“Are there any films you still need to see?” – Variety
“No, I saw everything because I’m a member of the academy.” – Kirsten Dunst
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) has recently announced new regulations for the 98th Academy Awards, requiring members to watch all the nominated films before voting on the winners. Many moviegoers unfamiliar with how Oscar voting works were shocked—most assumed Academy members were already required to watch all the nominees before deciding who should win, that is, of course, if you don’t read anonymous Oscar ballots every year where there’s always an admittance here and there of a voter not watching all of the nominees but choosing to vote on a winner in the category anyway.
Unlike film festivals, where there are appointed juries to determine who walks away with a prize, the Academy has never required its voters to watch all nominated films. That’s because, while film festivals typically have a jury of ten or fewer people, the Academy has over ten thousand voting members. Logistically, organizing physical screenings where every member watches every nominated film in person is impossible.
In 2019, however, the Academy introduced the Academy Screening Room (ASR) ahead of the 2020 Oscars. It was intended to provide a platform where films could be viewed and hence nominated, especially for voters who hadn’t seen them at festivals or guild screenings. Still, not all Oscar-eligible films are made available on the ASR. With the new regulations, this will need to change—especially in how the ASR is utilized, how its requirements are synced with voting, and how the Academy deals with voters who haven’t watched the films.
1. Watching Films In The Academy Screening Room vs. Physical Screenings
The new regulations clarify that all members must watch the nominated films in a category before voting on a winner for that category. They’re not required to watch every film nominated at the Oscars to vote overall, but if they haven’t seen even one film in a category, they’re disqualified from voting in that particular category.
That said, voters are not obligated to watch the films via the ASR. If they’ve already seen the movie at a film festival or guild screening, they’re still allowed to vote—but they must submit a form confirming they’ve seen it. The exact format of this form is unclear, but a few logistical challenges emerge.
Three systems need to work together seamlessly:
- The Academy Screening Room (ASR),
- The declaration form for films watched outside the ASR and
- The official voting ballot.
Syncing the ASR with the ballot is relatively simple: the system can verify whether a voter has streamed a film on ASR before unlocking the option to vote for it. If a voter hasn’t watched Film A, then they shouldn’t be able to vote in any category where Film A is nominated.
But what if the voter saw the film in a guild screening?
There are two possible solutions:
First, voters could send the form separately to a dedicated email. An administrator would then manually verify the claim and unlock the relevant voting access. This system, however, is slow and inconvenient—especially considering that most voters wait until the last few days to cast their ballots.
Second, the form could be embedded directly into the ballot. This would be more efficient, but the verification process would still need to happen within one business day or less to avoid delays.
Mandating that voters watch films is a step in the right direction—but to be effective, the infrastructure supporting it needs to be thoughtfully designed and easy to navigate.
2. Considering Inclusivity In Certain Categories
The new Oscar regulations also show a growing emphasis on inclusivity. According to the official AMPAS rules:
“In the Best International Feature Film category, the eligibility requirement regarding creative control has been updated to include filmmakers with refugee or asylum status. The submitting country must confirm that creative control of the film was largely in the hands of citizens, residents, or individuals with refugee or asylum status in the submitting country.”
This is a welcome step forward. However, it’s worth noting that voters are not required to watch films before nominating them. This creates a situation where the nominated films are not always the most deserving—just the ones with the most significant buzz and probably have an expensive awards campaign behind them.
That’s especially problematic in the Best International Feature Film category. Each year, over 90 films are submitted. These are first narrowed to a shortlist of fifteen and eventually to the final five nominees. Unsurprisingly, the films most likely to be nominated are those backed by major distributors or have gained significant attention at prominent festivals prior to nomination voting, usually during Cannes or Venice.
Even though voters are required to watch films before determining the shortlist, there’s no guarantee they’ve watched all the submissions. Despite critical acclaim, films like “How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies” are rarely recognized.
There are several improvements that could level the playing field:
- Expanding the number of shortlisted films could allow more underrepresented titles a chance.
- In categories with shortlists (such as Best International Feature), voters should be required to watch all the shortlisted films before nominating.
- A dedicated curatorial committee could be formed to watch all the submissions and recommend a shortlist. This committee could also ensure alignment with the Academy’s inclusivity standards, helping smaller countries or lesser-known films compete on equal footing.
3. Those Who Don’t Intend To Watch The Films
A recent Variety article caused a stir when it revealed that many Oscar voters don’t actually watch the films. The current platform can track whether a film is streamed—but not whether a voter actually sits through it. Some reportedly press play, mute the audio, and switch tabs just to appear compliant.
This is, of course, difficult to police. But it raises serious questions about accountability.
One solution might be a comprehensive membership evaluation. The expectations have changed, and some members might feel, “This isn’t what I signed up for.” If that’s the case, the Academy should prioritize quality over quantity and prioritize members who are genuinely committed.
Another potential approach is implementing mandatory physical screenings similar to those at Cannes or Venice. All nominated films could be screened in dedicated sessions for Academy voters. That way, attendance can be verified, and the integrity of the vote maintained.
Conclusion
The Academy’s effort to reform the voting process is a long-overdue step toward credibility, transparency, and fairness. Requiring voters actually to watch the films they’re voting on shouldn’t be controversial, but implementing this requirement smoothly and equitably will be key. If done right, it could help restore trust among industry insiders and audiences worldwide.
What do you think of this new rule from the Academy? Do you think Oscar voters will be like Kirsten Dunst and watch all of the Oscar-nominated films or do you think they will cheat the system? Do you think it will have an impact on the kinds of winners produced? Please let us know in the comments section below or on Next Best Picture’s X account.
You can follow Reza and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @kelitikfilm
