Unfortunately, the Academy appears to be continuing their herding cats method of voting for contenders (five nomination slots for voters which results in a number between 5 and 10). But it does look like they’ve made some changes to expand other categories, at least in the early phases of voting. Here are their rules as such:
The Academy’s Board of Governors approved Oscars rules and campaign regulations for the 88th Academy Awards® at their most recent Board meeting (Tuesday night, 6/23).
In the Best Picture category, to qualify as a producer nominee for a nominated picture, the producer must have been determined eligible for a Producers Guild of America (PGA) award for the picture, or must have appealed the PGA’s refusal of such eligibility. Final determination of the qualifying producer nominees for each nominated picture will be made by the Academy’s Producers Branch Executive Committee.
In the Visual Effects category, the number of eligible films that will be initially shortlisted for further consideration has increased to a maximum of 20 titles. The number of films that will be shortlisted for nominations voting remains at 10.
In the Documentary Short Subject category, the number of films that will be shortlisted for nominations voting has increased from 8 to 10 titles. Instead of a possible three, four or five nominees, the number is now set at five.
In the Animated Short Film and Live Action Short Film categories, a film qualifying via a theatrical release must now have a theater run in Los Angeles County for at least seven consecutive days with at least one screening per day. The film also must appear in the theater listings along with the appropriate dates and screening times. In both categories, the number of nominees is now set at five.
Other amendments to the rules include standard date changes and other “housekeeping” adjustments.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
“but which big budget films that should have gotten the big awards/nominations (picture, director, screenplay, acting) that were snubbed?”
Just to start… let’s take Pixar’s resumée:
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Monsters Inc.
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
WALL-E
All of them were much better reviewed films than at least two of the films nominated for Best Picture in their years… sometimes they are even the best reviewed of the year. Should all have been nominated in 5 slots.
“I use ‘prestige’ to describe a level of quality that’s immediately apparent to many people. Merit that can be instantly recognized.” Sure, I understand. 🙂
Yeah, I feel that some films have immediate prestige (beyond the ones you mentioned) like 12 Years a Slave and Boyhood. These films didn’t have big budgets, so they were probably first thought of as “arthouse” pics. But Inception for instance was quickly thought of as both a big budget film and a prestige film. That one has stood the test of time for sure so far.
Al, I guess, for me, I use ‘prestige’ to describe a level of quality that’s immediately apparent to many people. Merit that can be instantly recognized.
For you, that’s perhaps different than testing to see if that prestige stands the test of time —
but to describe those movie that hold their value after many years, I would use words like ‘esteem’ or ‘stature’ — words that factor in proof of enduring respect.
the way I define things, a movie can aspire to prestige before it’s even finished, and judgement on whether or not it met that aspiration can be made right away.
Examples, for me of movies that had immediate prestige: Lincoln, Life of Pi, The Lord of the Rings
(notice I’m choosing expensive movies that made a ton of money)
Examples of undeniably popular movies that took time to rise in esteem: Jaws, The Matrix, Terminator 2
(notice I’m choosing movies that were created to be funtime popcorn thrillride movies, and then enduring respect for their artistry came along after all the money was counted.)
Oscar voters do a pretty good job of recognizing immediate prestige. They don’t do so well trying to guess which popular blockbusters are going to be regarded as esteemed classics years later.
Popular movies that have prestige. Sounds like a trick. Haha!
Question I pose is, can a new movie (3 years old or younger) have prestige? I say no.
I think the minimum time for a movie to truly gain prestige is at least 7 to 10 years.
“Excellent question. There are some good answers, but I’ll sit this one out and let the rest of you name worthy candidates.”
Just looking at last year, you can’t convince me that Birdman, Whiplash or Theory of Everything were better crafted, more thoughtful, or more insightful – or more entertaining – than Snowpiercer, Godzilla or even Winter Soldier.
Redmayne’s brilliance aside, the only thing the former had over the latter was some scenery chewing that the actors’ branch adores. They were not better films.
Great shout-outs above me for Star Trek in 2009 (which hit many of the big Guilds) and the last Harry Potter(s) (which received fantastic reviews. They should have received an acting nom and/or writing, as well. imo
Lets see. In recent times …
2008 – The Dark Knight. WALL-E.
2012 – Skyfall. Great reviews. Nods for Director, supp. actor, supp. actress, writing would have made sense.
2014 – Guardians of the Galaxy. Very positive reviews. Nod for Writing to go along with Picture and a few techs.
Just to name a few for now. 🙂
Steven Kane,
I am so glad you mentioned the supporting actor snub for Javier Bardem in “Skyfall” a couple years ago. He was amazing in that movie. Truly creepy. I can’t think of another actor who would have done that role as much justice.
Also, I was surprised that the last segment of the Harry Potter franchise wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. It was a big blockbuster, but more than that it was an epic with truly more adult themes than the previous HP films. It really blew me away. And I was certain it would get nominated for Best Picture. But even BAFTA (and it was a British film, for Christ’s sake) ignored it in their nominations. I couldn’t figure it out at the time. And I still can’t.
Ryan, please. You know you want in on this action. But I’ll go first. Should have been nominated…
The Dark Knight (even though it had acting) – picture, director, adapted screenplay
The Empire Strikes Back – maybe picture
Harry Potter pt 8 – maybe picture
Star Trek (new one) – maybe adapted screenplay
Skyfall – supporting actor
The Matrix – original screenplay
Out of all of them I’d say The Dark Knight is the only one that was absolutely snubbed. Maybe The Matrix too.
but which big budget films that should have gotten the big awards/nominations (picture, director, screenplay, acting) that were snubbed?
Excellent question. There are some good answers, but I’ll sit this one out and let the rest of you name worthy candidates.
If a blockbuster wants to be at the Oscars then it has to show more than just the money on display.
1000 times this.
Nothing wrong with big expensive movies that make lots of money getting Oscar recognition — as ling as they’re done as brilliantly as the smaller, less expensive award-winning films that fewer people pay to see.
John, I’m there with you but which big budget films that should have gotten the big awards/nominations (picture, director, screenplay, acting) that were snubbed? Avatar, Gravity, LOTR all went to the big show and justifiably so. If a blockbuster wants to be at the Oscars then it has to show more than just the money on display. Money do not maketh prestige.
Im great with small, but excellent art house movies making a splash with nominations and accumulating what they can with the box office based on buzz/word of mouth. Love it. But I also feel that there are big budget, major $$ grossing movies that miss the Best Picture cut every year that absolutely deserve slot(s) there. I wish there could be a healthy balance; something that a committee could decide once the final vote tallies come in.
Benutty, I’m glad you clarified because I figured you’d be savvy enough to know when a director does deserve producer credit. I go back and forth on O. Russell but I get why others don’t like him.
Jesus H. Christmas…not this whole “box office EQUALS awards success” bullshit. Paul…stop. Maybe go to Hollywood Reporter. You won’t convince anybody on this site.
re: Ryan’s “I’m tired of David O Russell sneaking onto the premises, altogether. Period.”
yeah, this is generally my concern. Right-o that some directors legit deserve producer credits, I don’t want to insinuate that they don’t. Rather I was just being cheeky about my dislike of DOR.
voters like to feel fancy and better than everyone else that’s why they go with what appears first at the proper hoity toity festivals.
Inside Out has the hoity toity thing covered by premiering at Cannes.
I’d also look sideways at the theory that Oscar voters flock to film festivals. That’s not the impression I get.
Well as I was watching INSIDE OUT today and wondering if it could be the One, I wondered about the film festivals thing. What if INSIDE OUT suffers from being an actual movie that real people got to see the same time as the important folks more than being crippled by being an animated movie. It’s clear that voters like to feel fancy and better than everyone else that’s why they go with what appears first at the proper hoity toity festivals. So can any wide release film make it, let alone an animated one?
I’m down for it being a solid ten, but I’d really like for them to expand the acting categories to six. There is always one solid performance that gets squeezed out.
We were talking about All Quiet on the Western Front yesterday.
1930 was the first time Universal Studios ever got nominated for any Oscars, much less win one. Carl Laemmle bet the farm trying to see if he could win the Academy’s affection. It cost $1.4 million for him to find out. (In re-release over the years, All Quiet eventually scraped together a profit.) It was a risky venture and Laemmle decided it wasn’t worth the stress.
The following year Universal decided to say “fuck the Oscars” and focused instead on little movies… little inexpensive movies like Dracula and Frankenstein.
Dracula cost Universal $300k and resulted in a franchise and merchandising that has earned countless billions.
Frankenstein cost $262k and earned 12 million worldwide — in 1931 alone.
(In today’s dollars that would be a budget of $3.7 million and earnings of $187 million.)
How long before Universal would win another Oscar for Best Picture? 43 years. 1973, The Sting.
Universal didn’t crash and burn for barely breaking even on its 1930 Oscar bid. And Universal did not need to chase the Oscars in order to become one of the most reliably profitable and provocative and fascinating studios in movie history.
Any relationship between studio creative importance and the Oscars is this: Dubious.
Any relationship between studio prestige and the Oscars is this: Negligible.
Any relationship between studio success and the Oscars is this: Nonexistent.
I, for one, am happy with this announcement. I know Sasha was rooting for a clean ten BP nominees (and I would have preferred that too) but realistically, based upon all the murmurs when the Board of Governors met, the option on the table was moving it down to a clean five nominees or keeping the status quo of five-to-ten. Between those two choices, this is definitely the one I prefer.
The drop in BO haul you cite for last year’s noms would give any other industry death spasms and heads would roll.
Unless I had chosen another 2-year period at random and made the observation that the Best Picture cumulative box-office leaped from $600M in 2011 to $1 Billion a year later — a 66% annual increase in Oscar revenue that would have any other industry handing out $100 million in bonus checks 🙂
Hollywood executive suites don’t normally set up the guillotines on the basis of how much Best Picture winners earn. And never have. Not ever.
(looks like another one of those days when nobody can tell that I’m joking about stuff, so I’m gonna stay offline for a little while till I can get my wry mojo back.)
Correct, but I wouldn’t classify last year’s winners as arthouse fare, except for maybe Boyhood or Still Alice.
It’s the strip right down the middle between the arty films and the big-titted blockbusters, and this is where the Academy likes to hang out and be cool and compromising. That little strip seldom made buckets of money, but was respectable.
Not so much anymore because not as many people go thru the turnstile to watch those particular films. We, the masses, want the full experience that comes with the big blockbusters, many/most of which are getting smarter and more layered every year.
Oscar has to start to recognize craft-over-subject and would do well to start with the likes of, say, Fury Road this year.
The drop in BO haul you cite for last year’s noms would give any other industry death spasms and heads would roll.
The little arthouse fare will be with us forever. Same with the megahits; we’ll always make it a point to see both by any means necessary. It’s the mainstream fare that Oscar loves that’s probably in trouble. It’s become a “take-it-or-leave-it” prospect for audiences that is a financial drain facing serious competition from other media.
– “IF the Oscars continue to pander to the arthouse circuit…”
– I must have fallen asleep – when did that happen?
Maybe last year, when the combined box-office haul for the BP nominees plummeted from $1 billion in 2012 all the way down to $865 million in 2013? (that’s domestic, not worldwide).
Because of the Oscar voters turning their back on money, I don’t know how the Academy can afford to pay its cable bill.
“one person’s arthouse is another person’s outhouse.”
+1
and one person’s powerhouse is another’s person’s whorehouse.
don’t even get me started on clubhouse/bathhouse
“IF the Oscars continue to pander to the arthouse circuit…”
I must have fallen asleep – when did that happen?
Oscar panders to nobody – just their own specific, middlebrow sensibilities. That’s fine; that’s what it is. I’d love to see more winners from both ends of the spectrum.
I certainly wouldn’t call Birdman or Whiplash “arthouse”, though. I guess it’s all in the definition – one person’s arthouse is another person’s outhouse.
For me, I don’t care that much about the show itself. I watch the Academy Awards on tv only to find out who the winners are. The only part of the show I even really like is the opening monologue and when the winners are announced. I’d be just as happy if they got rid of it’s current style and just had a boring broadcast where they just announce the winner. The only thing Neil Patrick Harris did for (to me) was make me wait longer to hear the winner for Best Picture.
ratings have more to do with diversity and relevance of the nominees than the gross of the nominees itself.
remember that time the Oscars opened with an ass-kissing tribute to the piles of money American Sniper made and roughly 50 of those American Sniper fans tuned in on Oscar Night?
@ Paul Hanlin Jr
Let me tell you something… 12 Years a Slave’s win had more viewers and basically the same ratings that Avatar’s loss.
Oh… Bug Avatar lost… Well… It was never out of the race. Never. It lost but had a shot at winning.
Plus: one more time you are wrong about something. The lowest rated is No Country for Old Men. That grossed a lot more than The Hurt Locker, The Artist, 12YAS and Birdman.
As I always write here: ratings have more to do with diversity and relevance of the nominees than the gross of the nominees itself.
I’m disappointed with this decision, but I’m glad they finally made a ruling. Either way, they highlight 5, with more for bonus.
Paul Hanlin Jr
Some of us like to think the Oscars should mean more than trying to grab TV ratings one night of the year.
IF the Oscars continue to pander to the arthouse circuit, the ones seen only at film festivals and not much else, as Whiplash, Birdman and Boyhood, you’re going to keep getting 10% declines in total and demo ratings. The awards have to be a balance between the arthouse and the mainstream, but only if the mainstream hits are appreciated by fans and critics alike. The three lowest-rated Oscars are the ones who had the least # of people see the movies (Hurt Locker, 2009, The Artist, 2011 and Birdman).
Adapt or die, Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane said in Moneyball. Time for AMPAS to heed his words.
I’m tired of David O Russell sneaking onto the premises, altogether. Period. But let’s be careful not to suggest that every director in Oscar history who’s also been a primary producer of his or her own movie is “sneaking in” to grab an extra undeserved category. Many of these hyphenate filmmakers legitimately wear both hats.
Ah! I hadn’t even thought about how it might impact the directors tryign to sneak in!
For song, the rules say “The work must be created specifically for the eligible feature-length motion picture”, so it looks like shorts are out.
The future of Inside Out and Mad Max remains to be seen.
Speaking of rules – does anyone know if the song from Lava is eligible for original song or does the song have to be from a feature?
I hope the Producers/PGA rule is just a way of making sure David O. Russell is ineligible as a Producer for Joy. His slithering into as many categories as possible a year is getting old and increasingly more desperate with each new film.
Still Oscarless, Davey.
Glad they didn’t shrink best picture down to 5.
It’s interesting that they’ve “outsourced” the producers credits to the PGA. I haven’t done much research on them: Does the PGA have any strange qualifying rules that will lead to future outrage? Is this an attempt to keep studio executives from sneaking in as an executive producer?