The Academy issued restrictive changes to Oscar ballots on Monday, and they are meaningless.
To summarize, the Academy’s Board of Governors approved several changes to the awards. Most notably, every voter now has a compulsory obligation to actually watch every nomination.
Upon first glance, this seems like a brain-dead, obvious solution to the age-old issue with award ceremonies: were all entries given a fair shake?
Truthfully, the answer will always be no. As with the rest of the Academy, watching nominations is reported on an honors system, meaning a simple way around the new regulation is to be dishonest, and Hollywood is never dishonest.
In all seriousness though, at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Films that lack big actors or campaigns catch fewer eyes. As do pictures that feature minorities or underrepresented issues.
That should be what this change really represents: equity.
We’re all aware of the stereotypical industry mogul, and there’s nothing wrong with changing that. However, the likelihood of that happening through an awards show is unlikely.
There is no objective truth in award voting. Regardless of whether they’ve seen every film or performance, people are going to vote for who they want to win. There is no way to homogenize opinions and morals, and subsequently, no way to regulate ballots.
It’s not fair, but nothing is. An old adage comes to mind; there are only three types of fair: county, state and world.
Working hard for something and not receiving the recognition you feel you deserve is heartbreaking. Losers ought to feel like losers, and at the same time, should look for intrinsic motivation—for example, a love for film or pride in their work or some odd millions of dollars.
The aforementioned reworks won’t fundamentally change anything, but they will make people feel better about losing while giving new works and professionals a chance.
Are hype awards real? Oscars think so
The Academy issued restrictive changes to Oscar ballots on Monday, and they are meaningless.
To summarize, the Academy’s Board of Governors approved several changes to the awards. Most notably, every voter now has a compulsory obligation to actually watch every nomination.
Upon first glance, this seems like a brain-dead, obvious solution to the age-old issue with award ceremonies: were all entries given a fair shake?
Truthfully, the answer will always be no. As with the rest of the Academy, watching nominations is reported on an honors system, meaning a simple way around the new regulation is to be dishonest, and Hollywood is never dishonest.
In all seriousness though, at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Films that lack big actors or campaigns catch fewer eyes. As do pictures that feature minorities or underrepresented issues.
That should be what this change really represents: equity.
We’re all aware of the stereotypical industry mogul, and there’s nothing wrong with changing that. However, the likelihood of that happening through an awards show is unlikely.
There is no objective truth in award voting. Regardless of whether they’ve seen every film or performance, people are going to vote for who they want to win. There is no way to homogenize opinions and morals, and subsequently, no way to regulate ballots.
It’s not fair, but nothing is. An old adage comes to mind; there are only three types of fair: county, state and world.
Working hard for something and not receiving the recognition you feel you deserve is heartbreaking. Losers ought to feel like losers, and at the same time, should look for intrinsic motivation—for example, a love for film or pride in their work or some odd millions of dollars.
The aforementioned reworks won’t fundamentally change anything, but they will make people feel better about losing while giving new works and professionals a chance.