WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.399 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We take all this 00:00:02.399 --> 00:00:05.580 dense stuff, you know, articles, history, even 00:00:05.580 --> 00:00:08.060 legal docs, and pull out what you really need 00:00:08.060 --> 00:00:09.960 to know. So you're instantly up to speed. Yeah, 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:14.039 exactly. And today we are going deep on the Academy 00:00:14.039 --> 00:00:17.179 Awards, the Oscars. That's right. We're peeling 00:00:17.179 --> 00:00:19.539 back the layers. Forget the red carpet for a 00:00:19.539 --> 00:00:21.600 minute. Forget the gold plating. Okay. We're 00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:23.820 digging into the history, which is honestly... 00:00:24.559 --> 00:00:26.539 Kind of surprising, almost secretive in parts. 00:00:26.719 --> 00:00:29.879 And the statue itself, that iconic Oscar, its 00:00:29.879 --> 00:00:32.359 legal status is fascinating. There's that whole 00:00:32.359 --> 00:00:34.759 $1 buyback thing we have to talk about. Right, 00:00:34.780 --> 00:00:37.280 the famous $1 rule. Yeah, and just the whole 00:00:37.280 --> 00:00:41.359 complex machine that decides who even gets considered, 00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:44.000 who gets nominated, who wins. It's really a story 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:46.479 about how artistic recognition turned into this 00:00:46.479 --> 00:00:49.539 massive high -stakes game in Hollywood. Marketing 00:00:49.539 --> 00:00:52.060 rules everything. Okay, let's start right at 00:00:52.060 --> 00:00:54.789 the beginning then. What are the Oscars? officially 00:00:54.789 --> 00:00:57.850 we know the name academy awards of merit presented 00:00:57.850 --> 00:01:00.869 by mpas right the academy of motion picture arts 00:01:00.869 --> 00:01:03.369 and sciences for artistic and technical merit 00:01:03.369 --> 00:01:05.450 everyone says they're the most prestigious but 00:01:05.450 --> 00:01:08.269 why what gives them that final word well a lot 00:01:08.269 --> 00:01:10.390 of it is just history they were first simple 00:01:10.390 --> 00:01:13.230 as that really first yeah the oldest worldwide 00:01:13.230 --> 00:01:15.969 entertainment awards show we're talking 1929 00:01:15.969 --> 00:01:19.769 and here's the kicker all those other big american 00:01:19.769 --> 00:01:24.069 awards you know the emmys for tv The Tonys for 00:01:24.069 --> 00:01:28.409 Broadway, the Grammys for music, they were all 00:01:28.409 --> 00:01:31.189 basically copied from the Oscars. Okay. Yeah. 00:01:31.310 --> 00:01:34.049 The Academy Awards literally created the blueprint 00:01:34.049 --> 00:01:37.969 for how you recognize art on an industrial global 00:01:37.969 --> 00:01:40.629 scale. They set the standard. So they established 00:01:40.629 --> 00:01:44.909 the prestige factor, but the actual start, it 00:01:44.909 --> 00:01:47.849 sounds almost, well. Kind of small and quiet 00:01:47.849 --> 00:01:50.209 compared to now. Oh, absolutely. Hilariously 00:01:50.209 --> 00:01:52.250 low -key, you could say. The very first ceremony. 00:01:52.310 --> 00:01:54.450 It was just a private dinner. Oh, yeah. Hollywood 00:01:54.450 --> 00:01:58.109 Roosevelt Hotel, May 16th, 1929. And the audience? 00:01:58.730 --> 00:02:02.030 Tiny. Maybe 270 people. Wow. If you wanted to 00:02:02.030 --> 00:02:04.329 bring a guest, a ticket was $5. Which, okay, 00:02:04.450 --> 00:02:06.870 inflation means that's about $92 today, but still. 00:02:07.030 --> 00:02:09.310 Still pretty cheap for the Oscars. Right. And 00:02:09.310 --> 00:02:12.050 the ceremony itself. The whole thing. 15 minutes. 00:02:12.229 --> 00:02:14.879 15 minutes. That's barely time for appetizers. 00:02:15.020 --> 00:02:18.139 Exactly. Forget long speeches. So thinking about 00:02:18.139 --> 00:02:21.520 the suspense now, the envelopes, it's surprising 00:02:21.520 --> 00:02:23.400 that back then there wasn't any suspense at all. 00:02:23.479 --> 00:02:26.340 People knew who won. Correct. That was maybe 00:02:26.340 --> 00:02:30.000 their first big misstep. For that 1929 dinner, 00:02:30.139 --> 00:02:32.979 they told the newspapers who won three months 00:02:32.979 --> 00:02:34.960 before the event. Three months. Why would they 00:02:34.960 --> 00:02:37.719 do that? Well, they quickly realized it completely 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:40.659 killed any excitement, any buzz. So they changed 00:02:40.659 --> 00:02:43.560 tactics. For the next, oh, roughly 10 years. 00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:45.419 What did they try then? They'd give the results 00:02:45.419 --> 00:02:47.819 to the papers, but with a strict rule, an embargo. 00:02:48.199 --> 00:02:50.580 Ah, like don't print this until... Exactly. Don't 00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:53.740 publish until 11 .00 p .m. on the night of the 00:02:53.740 --> 00:02:56.240 actual awards ceremony. Okay, a gentleman's agreement. 00:02:56.580 --> 00:02:58.159 Sounds fragile, though, especially with competing 00:02:58.159 --> 00:03:01.360 newspapers. Did it hold? Not always. And it failed 00:03:01.360 --> 00:03:04.900 spectacularly in 1940. The Los Angeles Times, 00:03:05.039 --> 00:03:06.780 they just went ahead and printed the winnals 00:03:06.780 --> 00:03:09.539 early, before the ceremony even started. Ouch. 00:03:10.039 --> 00:03:12.500 So much for the embargo. Yeah, it wasn't just 00:03:12.500 --> 00:03:15.400 bad journalism. It broke the whole system, showed 00:03:15.400 --> 00:03:17.400 you couldn't trust that approach if you wanted 00:03:17.400 --> 00:03:20.259 the awards to be this big, popular event. So 00:03:20.259 --> 00:03:22.199 what happened right after that leak? What was 00:03:22.199 --> 00:03:25.479 the fix? The fix was immediate and permanent. 00:03:26.129 --> 00:03:29.990 Starting the very next year, 1941, they brought 00:03:29.990 --> 00:03:32.669 in the sealed envelopes. The system we know today. 00:03:32.849 --> 00:03:36.129 The exact system. It was a fast change born out 00:03:36.129 --> 00:03:38.370 of necessity, really, to protect that moment 00:03:38.370 --> 00:03:41.009 of surprise. That envelope itself is now, you 00:03:41.009 --> 00:03:44.009 know, an icon of secrecy. Let's touch on some 00:03:44.009 --> 00:03:45.889 early quirks, too, because the rules weren't 00:03:45.889 --> 00:03:49.009 totally set yet. Like Emil Jannings, the first 00:03:49.009 --> 00:03:52.689 Best Actor winner. He got his award super early. 00:03:52.830 --> 00:03:54.430 Yeah, that's right. He actually got his statuette 00:03:54.430 --> 00:03:56.889 three months before the ceremony. Why? Because 00:03:56.889 --> 00:03:58.689 he was heading back to Europe and wouldn't be 00:03:58.689 --> 00:04:00.090 there for the dinner, so they just gave it to 00:04:00.090 --> 00:04:02.449 him early. Shows how informal things were. And 00:04:02.449 --> 00:04:05.129 that informality extended to what people won 00:04:05.129 --> 00:04:07.889 for, not always just one film. Exactly. In the 00:04:07.889 --> 00:04:10.349 first ceremony, winners were often recognized 00:04:10.349 --> 00:04:13.650 for their whole body of work during that eligibility 00:04:13.650 --> 00:04:16.170 period, not just a single movie. Can you give 00:04:16.170 --> 00:04:20.500 an example? Sure. Janet Gaynor. First. Best Actress 00:04:20.500 --> 00:04:23.160 winner. She won for her performances in three 00:04:23.160 --> 00:04:26.259 different films that year. Three films for one 00:04:26.259 --> 00:04:29.740 award. Uh -huh. Seventh Heaven, Sunrise, and 00:04:29.740 --> 00:04:33.730 Street Angel. Totally unthinkable today. They 00:04:33.730 --> 00:04:35.589 stopped doing that pretty quick. After the third 00:04:35.589 --> 00:04:38.850 Academy Awards, they locked it down to recognizing 00:04:38.850 --> 00:04:42.870 just one specific achievement per award. And 00:04:42.870 --> 00:04:45.410 as movies changed, the awards had to change too, 00:04:45.509 --> 00:04:47.850 adding new categories. Constantly adapting, or 00:04:47.850 --> 00:04:50.550 trying to. Look at international films. The Best 00:04:50.550 --> 00:04:52.269 International Feature Film Award, it used to 00:04:52.269 --> 00:04:54.490 be called Best Foreign Language Film. That started 00:04:54.490 --> 00:04:57.009 out as just a special kind of honorary award, 00:04:57.250 --> 00:04:59.449 non -competitive. That was at the 20th ceremony. 00:04:59.790 --> 00:05:02.459 So it wasn't a real category yet? Not really. 00:05:02.560 --> 00:05:04.779 It took almost another decade until the 29th 00:05:04.779 --> 00:05:06.740 ceremony before it became a proper competitive 00:05:06.740 --> 00:05:09.660 award like the others, showing that global cinema 00:05:09.660 --> 00:05:12.220 was becoming too important to ignore. And animation 00:05:12.220 --> 00:05:14.160 took even longer to get its own feature category. 00:05:14.180 --> 00:05:16.540 Much longer. Best animated feature film didn't 00:05:16.540 --> 00:05:19.319 show up until the 74th ceremony. That was 2002. 00:05:19.639 --> 00:05:22.839 And the first winner was? Shrek, which was, you 00:05:22.839 --> 00:05:26.110 know, a monster hit. Yeah. So these new categories, 00:05:26.149 --> 00:05:28.149 they often feel like the Academy playing catch 00:05:28.149 --> 00:05:31.470 up, right? Trying to formally acknowledge these 00:05:31.470 --> 00:05:34.089 huge parts of the movie world that they'd previously 00:05:34.089 --> 00:05:37.250 sort of sidelined. Okay. Let's shift gears to 00:05:37.250 --> 00:05:40.870 the actual award. Section two, the statuette. 00:05:41.170 --> 00:05:43.449 Probably the most famous trophy on earth, but 00:05:43.449 --> 00:05:45.589 it has that really dry official name. It does. 00:05:46.069 --> 00:05:49.019 Officially. It's the Academy Award of Merit. 00:05:49.240 --> 00:05:51.920 Nobody calls it that. Nobody. Everyone knows 00:05:51.920 --> 00:05:55.439 it as Oscar. The design is pure art deco. It's 00:05:55.439 --> 00:05:58.459 a knight holding a crusader sword. Right. Standing 00:05:58.459 --> 00:06:01.199 on a reel of film. And it's got some heft. Thirteen 00:06:01.199 --> 00:06:03.180 and a half inches tall, weighs eight and a half 00:06:03.180 --> 00:06:05.319 pounds. Not something you just toss in your bag. 00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:08.040 Definitely not. And the design itself, the knight 00:06:08.040 --> 00:06:09.620 on the film reel, that's packed with meaning, 00:06:09.699 --> 00:06:11.720 isn't it? Oh, yeah. Very specific symbolism. 00:06:12.060 --> 00:06:14.579 The film reel he's standing on has five spokes. 00:06:15.019 --> 00:06:17.750 Five spokes? Why five? They represent the original 00:06:17.750 --> 00:06:20.050 five branches of the Academy when it was founded. 00:06:20.149 --> 00:06:22.970 You had actors, writers, directors, producers, 00:06:23.189 --> 00:06:26.649 and technicians. Ah, the core groups. Exactly. 00:06:26.829 --> 00:06:29.370 It was designed by Cedric Gibbons, the supervising 00:06:29.370 --> 00:06:32.170 art director at MGM, and then sculpted by an 00:06:32.170 --> 00:06:35.550 artist named George Stanley. The whole idea was 00:06:35.550 --> 00:06:38.329 to create something timeless, rooted right in 00:06:38.329 --> 00:06:41.050 the structure of the movie industry itself. What 00:06:41.050 --> 00:06:43.490 fascinates me most, though, is what it's made 00:06:43.490 --> 00:06:47.149 of. Or rather, what it has been made of. It wasn't 00:06:47.149 --> 00:06:50.170 always gold or even metal. Right. The materials 00:06:50.170 --> 00:06:52.250 have a really interesting history. It started 00:06:52.250 --> 00:06:55.910 as gold -plated solid bronze. Pretty standard. 00:06:56.089 --> 00:06:58.209 Okay. Then for a long time, they switched to 00:06:58.209 --> 00:07:00.389 something called Britannia metal. It's like pewter, 00:07:00.470 --> 00:07:03.389 basically. That got plated in layers, copper 00:07:03.389 --> 00:07:06.370 first, then nickel -silver, and finally the 24 00:07:06.370 --> 00:07:09.569 -carat gold on top. Layered plating. But the 00:07:09.569 --> 00:07:11.970 really wild part was during the war. Yeah, World 00:07:11.970 --> 00:07:14.290 War II, there was a major metal shortage, obviously, 00:07:14.290 --> 00:07:16.269 because of the war effort. So for three years, 00:07:16.290 --> 00:07:18.310 the Oscars they handed out were made of painted 00:07:18.310 --> 00:07:20.750 plaster. Painted plaster. Imagine winning the 00:07:20.750 --> 00:07:24.350 highest honor in film and getting plaster. Must 00:07:24.350 --> 00:07:26.230 have felt a bit, I don't know, anticlimactic. 00:07:26.519 --> 00:07:28.699 I mean, probably, even considering the circumstances. 00:07:29.100 --> 00:07:31.220 But the Academy knew the symbol mattered. So 00:07:31.220 --> 00:07:33.459 after the war, when metal was available again. 00:07:33.639 --> 00:07:35.639 They fixed it. They did. They invited everyone 00:07:35.639 --> 00:07:38.339 who'd gotten a plaster Oscar to come trade it 00:07:38.339 --> 00:07:40.980 in for a proper gold -plated metal one. Showed 00:07:40.980 --> 00:07:42.860 they were committed to the, you know, the physical 00:07:42.860 --> 00:07:44.879 prestige of the thing. So what about now? What 00:07:44.879 --> 00:07:46.870 are they made of today? They actually went back 00:07:46.870 --> 00:07:50.110 to bronze in 2016. A company called Polish Talix 00:07:50.110 --> 00:07:52.649 makes the bronze core. Yeah. And then another 00:07:52.649 --> 00:07:56.149 company, Eppner Technology, does the 24 -karat 00:07:56.149 --> 00:07:58.889 gold electroplating. It's a serious process. 00:07:58.949 --> 00:08:01.050 It takes about three months just to produce a 00:08:01.050 --> 00:08:04.149 batch of 50 statuettes. Wow. Okay, now the name. 00:08:04.629 --> 00:08:07.509 Oscar. How did that stick? There are so many 00:08:07.509 --> 00:08:09.649 different stories. It's a total mystery, really, 00:08:09.769 --> 00:08:11.990 which is probably why the Academy just went ahead 00:08:11.990 --> 00:08:13.970 and trademarked the name Oscar to control it. 00:08:14.269 --> 00:08:16.550 Smart move. Yeah. But what are the main theories? 00:08:16.769 --> 00:08:20.269 Okay, theory one. Margaret Herrick. She was the 00:08:20.269 --> 00:08:22.589 academy librarian, later executive director, 00:08:22.750 --> 00:08:25.370 claimed back in 1931 that the statue reminded 00:08:25.370 --> 00:08:27.949 her of her Uncle Oscar. Uncle Oscar. Theory two. 00:08:28.269 --> 00:08:31.850 Bette Davis, the actress, she wrote in her autobiography 00:08:31.850 --> 00:08:35.009 that she named it in 1936 after her first husband, 00:08:35.210 --> 00:08:38.269 Harmon Oscar Nelson, because, well, she said 00:08:38.269 --> 00:08:41.210 it reminded her of his backside. Seriously? That's 00:08:41.210 --> 00:08:43.590 what she claimed. But she later walked that back, 00:08:43.690 --> 00:08:45.529 realizing the name was probably already floating 00:08:45.529 --> 00:08:48.769 around by then. Right. Theory three. Sidney Skolsky. 00:08:49.149 --> 00:08:52.730 He was a Hollywood columnist. He claimed he claimed 00:08:52.730 --> 00:08:55.450 it in 1934 because he was on deadline and needed 00:08:55.450 --> 00:08:58.110 a catchy name. And it referenced some old vaudeville 00:08:58.110 --> 00:09:01.389 joke. The Academy actually credits Skolsky with 00:09:01.389 --> 00:09:03.889 the first confirmed newspaper use of Oscar that 00:09:03.889 --> 00:09:07.389 year. OK, so maybe Skolsky. There's one more. 00:09:07.490 --> 00:09:10.549 One more. Eleanor Lilleberg. She was an academy 00:09:10.549 --> 00:09:13.889 secretary. A former exec director said she named 00:09:13.889 --> 00:09:17.090 it. After a Norwegian army veteran she knew, 00:09:17.230 --> 00:09:20.029 also named Oscar, who apparently stood straight 00:09:20.029 --> 00:09:22.610 and tall like the statue. So basically, nobody 00:09:22.610 --> 00:09:24.470 knows for sure. Pretty much. Could be any of 00:09:24.470 --> 00:09:26.929 them or none of them. But the name stuck, and 00:09:26.929 --> 00:09:28.809 now it's trademarked. Which leads us directly 00:09:28.809 --> 00:09:31.509 to the most legally fascinating part. Yeah. The 00:09:31.509 --> 00:09:34.429 $1 buyback rule. This is the genius move to protect 00:09:34.429 --> 00:09:38.029 the award's value. Since 1950, every single Oscar 00:09:38.029 --> 00:09:40.190 comes with legal strings attached. What kind 00:09:40.190 --> 00:09:42.169 of strings? A contract, basically. If the person 00:09:42.169 --> 00:09:44.769 who wins it, or their family later on, ever wants 00:09:44.769 --> 00:09:47.090 to sell the statuette, they must offer it back 00:09:47.090 --> 00:09:49.970 to the Academy first. For the grand total of 00:09:49.970 --> 00:09:54.889 $1. $1. $1. And if the winner refuses to sign 00:09:54.889 --> 00:09:57.289 that agreement when they receive the award, the 00:09:57.289 --> 00:09:59.490 Academy just keeps the statuette. They don't 00:09:59.490 --> 00:10:01.669 get to take it home. That's incredible. It's 00:10:01.669 --> 00:10:04.110 not about the money. Clearly, it's about control. 00:10:04.309 --> 00:10:06.830 Absolutely. It stops the Oscars from becoming 00:10:06.830 --> 00:10:09.309 just another collectible on the open market. 00:10:09.370 --> 00:10:11.529 If people started selling them for hundreds of 00:10:11.529 --> 00:10:13.769 thousands or millions. It keepens the award itself. 00:10:14.149 --> 00:10:17.350 Exactly. It turns artistic merit into a commodity. 00:10:17.629 --> 00:10:20.830 The Academy has to keep that symbolic value pure 00:10:20.830 --> 00:10:23.690 and controlling the physical object is how they 00:10:23.690 --> 00:10:26.110 do it. It protects their most valuable trademark. 00:10:26.429 --> 00:10:29.789 But the Oscars awarded before 1950, they don't 00:10:29.789 --> 00:10:32.429 have that rule attached. Correct. Those are fair 00:10:32.429 --> 00:10:34.590 game. And the few times they have come up for 00:10:34.590 --> 00:10:36.669 sale, it shows us what the market would pay. 00:10:36.830 --> 00:10:38.750 Like the Harold Russell case. Yeah, Harold Russell. 00:10:38.769 --> 00:10:41.070 He wasn't a professional actor, won Best Supporting 00:10:41.070 --> 00:10:45.590 Actor in 1946. In 1992, he needed money for his 00:10:45.590 --> 00:10:48.149 wife's medical bills, so he sold his Oscar. How 00:10:48.149 --> 00:10:52.230 much did it go for? $60 ,500, which is over $135 00:10:52.230 --> 00:10:55.710 ,000 in today's money. He defended it, too, said 00:10:55.710 --> 00:10:57.590 his wife's health mattered more than sentiment. 00:10:57.990 --> 00:11:00.070 Understandable. But the biggest sale was when 00:11:00.070 --> 00:11:02.029 the Academy really didn't want to happen. Oh, 00:11:02.049 --> 00:11:04.730 yeah. Orson Welles' Oscar. For writing Citizen 00:11:04.730 --> 00:11:08.029 Kane in 1941, his family went to court. Aye. 00:11:08.230 --> 00:11:11.029 They argued successfully that Welles never signed 00:11:11.029 --> 00:11:13.389 any kind of buyback agreement because it didn't 00:11:13.389 --> 00:11:15.669 exist back then. So the court let them sell it. 00:11:15.769 --> 00:11:20.570 And sold for? Over $861 ,000 in 2011. Wow. Yeah. 00:11:20.870 --> 00:11:24.409 So those pre 1950 sales really show you the kind 00:11:24.409 --> 00:11:26.409 of money the Academy is trying to keep out of 00:11:26.409 --> 00:11:28.750 the equation with that one dollar rule. OK, let's 00:11:28.750 --> 00:11:30.929 move into the guts of it now. Yeah. Section three. 00:11:31.470 --> 00:11:33.649 How does this all work? The nominations, the 00:11:33.649 --> 00:11:35.769 eligibility rules, the voting. This is where 00:11:35.769 --> 00:11:37.730 the Academy really wields its power, right? Yeah. 00:11:37.909 --> 00:11:40.289 Defining who gets to even play. Absolutely. It 00:11:40.289 --> 00:11:42.750 all starts with the voters, AMPAS, the Academy. 00:11:43.049 --> 00:11:47.370 Right now, there are just over 9 ,900 voting 00:11:47.370 --> 00:11:51.289 members. 9 ,905, I think, as of 2024. And getting 00:11:51.289 --> 00:11:53.970 in isn't easy. No, it's invitation only. The 00:11:53.970 --> 00:11:56.200 Board of Governors has to invite you. Usually 00:11:56.200 --> 00:11:57.940 that happens if you get nominated for an Oscar 00:11:57.940 --> 00:12:00.000 yourself or if you've made some other really 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:02.399 big contribution to film. It's meant to be exclusive. 00:12:02.580 --> 00:12:05.620 But that exclusivity has historically led to 00:12:05.620 --> 00:12:07.899 criticism about who exactly is in the academy. 00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:10.259 Yeah. The demographics. Definitely. There was 00:12:10.259 --> 00:12:12.940 a major study back in 2000 that really laid it 00:12:12.940 --> 00:12:15.500 bare. It found that among active voters then, 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:20.159 94 % were white. 94 %? Yeah. 77 % were male. 00:12:20.570 --> 00:12:23.570 And more than half, 54%, were over the age of 00:12:23.570 --> 00:12:26.570 60. So overwhelmingly older, white, and male. 00:12:26.929 --> 00:12:29.450 Historically, yes. And that context is crucial 00:12:29.450 --> 00:12:31.649 when you think about what kinds of films tend 00:12:31.649 --> 00:12:33.450 to get nominated and which ones get overlooked. 00:12:33.570 --> 00:12:36.070 It's been a huge point of contention. Okay, so 00:12:36.070 --> 00:12:39.169 that's the voters. What about the films? How 00:12:39.169 --> 00:12:41.330 does a movie even become eligible for an Oscar? 00:12:41.490 --> 00:12:44.639 The rules seem weirdly specific. They are incredibly 00:12:44.639 --> 00:12:47.419 specific and very, very focused on Los Angeles. 00:12:47.580 --> 00:12:50.179 Right. It has to play in L .A. Yes. To qualify 00:12:50.179 --> 00:12:53.639 for, say, the 2024 Oscars, a feature film had 00:12:53.639 --> 00:12:56.440 to open commercially in Los Angeles County sometime 00:12:56.440 --> 00:13:00.100 in the calendar year 2023, January 1st to December 00:13:00.100 --> 00:13:03.860 31st. And just opening isn't enough. Nope. It 00:13:03.860 --> 00:13:06.059 has to play for at least seven consecutive days. 00:13:06.220 --> 00:13:09.259 And even that has details. Like what? On each 00:13:09.259 --> 00:13:11.600 of those seven days, it needs to screen at least 00:13:11.600 --> 00:13:14.559 three times. And one of those screenings every 00:13:14.559 --> 00:13:17.820 day must start sometime between 6 p .m. and 10 00:13:17.820 --> 00:13:21.120 p .m. primetime. Wow. That feels like a very 00:13:21.120 --> 00:13:23.919 deliberate way to ensure it's a real theatrical 00:13:23.919 --> 00:13:26.679 run, not just a token screening. But does it 00:13:26.679 --> 00:13:29.580 create odd situations? It creates the famous 00:13:29.580 --> 00:13:32.789 rollover scenario. A movie might come out, say, 00:13:32.950 --> 00:13:35.210 at a festival or even nationally in one year. 00:13:35.370 --> 00:13:38.129 But if it doesn't complete that specific seven 00:13:38.129 --> 00:13:41.169 day primetime L .A. run until the next calendar 00:13:41.169 --> 00:13:43.710 year, it becomes eligible for the following year's 00:13:43.710 --> 00:13:45.870 Oscars. You give an example of that. The classic 00:13:45.870 --> 00:13:48.590 example is The Hurt Locker. It won Best Picture 00:13:48.590 --> 00:13:51.610 at the 2010 ceremony for films from 2009. But 00:13:51.610 --> 00:13:53.509 it had actually premiered at festivals way back 00:13:53.509 --> 00:13:56.710 in 2008. It just didn't do its official L .A. 00:13:56.730 --> 00:13:59.230 qualifying run until 2009. So it rolled over 00:13:59.230 --> 00:14:01.299 into that eligibility year. What about technical 00:14:01.299 --> 00:14:05.080 stuff? Length? Format? Standard stuff, mostly. 00:14:05.259 --> 00:14:07.000 It has to be feature length. The definition is 00:14:07.000 --> 00:14:09.779 40 minutes minimum, unless it's a short film 00:14:09.779 --> 00:14:13.169 category, obviously. Right. Format wise, they 00:14:13.169 --> 00:14:16.250 accept traditional 35 millimeter or 70 millimeter 00:14:16.250 --> 00:14:19.230 film prints or now digital cinema projections. 00:14:19.389 --> 00:14:22.649 But they have to meet a minimum resolution standard 00:14:22.649 --> 00:14:27.309 2K, basically 2048 by 1080 pixels. It's a technical 00:14:27.309 --> 00:14:30.490 bar. OK, so a film meets all that. It's eligible. 00:14:30.710 --> 00:14:33.549 Now, how does the voting work? Getting nominated 00:14:33.549 --> 00:14:35.809 first. This is where the branch system comes 00:14:35.809 --> 00:14:38.090 in. For most categories like directing, acting, 00:14:38.210 --> 00:14:40.490 writing, cinematography, the nominations are 00:14:40.490 --> 00:14:42.830 decided within that specific branch. Meaning? 00:14:42.929 --> 00:14:45.230 Meaning only directors vote for the Best Director 00:14:45.230 --> 00:14:47.769 nominees. Only actors vote for the acting nominees, 00:14:47.970 --> 00:14:50.129 writers for writing, and so on. Pure recognition. 00:14:50.529 --> 00:14:52.789 But not for Best Picture? Correct. Best Picture 00:14:52.789 --> 00:14:54.649 is the exception. For that one, all eligible 00:14:54.649 --> 00:14:56.610 Academy members, regardless of their branch, 00:14:56.730 --> 00:14:58.870 can vote to select the nominees. Okay, they have 00:14:58.870 --> 00:15:00.549 the list of nominees. How do they pick the winner? 00:15:00.840 --> 00:15:03.299 Is it just most votes wins? For most categories, 00:15:03.519 --> 00:15:06.059 yes. Simple plurality. Whoever gets the most 00:15:06.059 --> 00:15:08.440 votes takes home the statue. Straightforward. 00:15:08.600 --> 00:15:11.039 But not for Best Picture. That's different, right? 00:15:11.139 --> 00:15:15.379 Since 2009. Exactly. Best Picture uses a system 00:15:15.379 --> 00:15:18.779 called Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV, sometimes 00:15:18.779 --> 00:15:21.799 called Preferential Voting or Ranked Choice Voting. 00:15:21.940 --> 00:15:24.320 Okay, break that down for us. How does IRV work? 00:15:24.830 --> 00:15:26.929 In this context. Instead of just picking your 00:15:26.929 --> 00:15:29.549 single favorite film for best picture, voters 00:15:29.549 --> 00:15:32.429 rank the nominees in order of preference. First 00:15:32.429 --> 00:15:34.649 choice, second choice, third choice, and so on 00:15:34.649 --> 00:15:37.570 down the list. Okay. Ranking them. Then what? 00:15:37.710 --> 00:15:40.389 Then they count the first place votes. If one 00:15:40.389 --> 00:15:43.190 film gets more than 50 % right off the bat, it 00:15:43.190 --> 00:15:45.730 wins. Simple majority. But that probably doesn't 00:15:45.730 --> 00:15:48.429 happen often with 10 nominees. Rarely. So if 00:15:48.429 --> 00:15:51.549 no film hits 50%, the film with the fewest number 00:15:51.549 --> 00:15:54.289 one votes is eliminated. Gone. Gone. But the 00:15:54.289 --> 00:15:56.230 ballots that listed that film as number one are 00:15:56.230 --> 00:15:58.110 just thrown out. They look at the second choice 00:15:58.110 --> 00:16:00.490 on those ballots and they transfer those votes 00:16:00.490 --> 00:16:02.769 to whoever was ranked second. They keep doing 00:16:02.769 --> 00:16:05.870 this, eliminating the last place film and redistributing 00:16:05.870 --> 00:16:08.210 its votes based on the next preference until 00:16:08.210 --> 00:16:11.090 one film finally crosses that 50 percent threshold. 00:16:11.330 --> 00:16:13.669 So it's designed to find the film with the broadest 00:16:13.669 --> 00:16:15.950 support, not necessarily the one with the most 00:16:15.950 --> 00:16:18.970 passionate niche following. Precisely. It favors 00:16:18.970 --> 00:16:21.639 consensus. The idea is to prevent a film that 00:16:21.639 --> 00:16:25.419 maybe 30 % love but 70 % dislike from winning. 00:16:25.639 --> 00:16:27.940 You need to pick up those second and third place 00:16:27.940 --> 00:16:31.080 votes. Makes sense for the biggest award. But 00:16:31.080 --> 00:16:33.379 I saw something about best visual effects using 00:16:33.379 --> 00:16:36.080 yet another system. re -weighted range voting. 00:16:36.279 --> 00:16:38.379 Yeah, that's super technical. It's been used 00:16:38.379 --> 00:16:42.299 since 2013 just for VFX. Essentially, the VFX 00:16:42.299 --> 00:16:45.259 branch members don't just rank. They score the 00:16:45.259 --> 00:16:47.159 nominated films based on different criteria, 00:16:47.299 --> 00:16:49.940 and then those scores get mathematically adjusted 00:16:49.940 --> 00:16:52.720 or weighted based on factors the branch decides 00:16:52.720 --> 00:16:54.860 are important. It's really about finding the 00:16:54.860 --> 00:16:56.940 strongest technical achievement according to 00:16:56.940 --> 00:16:59.919 the experts in that specific field. Okay, shifting 00:16:59.919 --> 00:17:02.149 gears slightly. There's a big new rule coming 00:17:02.149 --> 00:17:05.130 in 2025 about voters actually watching the films. 00:17:05.269 --> 00:17:08.390 Yes, this is a major change aimed at, well, ensuring 00:17:08.390 --> 00:17:11.009 people vote based on the work. Starting with 00:17:11.009 --> 00:17:13.470 the 2025 ceremony, members have to prove they've 00:17:13.470 --> 00:17:15.450 watched all the nominated films in a category 00:17:15.450 --> 00:17:17.250 if they want to vote in the final round for that 00:17:17.250 --> 00:17:19.690 category. How do they prove it? Through the Academy 00:17:19.690 --> 00:17:22.990 Screening Room. That's their secure online streaming 00:17:22.990 --> 00:17:25.829 platform where voters watch the contenders. The 00:17:25.829 --> 00:17:28.829 system tracks viewership. So no more voting based 00:17:28.829 --> 00:17:31.009 on buzz or because your friend worked on it? 00:17:31.089 --> 00:17:34.029 That's the goal. To combat the old criticism 00:17:34.029 --> 00:17:36.150 that people voted without seeing everything, 00:17:36.410 --> 00:17:39.009 it forces engagement. But that Academy screening 00:17:39.009 --> 00:17:41.289 room. Right. Putting your film on there costs 00:17:41.289 --> 00:17:43.849 money, right? Right. especially for smaller movies. 00:17:44.029 --> 00:17:46.690 It absolutely does. This is a huge point of discussion. 00:17:46.910 --> 00:17:49.910 The platform itself came about in 2019, largely 00:17:49.910 --> 00:17:52.769 replacing physical DVD screeners. It's secure, 00:17:52.990 --> 00:17:55.329 watermarked, all that. But the cost. For a North 00:17:55.329 --> 00:17:58.109 American distributor to get their film onto that 00:17:58.109 --> 00:18:01.269 platform for voter consideration, it's $12 ,500, 00:18:01.589 --> 00:18:04.369 plus another fee for the watermarking. $12 ,500 00:18:04.369 --> 00:18:07.450 just to be seen by the voters. Yep. So you see 00:18:07.450 --> 00:18:09.549 the tension, right? The Academy is trying to 00:18:09.549 --> 00:18:11.930 diversify its members, maybe open doors to different 00:18:11.930 --> 00:18:14.890 kinds of films. But at the same time, they implement 00:18:14.890 --> 00:18:16.950 the system that creates a pretty significant 00:18:16.950 --> 00:18:19.650 five figure barrier to entry, especially for 00:18:19.650 --> 00:18:22.210 independent or international films without big 00:18:22.210 --> 00:18:24.690 studio backing. Yeah, that definitely complicates 00:18:24.690 --> 00:18:27.420 the push for accessibility. It's that constant 00:18:27.420 --> 00:18:29.799 pull between artistic ideals and the realities 00:18:29.799 --> 00:18:32.160 of the business. And speaking of business, once 00:18:32.160 --> 00:18:34.619 your film is on the platform, the Academy gets 00:18:34.619 --> 00:18:37.480 really strict about how you promote it. The anti 00:18:37.480 --> 00:18:39.539 -campaigning rules. How strict are we talking? 00:18:39.539 --> 00:18:43.420 We know studios pour millions into for your consideration. 00:18:43.500 --> 00:18:46.440 Yeah, the spending is immense. Easily $25 million 00:18:46.440 --> 00:18:50.059 for a major campaign ads, screenings, hiring 00:18:50.059 --> 00:18:54.240 top publicists. But the Academy has rules and 00:18:54.240 --> 00:18:57.509 an awards czar. to try and police direct lobbying. 00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:00.160 What kind of lobbying is forbidden? Things like 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:03.099 filmmakers directly emailing voters asking for 00:19:03.099 --> 00:19:05.720 votes or hosting lavish parties that seem designed 00:19:05.720 --> 00:19:08.880 purely to sway opinion. They try to limit anything 00:19:08.880 --> 00:19:11.160 that feels like undue influence. Do they enforce 00:19:11.160 --> 00:19:14.160 it? They do, sometimes publicly. The most famous 00:19:14.160 --> 00:19:16.119 case recently involved a producer on the Hurt 00:19:16.119 --> 00:19:18.579 Locker. He got disqualified from the best picture 00:19:18.579 --> 00:19:20.779 category, just him, not the film, because he 00:19:20.779 --> 00:19:22.859 sent emails to colleagues basically urging them 00:19:22.859 --> 00:19:25.259 to vote for his film instead of the main rival, 00:19:25.400 --> 00:19:28.490 Avatar. Wow. Yeah. The Academy has to crack down 00:19:28.490 --> 00:19:30.829 on things like that, at least visibly, to maintain 00:19:30.829 --> 00:19:34.109 the idea that it's about the art, not just who 00:19:34.109 --> 00:19:37.769 runs the best campaign. Okay, section four. Let's 00:19:37.769 --> 00:19:40.509 talk about the show itself, the ceremony. It's 00:19:40.509 --> 00:19:44.369 this massive, hours -long, global TV event now. 00:19:44.839 --> 00:19:46.940 How did it get that way? The venues, the timing? 00:19:47.119 --> 00:19:48.700 Well, the venues moved around a lot in the early 00:19:48.700 --> 00:19:50.420 days. We mentioned the Hollywood Roosevelt for 00:19:50.420 --> 00:19:52.000 the first one. Then they bounced between the 00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:54.019 Ambassador Hotel and the Biltmore for a while. 00:19:54.240 --> 00:19:57.059 Then a longer stint at the Pantages Theater in 00:19:57.059 --> 00:20:00.619 Hollywood in the 50s. But since 2002, it's found 00:20:00.619 --> 00:20:03.200 a pretty permanent home at the Dolby Theater 00:20:03.200 --> 00:20:05.940 right in the heart of Hollywood. That feels like 00:20:05.940 --> 00:20:08.650 the modern Oscar home now. But the timing has 00:20:08.650 --> 00:20:10.690 shifted strategically, too, right? Why did it 00:20:10.690 --> 00:20:13.450 move from late spring to late February? That 00:20:13.450 --> 00:20:16.769 move around 2004 had two big reasons. First, 00:20:16.990 --> 00:20:19.190 it was a direct attempt to shorten Oscar season. 00:20:19.349 --> 00:20:21.410 Cut down on the campaigning. Exactly. Make the 00:20:21.410 --> 00:20:23.690 window for all that intense lobbying and advertising 00:20:23.690 --> 00:20:26.809 shorter, maybe lessen its impact. The second 00:20:26.809 --> 00:20:30.220 reason, pure business. Avoiding a clash with 00:20:30.220 --> 00:20:33.380 March madness, the NCAA college basketball tournament 00:20:33.380 --> 00:20:36.559 is a ratings giant, and it starts mid -March. 00:20:36.640 --> 00:20:39.180 The Oscars didn't want to compete directly with 00:20:39.180 --> 00:20:42.039 that. Smart. And what about moving from Monday 00:20:42.039 --> 00:20:43.900 nights to Sunday nights? That seems like a smaller 00:20:43.900 --> 00:20:45.940 change, but I heard it was a big deal for L .A. 00:20:46.079 --> 00:20:49.000 Huge deal. That happened back for the 1999 ceremony. 00:20:49.599 --> 00:20:52.930 The logic was simple. More people watch TV on 00:20:52.930 --> 00:20:55.670 Sunday night than Monday. OK, ratings. Plus, 00:20:55.769 --> 00:20:58.309 holding it on a Monday night in L .A., total 00:20:58.309 --> 00:21:00.950 traffic nightmare during rush hour. For attendees, 00:21:01.109 --> 00:21:04.869 for the city, moving to Sunday eased that considerably. 00:21:05.250 --> 00:21:06.970 It's a year for people back east, too, I guess. 00:21:07.009 --> 00:21:10.250 Yep. East Coast viewers are a massive chunk of 00:21:10.250 --> 00:21:12.470 the audience. Ending the show earlier on a Sunday 00:21:12.470 --> 00:21:14.349 means they don't have to stay up quite so late 00:21:14.349 --> 00:21:16.589 on a work night. It's amazing how stable the 00:21:16.589 --> 00:21:18.490 ceremony date has been, though. Only postponed 00:21:18.490 --> 00:21:21.029 twice in all those years. Just twice due to major 00:21:21.029 --> 00:21:24.109 events. In 1968, they delayed it by two days 00:21:24.109 --> 00:21:26.670 after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. 00:21:27.069 --> 00:21:29.890 Purely out of respect. And then again in 1981, 00:21:30.109 --> 00:21:32.829 just by 24 hours after the assassination attempt 00:21:32.829 --> 00:21:35.339 on President Reagan. Otherwise, the show has 00:21:35.339 --> 00:21:37.680 always gone on. The producer's biggest enemy, 00:21:37.759 --> 00:21:40.319 though, seems to be the clock, keeping the show 00:21:40.319 --> 00:21:42.740 from running too long. Oh, constantly. The average 00:21:42.740 --> 00:21:44.660 is around three and a half hours, but they dread 00:21:44.660 --> 00:21:48.299 those marathons. The longest ever was 2002, four 00:21:48.299 --> 00:21:51.480 hours and 23 minutes. Oof. So they started cracking 00:21:51.480 --> 00:21:54.799 down. Primarily on acceptance speeches. That's 00:21:54.799 --> 00:21:57.460 where the time really ballooned. In 2010, they 00:21:57.460 --> 00:22:00.920 brought in the hard 45 -second limit. The dreaded 00:22:00.920 --> 00:22:03.599 playoff music. Exactly. One organizer literally 00:22:03.599 --> 00:22:06.259 called the long rambling speeches the single 00:22:06.259 --> 00:22:09.000 most hated thing on the show. So 45 seconds it 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:10.940 is. They've tried other things too, right? Like 00:22:10.940 --> 00:22:13.339 that text crawl. Yeah, the on -screen ticker 00:22:13.339 --> 00:22:15.980 for thank yous. That was tried in 2016. And remember 00:22:15.980 --> 00:22:18.940 2018, when Jimmy Kimmel offered a brand new jet 00:22:18.940 --> 00:22:21.660 ski to whoever gave the shortest speech. I do 00:22:21.660 --> 00:22:23.779 remember that. Did anyone win it fairly? Mark 00:22:23.779 --> 00:22:25.960 Bridges, the costume designer for Phantom Thread, 00:22:26.099 --> 00:22:28.859 clocked in super short and won the jet ski. It 00:22:28.859 --> 00:22:30.880 was a fun gimmick to make a point. What about 00:22:30.880 --> 00:22:32.940 the In Memoriam segment? That's always emotional, 00:22:33.140 --> 00:22:35.920 but it had some issues too. It did. The segment 00:22:35.920 --> 00:22:40.079 itself started in 1993. The main criticisms were 00:22:40.079 --> 00:22:42.960 always about who got left out inevitable snubs, 00:22:42.960 --> 00:22:45.339 really. But the other issue was the audience 00:22:45.339 --> 00:22:49.420 clapping. It turned into this awkward... Almost 00:22:49.420 --> 00:22:52.279 like a popularity contest based on who got the 00:22:52.279 --> 00:22:55.380 loudest applause, which felt wrong for a tribute. 00:22:55.579 --> 00:22:57.640 So how did they fix that? They started actively 00:22:57.640 --> 00:22:59.579 discouraging the audience from clapping during 00:22:59.579 --> 00:23:01.700 the segment. Yeah. Trying to keep it more solemn 00:23:01.700 --> 00:23:04.200 and uniformly respectful. Let's talk TV ratings, 00:23:04.319 --> 00:23:06.680 because they seem to swing wildly depending on 00:23:06.680 --> 00:23:08.759 the year. They absolutely do. And it boils down 00:23:08.759 --> 00:23:12.160 to one simple thing. Blockbuster nominees. Meaning? 00:23:12.569 --> 00:23:14.470 When the films nominated for Best Picture are 00:23:14.470 --> 00:23:16.750 huge box office hits that everyone has seen, 00:23:16.890 --> 00:23:19.630 the ratings go through the roof. The all -time 00:23:19.630 --> 00:23:23.789 record, 1998, the year of Titanic. How many viewers? 00:23:24.170 --> 00:23:27.490 57 .25 million people watched that ceremony. 00:23:28.130 --> 00:23:30.450 Because everyone had seen Titanic and cared about 00:23:30.450 --> 00:23:32.640 the outcome. But when the nominees are smaller, 00:23:32.940 --> 00:23:35.559 maybe more critically acclaimed indie films. 00:23:35.740 --> 00:23:39.299 The ratings plummet. If the Best Picture contenders 00:23:39.299 --> 00:23:41.700 didn't make a big splash at the box office, fewer 00:23:41.700 --> 00:23:44.740 casual viewers tune in. The lowest numbers recorded 00:23:44.740 --> 00:23:48.400 since the 70s were in 2021 only 10 .4 million 00:23:48.400 --> 00:23:50.960 viewers. Wow, that's a huge drop. It's the core 00:23:50.960 --> 00:23:53.819 dilemma for the Academy. Do you reward the arthouse 00:23:53.819 --> 00:23:56.460 favorites and lose the mass audience? Or try 00:23:56.460 --> 00:23:59.230 to find films that bridge that gap? It drives 00:23:59.230 --> 00:24:01.630 so many decisions. And finally, surrounding the 00:24:01.630 --> 00:24:04.190 ceremony itself, there's this whole ecosystem 00:24:04.190 --> 00:24:08.680 of parties and the gift bags. Legendary swag 00:24:08.680 --> 00:24:11.160 bags. Oh, yeah. The parties are exclusive. The 00:24:11.160 --> 00:24:13.019 official Governor's Ball right after the show. 00:24:13.220 --> 00:24:15.700 Elton John's Big A's Foundation fundraiser. The 00:24:15.700 --> 00:24:18.440 Vanity Fair party. Right. But the gift bags given 00:24:18.440 --> 00:24:20.559 to presenters, performers, and sometimes nominees, 00:24:20.740 --> 00:24:22.779 they're insane. Not from the Academy itself, 00:24:22.980 --> 00:24:25.079 mind you, but from outside companies. Insane 00:24:25.079 --> 00:24:27.000 how we're not talking keychains and mugs. Not 00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:29.240 even close. We're talking tens of thousands of 00:24:29.240 --> 00:24:31.859 dollars in value. Yeah. One year, 2014, they 00:24:31.859 --> 00:24:35.039 were reportedly worth up to $80 ,000. $80 ,000. 00:24:35.160 --> 00:24:38.180 What's in them? All sorts of luxury stuff. Exotic 00:24:38.180 --> 00:24:41.759 vacation packages. Think Hawaii, Japan, luxury 00:24:41.759 --> 00:24:45.319 resorts, private gourmet dinners, high -end cosmetic 00:24:45.319 --> 00:24:48.480 procedures like vouchers for $25 ,000 worth of 00:24:48.480 --> 00:24:51.420 fillers or laser peels. Seriously, $25 ,000 in 00:24:51.420 --> 00:24:54.480 cosmetic work. Yep. Plus expensive foods, gadgets. 00:24:54.920 --> 00:24:57.940 Even some years included fairly high -end adult 00:24:57.940 --> 00:25:00.740 products. Very controversial. I bet. And if something's 00:25:00.740 --> 00:25:04.000 worth $80 ,000, Uncle Sam wants a piece. You 00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:06.460 better believe it. The IRS actually had to issue 00:25:06.460 --> 00:25:08.839 a specific statement about these gift bags. What 00:25:08.839 --> 00:25:10.859 did they say? Basically reminded everyone that 00:25:10.859 --> 00:25:13.299 these aren't gifts in the tax sense. If you get 00:25:13.299 --> 00:25:16.700 an $80 ,000 bag of goodies, that's $80 ,000 of 00:25:16.700 --> 00:25:19.599 taxable income you need to report. Ouch. Takes 00:25:19.599 --> 00:25:21.460 some of the shine off the free stuff. Absolutely. 00:25:21.519 --> 00:25:23.460 It really highlights how intertwined the whole 00:25:23.460 --> 00:25:25.579 event is with big money in commerce, even down 00:25:25.579 --> 00:25:27.980 to the freebies. Okay, section five. Let's look 00:25:27.980 --> 00:25:30.039 at the awards themselves, the categories, how 00:25:30.039 --> 00:25:32.250 they've changed, appeared, disappeared. Yeah, 00:25:32.329 --> 00:25:34.809 the categories really reflect the history of 00:25:34.809 --> 00:25:37.930 filmmaking technology and trends. Like we mentioned, 00:25:38.130 --> 00:25:41.180 early on things were split. Best Director had 00:25:41.180 --> 00:25:43.500 separate awards for drama and comedy in the very 00:25:43.500 --> 00:25:47.240 first year. And for a long time, until the 1960s, 00:25:47.259 --> 00:25:49.680 major crafts like cinematography, costume design, 00:25:49.819 --> 00:25:52.119 art direction, they all had separate awards for 00:25:52.119 --> 00:25:54.799 black and white films and for color films. Because 00:25:54.799 --> 00:25:57.740 color was still a distinct technology. Exactly. 00:25:57.819 --> 00:26:00.519 Once color became standard, those split categories 00:26:00.519 --> 00:26:02.400 didn't make sense anymore and they merged them. 00:26:02.599 --> 00:26:05.099 Which big categories that feel essential now 00:26:05.099 --> 00:26:07.420 actually took a while to show up? Well, the Supporting 00:26:07.420 --> 00:26:09.400 Actor and Actress Awards are a huge part of this. 00:26:09.420 --> 00:26:11.759 show now right they often give us some of the 00:26:11.759 --> 00:26:14.240 most memorable wins definitely but they weren't 00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:17.539 introduced until 1936 and best original screenplay 00:26:17.539 --> 00:26:21.019 didn't become a category until 1940 so the basic 00:26:21.019 --> 00:26:23.519 structure we know took over a decade to really 00:26:23.519 --> 00:26:26.400 solidify and just as categories were added others 00:26:26.400 --> 00:26:28.599 vanished awards that just don't exist anymore 00:26:28.599 --> 00:26:31.420 yeah it's like a little time capsule The first 00:26:31.420 --> 00:26:33.759 ceremony had an award for best engineering effects. 00:26:34.079 --> 00:26:37.240 Gone. Best title writing that was literally for 00:26:37.240 --> 00:26:40.140 the text cards in silent movies. Obsolete overnight 00:26:40.140 --> 00:26:42.420 with sound. Pretty much. Best original story 00:26:42.420 --> 00:26:44.380 was a separate writing award they got rid of 00:26:44.380 --> 00:26:48.519 in 1956. And maybe surprisingly late, best sound 00:26:48.519 --> 00:26:51.019 editing was folded into a single best sound category 00:26:51.019 --> 00:26:54.539 only recently in 2019. But the pressure is always 00:26:54.539 --> 00:26:56.559 on the Academy to add new categories, right? 00:26:56.640 --> 00:26:59.059 To recognize skills that maybe feel overlooked. 00:27:00.140 --> 00:27:02.099 big ones are finally coming. This is massive 00:27:02.099 --> 00:27:05.039 news for people in these fields. First up, best 00:27:05.039 --> 00:27:07.839 casting. It's officially starting with the 98th 00:27:07.839 --> 00:27:10.839 ceremony in 2026. Casting directors finally get 00:27:10.839 --> 00:27:12.640 their due. They tried before, didn't they? Oh, 00:27:12.640 --> 00:27:14.880 yeah. A proposal for a casting award was shot 00:27:14.880 --> 00:27:17.420 down back in 1999. So this has been a long, long 00:27:17.420 --> 00:27:19.900 fight. It's recognizing just how crucial casting 00:27:19.900 --> 00:27:22.140 is to the whole creative process. And the other 00:27:22.140 --> 00:27:25.740 big one, finally, stunts. Yes. Best stunt design. 00:27:25.960 --> 00:27:29.259 Set to debut at the 100th Academy Awards in 2028. 00:27:29.740 --> 00:27:31.920 This is maybe the most overdue recognition of 00:27:31.920 --> 00:27:34.019 all. How long has that been pushed for? Decades. 00:27:34.019 --> 00:27:37.519 The Academy formally rejected proposals for a 00:27:37.519 --> 00:27:40.359 Best Stunt Coordination Award every year from 00:27:40.359 --> 00:27:44.960 1991 through 2012. Wow. That's persistent rejection. 00:27:45.119 --> 00:27:48.000 It really is. So for them to finally add stunt 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:50.720 design, it's a huge victory for that community 00:27:50.720 --> 00:27:53.599 and acknowledges how essential and how carefully 00:27:53.599 --> 00:27:56.640 designed stunt work is in modern movies, especially 00:27:56.640 --> 00:27:59.720 the big blockbusters that, ironically, often 00:27:59.720 --> 00:28:01.619 get Best Picture nominations. Yeah, the irony 00:28:01.619 --> 00:28:03.380 is definitely there. It feels like the Academy 00:28:03.380 --> 00:28:05.400 slowly acknowledging the reality of how films 00:28:05.400 --> 00:28:07.819 are made today. It's always that tension. Artistic 00:28:07.819 --> 00:28:10.559 tradition versus industry evolution. We should 00:28:10.559 --> 00:28:13.039 also mention that Best Popular Film idea that 00:28:13.039 --> 00:28:15.039 fizzled out fast. Oh, right. That was announced 00:28:15.039 --> 00:28:18.160 in 2018. The idea was to create a specific award 00:28:18.160 --> 00:28:20.619 for blockbuster hits, probably to boost ratings 00:28:20.619 --> 00:28:22.940 after some popular movies got snubbed for Best 00:28:22.940 --> 00:28:24.920 Picture. How could they go over well? Terrible 00:28:24.920 --> 00:28:27.500 reception. Critics, filmmakers, pretty much everyone 00:28:27.500 --> 00:28:30.349 hated it. They felt it would create Like a ghetto 00:28:30.349 --> 00:28:33.730 category, implying popular films couldn't compete 00:28:33.730 --> 00:28:36.109 for the main prize. The backlash was so strong, 00:28:36.130 --> 00:28:37.890 the Academy quickly postponed it and it just 00:28:37.890 --> 00:28:40.809 vanished. Never happened. Smart retreat. What 00:28:40.809 --> 00:28:42.630 about the non -competitive awards, the honorary 00:28:42.630 --> 00:28:44.650 ones? Right. Those are decided differently, not 00:28:44.650 --> 00:28:47.049 by the entire membership voting, but by special 00:28:47.049 --> 00:28:49.289 committees. Like the honorary Oscar. Exactly. 00:28:49.589 --> 00:28:52.069 The Academy Honorary Award is given pretty much 00:28:52.069 --> 00:28:54.690 every year for lifetime achievement or outstanding 00:28:54.690 --> 00:28:57.309 contributions. Then there's the Gene Herschel 00:28:57.309 --> 00:28:59.789 Humanitarian Award. One actually comes in the 00:28:59.789 --> 00:29:02.890 form of an Oscar statuette recognizing philanthropic 00:29:02.890 --> 00:29:05.809 work. Okay. And the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial 00:29:05.809 --> 00:29:08.750 Award. That one's different. It's a bust of Thalberg, 00:29:08.869 --> 00:29:11.630 not an Oscar statue. And it honors producers 00:29:11.630 --> 00:29:14.009 with a consistently high quality of work over 00:29:14.009 --> 00:29:16.829 their careers. These let the Academy recognize 00:29:16.829 --> 00:29:19.150 important figures outside the regular annual 00:29:19.150 --> 00:29:22.190 competition. Our Section 6. This is where it 00:29:22.190 --> 00:29:24.599 gets juicy. The controversies, the criticisms, 00:29:24.720 --> 00:29:26.799 the friction points. When you have this much 00:29:26.799 --> 00:29:29.819 prestige and money involved, things get messy. 00:29:30.259 --> 00:29:33.220 Let's start with the commercialism angle. The 00:29:33.220 --> 00:29:35.940 intense Oscar season lobbying. Yeah, this is 00:29:35.940 --> 00:29:38.380 maybe the oldest and loudest criticism. We talked 00:29:38.380 --> 00:29:41.799 about the spending $25 million or more per film 00:29:41.799 --> 00:29:45.039 isn't uncommon for a big campaign. And director 00:29:45.039 --> 00:29:47.480 William Friedkin famously called the whole thing 00:29:47.480 --> 00:29:50.599 the greatest promotion scheme that any industry 00:29:50.599 --> 00:29:54.450 ever devised for itself. The accusation is simple. 00:29:54.609 --> 00:29:57.470 The awards aren't always about quality. They're 00:29:57.470 --> 00:30:00.609 about who runs the slickest, most expensive campaign, 00:30:00.849 --> 00:30:04.230 who hires the best publicists. And that leads 00:30:04.230 --> 00:30:07.470 to studios making specific types of movies just 00:30:07.470 --> 00:30:10.970 to win the Oscar bait phenomenon. Exactly. Oscar 00:30:10.970 --> 00:30:13.599 bait. It's almost a genre in itself. These are 00:30:13.599 --> 00:30:16.539 films that seem tailor -made to appeal to what's 00:30:16.539 --> 00:30:19.019 perceived as the traditional taste of Academy 00:30:19.019 --> 00:30:21.079 voters. What does that look like? Often it's 00:30:21.079 --> 00:30:23.680 historical dramas, biopics about famous figures, 00:30:23.880 --> 00:30:26.559 sometimes period romances. Films with serious 00:30:26.559 --> 00:30:28.859 themes, maybe a disability or overcoming adversity. 00:30:29.319 --> 00:30:31.539 And crucially, they're often released late in 00:30:31.539 --> 00:30:33.660 the year, December, to be fresh in voters' minds 00:30:33.660 --> 00:30:36.019 during nomination season. And the criticism is 00:30:36.019 --> 00:30:38.259 that this crowds out other types of films. That's 00:30:38.259 --> 00:30:40.440 the argument. That the focus on Oscar bait means 00:30:40.440 --> 00:30:43.480 innovative genre films, comedies, sci -fi, horror. 00:30:43.819 --> 00:30:46.039 They get ignored, even if they're critically 00:30:46.039 --> 00:30:48.519 acclaimed or hugely popular. Which actually led 00:30:48.519 --> 00:30:51.779 to a major rule change, didn't it? The 2009 snubs. 00:30:52.190 --> 00:30:55.549 Yes, that was a watershed moment. The 81st Academy 00:30:55.549 --> 00:30:58.869 Awards. Highly popular, universally acclaimed 00:30:58.869 --> 00:31:00.970 films like The Dark Knight and WALL -E failed 00:31:00.970 --> 00:31:02.869 to get Best Picture nominations. Same people 00:31:02.869 --> 00:31:05.970 were mad. Furious. The backlash from the public 00:31:05.970 --> 00:31:08.470 and even within the industry was enormous. People 00:31:08.470 --> 00:31:10.990 felt the Academy was completely out of touch. 00:31:11.250 --> 00:31:13.509 So what did the Academy do? They reacted directly. 00:31:13.869 --> 00:31:16.650 The very next year, they expanded the Best Picture 00:31:16.650 --> 00:31:19.730 category from five nominees to ten. To make more 00:31:19.730 --> 00:31:22.740 room. Exactly. The hope... was that with 10 slots, 00:31:23.039 --> 00:31:24.980 there'd be room for both the traditional prestige 00:31:24.980 --> 00:31:28.240 pictures and some of the more popular acclaimed 00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:30.440 blockbusters or genre films that had been getting 00:31:30.440 --> 00:31:33.039 shut out. This intense competition also feels 00:31:33.039 --> 00:31:35.599 some pretty nasty tactics, right? The whisper 00:31:35.599 --> 00:31:38.490 campaigns? Oh, definitely. Negative campaigning 00:31:38.490 --> 00:31:41.509 is a dark art in Hollywood. It involves spreading 00:31:41.509 --> 00:31:43.990 rumors, highlighting potential controversies, 00:31:43.990 --> 00:31:46.309 or just creating negative buzz about a rival 00:31:46.309 --> 00:31:48.730 film, often anonymously or through surrogates. 00:31:48.829 --> 00:31:51.309 And Harry Weinstein was famous for this. Notoriously 00:31:51.309 --> 00:31:54.750 so. Miramax under Weinstein was known for aggressive 00:31:54.750 --> 00:31:58.990 tactics. The most cited example is the 1999 race 00:31:58.990 --> 00:32:01.950 where his film, Shakespeare in Love, beats Saving 00:32:01.950 --> 00:32:04.980 Private Ryan for Best Picture. Many believe that 00:32:04.980 --> 00:32:07.279 Wynne was helped by a campaign that subtly questioned 00:32:07.279 --> 00:32:10.259 Ryan's historical accuracy or painted it negatively. 00:32:10.539 --> 00:32:13.400 Wow. Have there been other examples? Yeah. Films 00:32:13.400 --> 00:32:15.980 like Zero Dark 30 faced campaigns questioning 00:32:15.980 --> 00:32:18.920 its portrayal of torture. Lincoln faced minor 00:32:18.920 --> 00:32:21.160 historical quibbles amplified during voting. 00:32:21.380 --> 00:32:24.079 It's about planting seeds of doubt. OK, let's 00:32:24.079 --> 00:32:25.579 talk diversity. We mentioned the demographic 00:32:25.579 --> 00:32:28.829 stats earlier. This blew up with hashtag OscarSoWhite. 00:32:28.950 --> 00:32:31.250 It really did. The numbers were stark. Historically, 00:32:31.289 --> 00:32:34.309 something like only 6 .4 % of all acting nominees 00:32:34.309 --> 00:32:36.769 had been people of color. Even looking just since 00:32:36.769 --> 00:32:39.869 1991, it was only up to about 11 .2%. And then 00:32:39.869 --> 00:32:42.269 came a year with zero non -white acting nominees. 00:32:42.549 --> 00:32:44.789 Two years in a row, actually, for the 87th and 00:32:44.789 --> 00:32:47.470 88th ceremonies. That second year sparked the 00:32:47.470 --> 00:32:49.869 hashtag OscarSoWhite hashtag and boycott movement. 00:32:50.069 --> 00:32:52.650 It put immense pressure on the Academy. What 00:32:52.650 --> 00:32:55.200 was their response? They had to respond. They 00:32:55.200 --> 00:32:58.200 promised historic changes, pledging to double 00:32:58.200 --> 00:33:01.019 the number of women and diverse members by 2020. 00:33:01.400 --> 00:33:04.259 They've been actively recruiting a much broader 00:33:04.259 --> 00:33:06.359 range of members since then. And we're seeing 00:33:06.359 --> 00:33:09.599 results. We are starting to see them. More diverse 00:33:09.599 --> 00:33:12.700 nominees across categories and milestones like 00:33:12.700 --> 00:33:15.059 Michelle Yeoh becoming the first Asian woman 00:33:15.059 --> 00:33:18.039 to win Best Actress in 2023 for Everything Everywhere 00:33:18.039 --> 00:33:20.900 All at Once. But it's an ongoing process and 00:33:20.900 --> 00:33:23.259 debate. And even the definitions of diversity 00:33:23.259 --> 00:33:25.839 in their new standards have caused some controversy. 00:33:26.099 --> 00:33:29.039 That's true. The Academy created these Representation 00:33:29.039 --> 00:33:31.920 and Inclusion Standards Initiative, or RAISE, 00:33:32.059 --> 00:33:34.299 outlining diversity requirements for best picture 00:33:34.299 --> 00:33:36.700 eligibility, covering on -screen representation, 00:33:37.259 --> 00:33:40.259 crew diversity, internships, etc. But those standards 00:33:40.259 --> 00:33:43.019 have been criticized by some groups for specifically 00:33:43.019 --> 00:33:45.720 not including Jewish people as a recognized underrepresented 00:33:45.720 --> 00:33:48.299 group, despite historical anti -Semitism and 00:33:48.299 --> 00:33:50.740 exclusion in Hollywood. So the debate continues. 00:33:50.920 --> 00:33:52.619 about who counts as diverse for these purposes. 00:33:52.980 --> 00:33:55.900 Let's shift to category fraud. This feels like 00:33:55.900 --> 00:33:58.799 gaming the system. It's a very common tactic 00:33:58.799 --> 00:34:01.880 and highly controversial. It happens when a studio 00:34:01.880 --> 00:34:05.019 submits an actor for a supporting award when 00:34:05.019 --> 00:34:07.640 their role is arguably large enough or central 00:34:07.640 --> 00:34:10.219 enough to be considered a lead. Why do they do 00:34:10.219 --> 00:34:13.639 that? Strategy. If you have two strong leads 00:34:13.639 --> 00:34:16.059 in a film, submitting one as supporting means 00:34:16.059 --> 00:34:18.699 they don't compete against each other. It increases 00:34:18.699 --> 00:34:20.659 the odds of the film winning multiple acting 00:34:20.659 --> 00:34:22.800 awards. Can you give some examples people point 00:34:22.800 --> 00:34:25.500 to? Oh, there are many debated examples. Rooney 00:34:25.500 --> 00:34:28.300 Mara in Carol had huge screen time but was run 00:34:28.300 --> 00:34:30.940 as supporting. Same for Brad Pitt in Once Upon 00:34:30.940 --> 00:34:33.739 a Time in Hollywood. Viola Davis in Fences won 00:34:33.739 --> 00:34:35.840 supporting but many felt it was a lead role. 00:34:36.329 --> 00:34:38.469 It often comes down to studio campaign decisions. 00:34:38.909 --> 00:34:40.889 And then there's the idea that sometimes people 00:34:40.889 --> 00:34:44.269 win not for that specific performance, but for 00:34:44.269 --> 00:34:47.070 their whole career. The legacy Oscar, the makeup 00:34:47.070 --> 00:34:49.329 Oscar. Yeah, that's a recurring criticism. Like 00:34:49.329 --> 00:34:50.889 the Academy is saying, oops, we should have given 00:34:50.889 --> 00:34:53.130 you one years ago. Kind of. The feeling is that 00:34:53.130 --> 00:34:56.010 sometimes an actor, director, or composer wins 00:34:56.010 --> 00:34:58.690 for a perfectly fine performance, but maybe not 00:34:58.690 --> 00:35:01.070 the best that year because the voters feel they're 00:35:01.070 --> 00:35:03.670 overdue or were unfairly snubbed in the past. 00:35:04.130 --> 00:35:06.789 Think Al Pacino finally winning for Scent of 00:35:06.789 --> 00:35:09.510 a Woman or Martin Scorsese for The Departed. 00:35:09.670 --> 00:35:12.110 Great artists, but were those their absolute 00:35:12.110 --> 00:35:14.889 peak achievements? Debatable. It definitely raises 00:35:14.889 --> 00:35:18.110 questions about merit in a specific year. Now, 00:35:18.210 --> 00:35:22.980 the streaming debate. Netflix, Amazon. That really 00:35:22.980 --> 00:35:25.699 shook things up. It caused a genuine panic among 00:35:25.699 --> 00:35:28.599 some Hollywood traditionalists, especially after 00:35:28.599 --> 00:35:31.699 Roma, a Netflix film, got 10 nominations in 2019, 00:35:32.019 --> 00:35:34.480 including Best Picture and Best Director. Who 00:35:34.480 --> 00:35:36.380 was leading the pushback? Steven Spielberg was 00:35:36.380 --> 00:35:39.400 very vocal. He and others argued that films primarily 00:35:39.400 --> 00:35:41.579 released on streaming platforms weren't real 00:35:41.579 --> 00:35:43.659 movies in the same way as theatrically released 00:35:43.659 --> 00:35:46.059 ones and shouldn't be eligible for the top awards, 00:35:46.280 --> 00:35:48.260 especially Best Picture. They worried streaming 00:35:48.260 --> 00:35:50.760 giants would just buy up all the Oscars. But 00:35:50.760 --> 00:35:53.280 the government got involved. Yes. The U .S. Department 00:35:53.280 --> 00:35:55.300 of Justice actually sent a letter to the Academy. 00:35:55.619 --> 00:35:58.150 Really? They warned the Academy that changing 00:35:58.150 --> 00:36:01.309 the rules specifically to exclude streaming services 00:36:01.309 --> 00:36:05.449 could potentially violate antitrust laws. Essentially, 00:36:05.630 --> 00:36:08.090 they couldn't arbitrarily block competitors just 00:36:08.090 --> 00:36:10.190 because they used a different distribution model. 00:36:10.349 --> 00:36:12.449 So what was the outcome? The Academy backed down 00:36:12.449 --> 00:36:14.809 from any major exclusion. They kept the existing 00:36:14.809 --> 00:36:18.090 rule. Streaming films are eligible if they meet 00:36:18.090 --> 00:36:19.909 the minimum theatrical release requirements, 00:36:20.230 --> 00:36:22.269 including that L .A. County run we talked about. 00:36:22.449 --> 00:36:30.940 It was a compromise. It's rare, but powerful 00:36:30.940 --> 00:36:34.260 when it happens. The first was way back in 1935. 00:36:34.920 --> 00:36:37.739 Dudley Nichols, a screenwriter, won for The Informer 00:36:37.739 --> 00:36:40.320 but refused it initially. Why? It was a protest. 00:36:40.639 --> 00:36:42.719 There was a conflict going on between the Academy 00:36:42.719 --> 00:36:45.340 and the Writers Guild at the time. He did eventually 00:36:45.340 --> 00:36:47.400 accept it a few years later, though. Who's the 00:36:47.400 --> 00:36:51.199 most famous refuser? George C. Scott? Probably 00:36:51.199 --> 00:36:54.190 him or Brando. Scott won Best Actor for Patton 00:36:54.190 --> 00:36:57.289 in 1970. He was very outspoken against the awards, 00:36:57.449 --> 00:36:59.949 famously calling the ceremony a two -hour meat 00:36:59.949 --> 00:37:02.590 parade. He made it clear beforehand he wouldn't 00:37:02.590 --> 00:37:06.650 accept, and he didn't. Brando won Best Actor 00:37:06.650 --> 00:37:10.780 in 1972 for The Godfather. He refused the award 00:37:10.780 --> 00:37:13.199 as a protest against the negative stereotyping 00:37:13.199 --> 00:37:15.219 and mistreatment of Native Americans by the film 00:37:15.219 --> 00:37:17.699 industry. And he sent someone in his place. Yes, 00:37:17.760 --> 00:37:20.280 he sent Sasheen Littlefeather, an Apache actress 00:37:20.280 --> 00:37:23.159 and activist, onto the stage. She declined the 00:37:23.159 --> 00:37:25.599 statuette and read a statement from Brando explaining 00:37:25.599 --> 00:37:28.880 his reasons. It was a hugely controversial and 00:37:28.880 --> 00:37:31.519 highly televised moment. Finally, the recent 00:37:31.519 --> 00:37:34.690 really public incidence, the slap. Yeah, you 00:37:34.690 --> 00:37:37.429 can't talk about recent Oscar controversy without 00:37:37.429 --> 00:37:40.590 mentioning the 2022 ceremony. Will Smith walking 00:37:40.590 --> 00:37:43.349 on stage and slapping Chris Rock after Rock made 00:37:43.349 --> 00:37:45.869 a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith's appearance. 00:37:46.150 --> 00:37:48.349 And Smith won Best Actor later that night. He 00:37:48.349 --> 00:37:50.650 did, which made the whole thing even more surreal. 00:37:50.889 --> 00:37:53.530 The aftermath was huge, obviously. The Academy 00:37:53.530 --> 00:37:55.769 investigated and ultimately banned Smith from 00:37:55.769 --> 00:37:58.150 attending the Oscars or any Academy events for 00:37:58.150 --> 00:38:01.010 10 years. A less violent but still significant 00:38:01.010 --> 00:38:03.860 controversy is how animation gets treated. Yes. 00:38:03.960 --> 00:38:06.099 This is a sore spot for many in the animation 00:38:06.099 --> 00:38:08.619 industry who feel their craft isn't taken seriously 00:38:08.619 --> 00:38:10.880 enough. What's the issue? It's often the language 00:38:10.880 --> 00:38:13.179 used by presenters when giving out the best animated 00:38:13.179 --> 00:38:16.599 feature award. Comments during the 2022 and 2024 00:38:16.599 --> 00:38:19.380 ceremonies kind of dismissing animation as just 00:38:19.380 --> 00:38:21.980 something for kids or formative experiences. 00:38:22.460 --> 00:38:24.420 When many nominees are quite adults. Exactly. 00:38:24.559 --> 00:38:28.260 Films like Flea about an Afghan refugee or The 00:38:28.260 --> 00:38:32.079 Windshield Wiper, a short exploring love. These 00:38:32.079 --> 00:38:35.980 are complex, mature works. Animators, many involved 00:38:35.980 --> 00:38:38.099 in the hashtag New Deal for Animation movement 00:38:38.099 --> 00:38:40.539 fighting for better working conditions, argue 00:38:40.539 --> 00:38:43.159 this language infantilizes their art form and 00:38:43.159 --> 00:38:45.579 ignores its sophistication. Okay, we're nearing 00:38:45.579 --> 00:38:47.619 the end. Let's wrap up with some impressive records 00:38:47.619 --> 00:38:50.539 and milestones. Section 7. The Superlatives. 00:38:50.860 --> 00:38:53.219 Who holds the biggest records? You have to start 00:38:53.219 --> 00:38:54.900 with Walt Disney. He's in a league of his own. 00:38:55.000 --> 00:38:58.159 Most awards ever. By far. 26 total Academy Awards. 00:38:58.360 --> 00:39:00.619 22 of those were competitive wins, plus four 00:39:00.619 --> 00:39:04.840 honorary awards. He was nominated 59 times. 59. 00:39:04.960 --> 00:39:07.460 Incredible. Did he win multiple in one night? 00:39:07.539 --> 00:39:09.599 Yes. He also holds a record for the most Oscars 00:39:09.599 --> 00:39:11.920 won in a single year. He won four at the 1954 00:39:11.920 --> 00:39:14.659 ceremony. His records seem pretty unbreakable. 00:39:14.780 --> 00:39:16.980 What about nominations in just one category? 00:39:17.059 --> 00:39:19.239 Is there a specialist? That would be composer 00:39:19.239 --> 00:39:23.139 John Williams. The man behind Star Wars, Jaws, 00:39:23.139 --> 00:39:26.000 Indiana Jones. Right. He has been nominated an 00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:29.039 incredible 48 times just for best original score. 00:39:29.239 --> 00:39:32.119 He's won five times in that category. Most nominations 00:39:32.119 --> 00:39:34.840 without ever winning a competitive award. That 00:39:34.840 --> 00:39:38.460 must sting. It's currently a tie, sadly. Sound 00:39:38.460 --> 00:39:40.920 mixer Greg P. Russell and songwriter Diane Warren 00:39:40.920 --> 00:39:44.239 both have 16 nominations without a competitive 00:39:44.239 --> 00:39:47.969 win. 16 tries. Wow. Didn't Russell have a nomination 00:39:47.969 --> 00:39:50.809 taken away? He did. His 17th nomination was actually 00:39:50.809 --> 00:39:53.110 revoked because he violated those campaigning 00:39:53.110 --> 00:39:55.670 rules about contacting voters improperly. So 00:39:55.670 --> 00:39:58.289 he stuck at 16 losses. Diane Warren, though, 00:39:58.369 --> 00:40:01.710 finally received an honorary Oscar in 2023, recognizing 00:40:01.710 --> 00:40:04.309 her amazing career. Okay, looking at the films, 00:40:04.409 --> 00:40:06.329 which movies have won the most Oscars? There's 00:40:06.329 --> 00:40:08.989 a three -way tie, right? Yes, 11 wins is the 00:40:08.989 --> 00:40:11.449 magic number. Tied at the top are Ben -Hur from 00:40:11.449 --> 00:40:15.329 1959. Classic epic. Titanic from 1997. Global 00:40:15.329 --> 00:40:17.610 phenomena. And The Lord of the Rings, Return 00:40:17.610 --> 00:40:20.329 of the King from 2003. And Return of the King 00:40:20.329 --> 00:40:23.250 did something unique. It did. It won every single 00:40:23.250 --> 00:40:25.670 category it was nominated in. 11 nominations, 00:40:25.989 --> 00:40:28.769 11 wins. A clean sweep, which is almost unheard 00:40:28.769 --> 00:40:30.809 of at that scale. Which films hold the record 00:40:30.809 --> 00:40:34.030 for most nominations? Also a tie. 14 nominations 00:40:34.030 --> 00:40:36.769 is the record there, held by All About Eve from 00:40:36.769 --> 00:40:40.630 1950, Titanic again in 1997, and La La Land in 00:40:40.630 --> 00:40:43.269 2016. But most nominations without winning anything. 00:40:43.469 --> 00:40:46.190 That's got to be painful. 11 nominations, zero 00:40:46.190 --> 00:40:48.869 wins. That unfortunate record is shared by two 00:40:48.869 --> 00:40:51.030 films, the ballet drama The Turning Point from 00:40:51.030 --> 00:40:53.989 1977 and Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple 00:40:53.989 --> 00:40:57.969 from 1985. Ouch. 11 chances, nothing. What about 00:40:57.969 --> 00:41:00.190 franchises? Which series has the most total wins? 00:41:00.389 --> 00:41:02.469 That would be the Lord of the Rings trilogy overall. 00:41:02.599 --> 00:41:04.719 Across the three films, they racked up a total 00:41:04.719 --> 00:41:08.239 of 17 Academy Awards, dominated the early 2000s. 00:41:08.239 --> 00:41:10.840 And finally, the age extremes. Oldest and youngest 00:41:10.840 --> 00:41:12.800 winners. The oldest person to win a competitive 00:41:12.800 --> 00:41:15.820 Oscar is screenwriter James Ivory. He won for 00:41:15.820 --> 00:41:17.900 Best Adapted Screenplay for Call Me By Your Name 00:41:17.900 --> 00:41:21.320 when he was 89 years old. Wow, 89. And the youngest? 00:41:21.679 --> 00:41:24.500 Tatum O 'Neill. She won Best Supporting Actress 00:41:24.500 --> 00:41:27.239 for the movie Paper Moon back in 1974. She was 00:41:27.239 --> 00:41:29.300 only 10 years old at the time. 10 years old. 00:41:29.719 --> 00:41:31.980 Incredible. Shows that talent can really hit 00:41:31.980 --> 00:41:35.159 at any age. Well, this has been quite the journey. 00:41:35.219 --> 00:41:37.000 We've really gone behind the curtain of this 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:40.460 massive institution. From that tiny 15 -minute 00:41:40.460 --> 00:41:42.980 dinner in 1929 where everyone knew the results. 00:41:43.239 --> 00:41:46.059 Right, to this huge, heavily regulated, globally 00:41:46.059 --> 00:41:48.760 televised spectacle where fortunes are made and 00:41:48.760 --> 00:41:51.500 lost on campaign strategies. We saw the statue 00:41:51.500 --> 00:41:54.670 itself, the icon. Started as plaster during the 00:41:54.670 --> 00:41:57.730 war, but its value now is so protected by that 00:41:57.730 --> 00:42:00.789 quirky $1 buyback rule. Yeah, and the voting 00:42:00.789 --> 00:42:03.630 system's evolving from simple headcounts to complex 00:42:03.630 --> 00:42:06.269 rank -choice methods, all while the academy grapples 00:42:06.269 --> 00:42:08.070 with commercial pressures, diversity demands, 00:42:08.369 --> 00:42:10.869 and technological shifts. So for you, the listener, 00:42:10.889 --> 00:42:13.070 understanding all this, the eligibility rules, 00:42:13.230 --> 00:42:15.449 the L .A. County requirement, the campaign spending, 00:42:15.750 --> 00:42:19.650 the $12 ,500 platform fee, the historical biases, 00:42:19.889 --> 00:42:22.699 the category politics, it really changed. is 00:42:22.699 --> 00:42:24.599 how you see Oscar season, doesn't it? Absolutely. 00:42:24.639 --> 00:42:26.780 You realize it's not just about artistic merit 00:42:26.780 --> 00:42:29.300 in a vacuum. It's a game with very specific rules, 00:42:29.480 --> 00:42:31.699 high stakes, and powerful gatekeepers. You're 00:42:31.699 --> 00:42:33.820 instantly more informed about the real dynamics. 00:42:34.119 --> 00:42:36.619 Which brings us to our final provocative thought 00:42:36.619 --> 00:42:39.760 for you to chew on. The Academy is making very 00:42:39.760 --> 00:42:42.460 public moves lately, pushing diversity and membership, 00:42:42.639 --> 00:42:45.000 finally adding categories like casting and stunts, 00:42:45.019 --> 00:42:47.900 trying to crack down on category fraud. They 00:42:47.900 --> 00:42:50.420 seem to be opening up. Right. Those are positive 00:42:50.420 --> 00:42:53.300 signals addressing longstanding criticisms. But 00:42:53.300 --> 00:42:56.639 at the same time, they're reinforcing these really 00:42:56.639 --> 00:43:00.619 strict, expensive structural barriers, that mandatory 00:43:00.619 --> 00:43:03.480 geographically limiting L .A. County theatrical 00:43:03.480 --> 00:43:06.679 run, that five figure fee just to get your film 00:43:06.679 --> 00:43:09.199 seen by voters on their platform. Hurdles that 00:43:09.199 --> 00:43:11.460 disproportionately affect smaller, independent 00:43:11.460 --> 00:43:14.099 and international films without massive studio 00:43:14.099 --> 00:43:16.639 backing. Exactly. So the question to leave you 00:43:16.639 --> 00:43:19.289 with is this. Are these recent reforms genuinely 00:43:19.289 --> 00:43:21.849 widening the Academy's embrace to find the best 00:43:21.849 --> 00:43:24.469 films from anywhere in the world? Or are the 00:43:24.469 --> 00:43:26.369 deep -seated commercial requirements and structural 00:43:26.369 --> 00:43:29.409 hurdles still the biggest, perhaps even insurmountable, 00:43:29.429 --> 00:43:32.329 barriers keeping truly diverse global cinema 00:43:32.329 --> 00:43:33.710 from reaching that golden stage?