Tee]

I, of course, would go back to five in a millisecond, because, you know -- you kids get off my lawn. But, no: we need to make sure there's room for more Bohemian Rhapso0dy's and The Blind Side's.

I would argue that having the occasional Bohemian Rhapsody or Blind Side is the price I would be willing to pay to see films like Amour, The Tree of Life, Call Me By Your Name, Room, Phantom Thread, etc. become Best Picture nominees.

In the old days, three of those would have been classic lone directors, which was a position of prestige in the minds of all true Oscar connoisseurs.

Upgrading films to best picture nominees by changing the rules/making it easier for them to qualify doesn't strike me as honoring their achievement; it's saying they need a handicap to get that far. It's borderline insulting.

But, hey, I'm an old fart who still thinks the Wild Card in baseball wrecked the game.

[anonymous1980]

I, of course, would go back to five in a millisecond, because, you know -- you kids get off my lawn. But, no: we need to make sure there's room for more Bohemian Rhapso0dy's and The Blind Side's.

I would argue that having the occasional Bohemian Rhapsody or Blind Side is the price I would be willing to pay to see films like Amour, The Tree of Life, Call Me By Your Name, Room, Phantom Thread, etc. become Best Picture nominees.

[OscarGuy]

I would argue that the expansion gave more opportunities for smaller films than it did blockbusters. Plus, in those years where there weren't a set 10, the films many of you would argue shouldn't have been nominated still were whereas several well respected/reviewed films were boxed out. I think that many of those films (like One Night in Miami, The Farewell, If Beale Street Could Talk, I Tonya, Carol, Nightcrawler, Inside Llewyn Davis, The Master, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) would have made it into a 10-wide field rather than a variable, so I feel this move (since we knew they weren't going to go back to 5) is a major benefit to smaller films than it is to the Blind Sides and Extremely Louds and Bohemian Rhapsodies of the world.

[Reza]

I prefer five per year, but I like a fixed number so I am OK with this previously announced change to ten per year instead of this numbers game they've been playing.

I agree. 5 or 10 are both fine as long as they don't come up with ridiculous numbers like 8 or 9.

[Mister Tee]

The up-to-ten thing seemed to be working better -- the years where there were only 8 seemed consistently the lesser vintages -- but it did mostly box out the strictly commercial efforts, and, since that was the whole damn point of this cheapen-the-brand effort, it was inevitable it would be scratched.

I, of course, would go back to five in a millisecond, because, you know -- you kids get off my lawn. But, no: we need to make sure there's room for more Bohemian Rhapso0dy's and The Blind Side's.

[gunnar]

I was okay with the variable number between 5 and 10 films, but given the choice of 5 or 10 films for Best Picture, I prefer the expanded field of 10 films. I think keeping the rest of the categories at 5 films (or fewer on occasion) is good, but is a bit too limiting for Best Picture.

[Big Magilla]

I prefer five per year, but I like a fixed number so I am OK with this previously announced change to ten per year instead of this numbers game they've been playing.

[anonymous1980]

TEN MOVIES A YEAR! They're moving in the wrong direction.

I disagree. I've grown to like the expanded list. I like that it's now a fixed 10.

[Sabin]

TEN MOVIES A YEAR! They're moving in the wrong direction.


https://deadline.com/2021/06/oscars-cha ... 234784121/

Rules and regulations for the 94th annual Oscars have been approved by the AMPAS board of governors and were released Wednesday morning. As previously announced, most of the pandemic-related changes instituted last year — including loosening requirements of eligibility for streaming and VOD movies — will remain intact for the shortened 2021 year, which includes films released between March 1-December 31, 2021.

The Academy again reemphasizes it intends to address the whole issue of eligibility and qualifying requirements and possible expansion for the 95th awards at a later date.

For films that open in theaters, the six qualifying U.S. metropolitan areas are Los Angeles County, the City of New York, the Bay Area, Chicago, Miami and Atlanta, and apply to General Entry categories as well as the Documentary and Short Film categories.

AMPAS requirements differ from the Directors Guild of America, which Tuesday said its DGA Awards are returning to a requirement of first having a seven-day theatrical run (that means in theatres) in advance of exhibition in any other form (streaming, VOD, etc.) in order to be eligible to compete for their top directing honors in motion pictures. The DGA, sticking to the same 10-month period as Oscars and other 2021 awards, did make an exception for films already released between March 1-June 15. All others going forward must comply with the theatrical requirement.

The Oscars, on the other hand is fine once again for this year with a day-and-date release, or strictly on the other approved platforms, since it believes exhibition remains significantly impacted by the pandemic.

Also as previously announced, the Oscars are returning to a set number of 10 nominees for Best Picture, rather than the recent rule that between five and 10 films could be nominated depending on vote totals. This is clearly in hopes of getting more popular crowd-pleasers in contention and hopefully helping dwindling ratings that hit an all-time low for the April 25 Oscarcast on ABC (admittedly severely impacted by Covid considerations and theaters being closed all year for the most part). By the way, although not mentioned in today’s release or in the actual rules document, the Academy Inclusion Standards form kicks into action with the 94th Oscars and will be required as part of the submissions process, but still not go into actual working effect until the 96th awards. This of course is all about meeting certain standards of diversity in the actual making of Best Picture contenders.

Tweaks to the rules also include a significant change in the Music branch, where now only 35% of total music in a film is necessary to be eligible, down from 60%. Also, for Original Song, no more than five tunes from a single film can now be entered for consideration. For the Sound award, which last year was reduced from two to one category combining mixing and editing, there will now be a preliminary round of voting to get a shortlist of 10 films, along with a bakeoff-style presentation similar to that used in some other branches.

The Academy board also agreed to expand the shortlist of contenders for Documentary Short, Animated Short and Live Action Short from 10 to 15 films.