Oscars Outsider - Oscar rule changes: Is Sandra Hüller UNSTOPPABLE?

Episode Date: May 5, 2026

The Academy just killed a rule that's been in place since 1931 — and Sandra Hüller might be the first actor in nearly a century to benefit. We get into all three big Oscar rule changes for the 99th Academy Awards: the double-nomination rule, the new path to International Feature, and the AI ban. Plus the quiet Best Original Song tweak that might actually matter most.Then we look at what's already sticky for next year — Project Hail Mary (and why Ryan Gosling's Adam Sandler era needs to end), Michael, Devil Wears Prada 2 — and the early frame of the Best Actor race shaping up around Tom Cruise's Digger and Matt Damon's Odyssey.Greta Gerwig's Narnia just got pushed to 2027. So what's Netflix backing now?👇 Which actor in Oscars history would have benefited most from being able to get two nominations in one year?Find Dylan on Substack: https://dylanferguson.substack.com/Find Craig at Bravo Outsider: https://www.instagram.com/bravooutsider/#Oscars #SandraHüller #AcademyAwards

There are, well, two rules and one, I guess, clarification is the way I would call it. Okay, so the first one, I have to admit right away, I did not know this was a rule, but the same actor or actress cannot be nominated twice in the same category in one year. So two different performances by the same actor could not be up for best actor or for best actors or for either of the supporting ones in the same year. And they have now repealed that rule and they have now made it legal for the same actor to be nominated twice in the same year in the same category. Craig, did you actually know that there was a rule against that?

Yeah, I did actually, interesting that it's getting repealed. Sandra Heuler fans, Unite, were happy to see it. I think that she is maybe the person that could be impacted the most by this because, you know, she's just in a ton of stuff this year. Yeah, Hewlerheads Unite. I'm glad you jumped onto that because that was actually going to be one of my next question. So since you brought it up, why don't we do it right away? Do you see that having an impact immediately in the 99th Oscars? So you see Hewler as being the obvious example here, right?

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Bravo slash Oscars Outsider, your show about reality TV sometimes and Oscars and Hollywood entertainment news other times. We are getting back into the Oscars game just a little bit early, just a touch, just a touch early. But there has been some really interesting news that just came out concerning the 99th Academy Awards. So I thought we should dive right into it. I'm Dylan Ferguson and with me is Craig Midwinter. Hey, Greg has it going. I'm doing well, doing really well.

Excited to talk about the rule changes. Yeah, yeah. It's been a little while since we got back on Oscar stuff. But this news just broke a few days ago. They announced that they are making a few changes for in advance of the 99th Academy Awards. Some fairly significant changes, I would say. Nothing like extremely earth-tattering, but some of the most important changes we've probably seen in the past few decades, I think.

There are, well, two rules and one, I guess, clarification is the way I would call it. So let's just go through them one by one. Should we dive right into it? Yeah, let's go. Okay, so the first one, I have to admit right away, I did not know this was a rule, but the same actor or actress cannot be nominated twice in the same category in one year. So two different performances by the same actor

could not be up for best actor or for best actress or for either of the supporting ones in the same year. We have seen performers. You can probably think of some performers who have had two nominations in the same year. I think the most recent one was Scarlett Johansson who was up for best actress for marriage story

and best supporting actress for Jojo Rabbit. But those were in two separate categories. There was actually a rule for bidding that to happen in the same category. and they have now repealed that rule and they have now made it legal for the same actor to be nominated twice in the same year in the same category.

Craig, did you actually know that there was a rule against that? Yeah, I did actually, I learned this this past Oscar season when I was looking into things and I did know that this was a rule. Interesting that it's getting repealed. Sandra Heuler fans, Unite, were happy to see it.

I think that she is maybe the person that could be impacted the most by this because, you know, she's, she's just in a ton of stuff this, this year. Yeah. Hewler heads unite. I'm glad you jumped onto that because that was actually going to be one of my next questions. So since you brought it up, why don't we do it right away? Do you see that having an impact immediately in the 99th Oscars? So you see Hewler as being the obvious example here, right? Yeah. I mean, she seems like she is the most set to do this sort of thing. Because she, is in well project Hail Mary might be she might have a chance there she's also in Digger and also Fatherland yeah so I I could see maybe happening twice in supporting Hail Mary would definitely be supporting

digger presumably I mean that's being framed as a big Tom Cruise vehicle so I would imagine that she wouldn't be a lead actress though who knows nobody's seen the movie yet and then Fatherland I think that might be a lead role for her, but that already gives us the possibility for two supporting, or if she's lead for Digger, possibly two leads if Fatherland and Digger are both leads. That's the thing. This

opens up a lot of flexibilities for studios in terms of how they decide to position their actors here. And I think that we've seen, obviously, it's always a conversation, category fraud, like what category should each

role be placed in? I think that, you know, this is just a mechanism that allows for flexibility where we can look at the field and say, okay, I think that, you know, even though I would classify this role as a lead or a supporting, what does the competitive field look like and how can we best place someone for awards chance? Yeah. Do you think that if this rule was in effect for these past Oscars that just happened, do you think we could have seen anything change?

Do you think anybody could have had a double nomination this past year? Or in years previous. Because this past year, I don't really think so. I was saying in our show that I would have loved to see Amanda Seafraid get a double domination for the housemaid and the testament of Adam Lee, which I think are two extremely different and extremely awesome performances. One just extremely camp and the other very vulnerable and intense. but obviously she didn't get even one

so that wouldn't have happened this past year I don't think so just because the big performances were all generally from people who were only in one movie like there wasn't a second well I mean there was two Michael B. Jordans

but they accounted that as one performance yeah I mean like the you know Timothy Shalway Leonardo DiCaprio were only in one movie last year believe, certainly only one that had any buzz. Leo, definitely only one movie. I wonder if that's one of the reason why they're more open to it now,

because a lot of the big actors really only do one movie a year now. That's not, like, back in the day, it used to be decades ago, it used to be more common for an actor to do like six movies a year. Now, somebody like Leo de Caprio, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, you know, the big boys, they generally do one movie a year and that's it. Yeah, I mean, going back a couple years, we saw Timothy Shalomey in a couple movies, where we had, like, he was in Dune 2 and the Bob Dylan one, I think. That was the same year.

That's true, yeah. So I personally liked his performance in Dune a lot more than I liked it in the Bob Dylan movie. So I think that, you know, that would be one recent example that I can think of, but nothing else is really top of mind. And going back to next year, he's got to be doing Paul O'SRadrydes and Dune once again and also doing Willie Wonka again. Double noms for Wonka and Paul. The Wanka one might be a bit of a stretch. But I wouldn't be shocked for them, even though they haven't

nominated him for his dude movies yet, I wouldn't be shocked if this was the year. They were like, yeah, he deserves a nom for or his Wanka movies. Yet, so. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Who knows? Yeah, it does. It also opens up for me like

an interesting speculation about past years, like, which performances that got in Oscar that have been kind of maligned might have better been served if they're going to a different performance. One that leaps to mind is when Jamie Lee Curtis

won best supporting actress for everything everywhere all at once. I think I'm not in a minority when I say I don't think that was a very good win. Like I think a lot of people looking back on that win are like, well, that was that was not the kind of performance

that deserves it at us. But that same year, she was in Halloween Ends, which is a movie that I and three other people think is awesome and delivered, in my opinion, in a crazy good performance. Yes, it's a horror movie, the horror franchise movie. So that's not the kind of thing Oscars normally nominated. But that's the sort of what if for me where I'm like, what if she could have had both those nominations at the same time? Yeah. One criticism I've seen like online of this rule is the people saying like, oh, this is a bad idea because the best actors are going to be subject to. to vote splitting, that their fans are going to be divided on which performance to go for.

And that's going to make them more vulnerable and they won't be getting the Oscar because of that. I'm not sure I buy that. Do you think there's any reason to be concerned about vote splitting hurting actors who get two nominations in the same year? Yeah, but that is a feature, not a bug for me. I think that that makes it a lot more exciting. I think there's definitely going to be people that are, we're going to see situations where are divided over these sorts of things. And that, that makes it more exciting to me. It would be interesting to see, you know, that puts the pressure on the actors in terms of where they feel they need to put their, like, campaign effort.

So I'm excited about that prospect. Yeah. I don't, I'm not sure I buy it in the sense that. So this rule, to be clear, that has been. repealed was just for actors. In other categories, there has been no rule preventing the same person from getting two nominations in the same category in the same year. In fact, we've seen it happen a number of times before. And history has shown that doesn't necessarily prevent the person from actually winning the Oscar. Probably the most notable example is when Steven

Soderberg was nominated for Best Director twice in the same year for Traffic and Aaron Brokovich. He did win that year. He also lost that year. He also lost that year. But he did win as well. So, I mean, that at least one prominent example shows that it didn't prevent him from winning the fact that there was votes splitting. You could argue that actors are different, though, that it's more like fan-based for actors, that people are more invested in the personality and not necessarily as completely focused on the product. But yeah, I'm not sure if I would really be concerned about that. So let me just give you the history of this quickly, because I had to let me just give you the history of this quickly, because I had to look it up because like I said, I was like, that was a rule. I didn't even know. Maybe I'm the,

the ignorant one here. That rule was put in place after the third Oscars in 1930. So we've discussed the first Oscars on this show before and I'll look up our Oscars Outsiders back catalog. If you want to learn some more about the very first Oscars and the origins of the Academy, because we had a pretty interesting discussion about that. If you're into that kind of history stuff, the first Oscars were a little bit different, as we discussed. It was the person who was nominated, not necessarily the specific performance. So Janet Gaynor won Best Actress, but she won for three different roles simultaneously. It was her work in Sunrise, Street Angel, and Seventh Heaven.

All three of those performances were cited. Same thing for Best Actor and Other Categories. It was they cited multiple, multiple. performances in the same year, or in the same eligibility period, rather. So that was a little different. Obviously, they changed it the next year and you were being nominated for a performance in particular, but originally there still was that possibility that you could be nominated for different performances in the same year.

And it was at the third Oscars in 1930 that it kind of got out of control. There were three different male actors who all had double nominations, George Arliss, Maurice Chevalier and Ronald Coleman, as well as two actresses, Norma Scherer and Grida Garbo, who both had double nominations. So five different people had double nominations in one year in 1930. If you're a math whiz,

you might be crunching the number. I'd be like, isn't that too many? They didn't have like the five nominations limit in those years. Like there were eight people. There were eight different roles nominated for Best Actor that year. Understandably, I guess, the Academy was like, well,

The same few people are hogging all the nominations. And that's why for the following year for the 1931 Oscars, they put in place this rule that you cannot be nominated twice in the same category as an actor. So it has existed for almost the entire histories, starting from the fourth Academy Awards up until the most recent 98th. Interestingly, it wasn't until 1944 where they put a rule in place where you couldn't be nominated twice for the same performance. if you're saying what the hell am I talking about? Well, in 1944, Barry Fitzgerald was nominated for both best actor and both best supporting actor for going my way for the same role.

So it was after 1944 where they put another rule in saying, no, the same performance can only be nominated in one or the other category, setting us up for this curb era that like you talked about, everybody likes to talk about category fraud and how they position a certain performance for whether it's, supporting or whether it's actor. That's really interesting. I could see how that would happen, especially in an era where there is not the same level of sophistication within the campaigning where people are like, well,

I don't know. I'm going to like vote for this person in this category. So yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, it reminds me of there was one year, sorry, I'm going to alienate a bunch of people by making a hockey reference.

There's one year at the NHTS. All-Star game where they did it by vote. And Alex Olvechkin was named to the All-Star team twice, once for left-winger and once for right-winger, because people didn't know what position he played, apparently. But enough people voted for him for the wrong position that he made it in for two different positions.

Something like that. Barry Fitzgerald, the Alex Ovechkin of his era? Yeah. Discuss. Let us know in the comments. Yeah. So, Yeah, I mean, there have been like these, these double nominations for two different categories, for two different roles have been kind of a feature that we've had for a while.

But hasn't happened since Scarlett Johansson. And I think that was 2011, I want to say. I don't know. Anyways, there's only been one time, by the way, if I could go on another little history detour. Yeah, do it. That in like the modern era since 1944, since these rules were put in place, that there has been two different performance. who have been double nominated in the same year. And that's 1993 when Holly Hunter was nominated for Best Actors and Best Supporting Actress for the piano and the firm.

And Emma Thompson was also nominated for Best Actors and Best Supporting Actress, Remains of the Day and in the Name of the Father. Oh, same year? That's great. Same year. Yeah. That's the only time that's happened in the monitor since 1930, I guess, actually. Yeah. So it'll be interesting to see if this has any good effects. So are we both on the same page that we think the.

This is cool and we like it. Yeah. Well, that's my view. Yeah. Me too. My view too. I think this is cool. I don't like it.

Before we move on, can you think of any other years where like maybe somebody in the past where somebody would have really benefited from being able to get these double nominations? Hmm. Yeah. I feel like off the top of my head, like there must be like a Pacino year from the 70s where like I don't have like in my head clearly lined up. Like which year was again dog day afternoon and which year was the. Godfather part two and

you know which year was the Panic and Needle Park but you know all those great performances in the 70s Jack Nicholson too like there has to be some years where they could have easily had double nominations yeah I feel like if you look at any of those kind of transitionary

periods where you like Hollywood kind of almost contracted around a singular like new direction like you know new Hollywood or this like emergence of indie where you've got like a core group of people that are kind of working together relatively closely or incestuously that I think that those are the moments where you would see something like that

but you have a better grasp on on history than I do as soon as the Oscars happen I forgot who was even nominated last year yeah a couple that jumped to mind is that I remember um the year that Nicole that the year that Kate Winslet was nominated for the reader, there was a lot of positioning about between her role and the reader and her role in Revolutionary Road that same year. Okay. And trying to decide which one they were going to try to position as supporting instead of lead, even though they're both lead roles because they wanted to get her nominations for both. And I remember there being kind of a back and forth between the academy and the studio of trying to

like force them to put her in supporting for. I don't remember which one it was. But that would have been one year where she would have benefited. Also, Scarlett Johansson, who as I mentioned was the most recent double nominee in two different categories, she could have benefited from being best actress twice in 2003, the year of Lost and Translacing, which was also the year of girl with a pearl earring. And there was, I remember there being a lot of Oscars buzz about Girl with a Pearl Earring. It did get a few nominations, but did not get.

a best actress nominations for Scarlett Johansson, presumably because she blocked herself by her performance in Lost in Translation. So that covers that and we are not done because there was another kind of significant rule, though, in a less sexy category, let's say. The best foreign language feature, best international feature, as it's now called, a category that's been being changed a lot in recent years has a category that has often been criticized for the way that it handles its process of having nominations with its long list and shortlist. So they're revamping how, not necessarily revamping, but adding an amendment to how movies can be nominated for Best International Feature.

So just to be clear, up until now, the Best International Feature has always gone to a country, like what gets engraved on the actual Oscar trophy. is like France or Sweden and not actually like the name of a director or producer. As most people probably know, there's only one official submission for each country. And the way those official submissions are made is that each country has their own film boards and the film board of that country has to decide which movie there go to submit to the Academy's consideration. This process has often been criticized because it means that the government of a country because the national film board is a government body.

The government basically has control over which movies get submitted. This has often been a point of criticism around how Iran and handles its films because Iran has been like Iranian filmmakers anyways, especially like Ashgar Faradhi, have been kind of heavy hitters in the international feature category lately. They're both filmmakers who have been persecuted by the government, as of so many filmmakers. and so many people in different walks of life in Iran. So having them have to kind of go through the government in order to have a shot at their film being nominated is the kind of thing that makes people say, well, this process is sort of broken. So they haven't changed that.

That's still going to be the way that films can be submitted. But there's another way that a movie can be submitted to nomination. And that's if they win a major award at one of the major international film festivals. So any movie that wins a major award at Berlin, Busan, Khan, Sundance, Toronto, or Venice, the big film festivals, they are automatically submitted for consideration. So that allows certain movies that have already been heralded on the international festival circuit to enter the Oscar nomination process, even if the government of that country does not actually submit the film. It also opens the door for their being.

two films from the same country nominated in the same year. Do you think this is a good thing, Craig? Yeah, I mean, I think this is a good thing. I'm interested to kind of consider what this rule stemmed from. I think it has to do with Iran, like I said. I think that's kind of the big thing that made people be like there's a problem with the current system. Yeah, that's interesting. I think like maybe this also has to do with like anatomy of a fall.

was not eligible to be an international film or was not selected as the international film. But it did have a major festival win. So it went, it went palm door. Right. Yeah. So I think that, you know, this is, this is great. It allows more films to be eligible. I think they should also, in doing this, expand the field.

I think that, you know, even up to seven, maybe not 10, I get like. best picture having 10 is kind of a, like, a novelty. And like there's a reason for that. But it would be good to have a bit deeper of a best foreign category, I think. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's interesting about anatomy of a fall. I think that is also a good candidate for the kind of movie that made people think, like, oh, that's too bad.

Because that year we didn't get anatomy of a fall versus the zone. of interest as Best International Future, even though they were both nominated for Best Picture. France nominated a taste of things or the passion of Didier Bufant that year, controversially to some people, instead of nominating the movie that won the Palme door, as their submission for Best International Film. Also, this past year, France's submission was, it was just an accident, another Palm Door movie, but that's Jaffar Panahy's movie that is more. mostly an Iranian movie made by an Iranian crew and an Iranian cast in the Farsi language,

but which had French financing French producers. So France was able to submit it. And I think a lot of people kind of applauded France for making that decision. But if that could have just been submitted anyways, then it would have opened the door to something like Nouvelle d'Ague to get a nomination, which might have been fun, or maybe Case 137 or another French movie. that year instead of the Iranian movie with French funding. Richard Linklater is my favorite French director, by the last year.

Yeah. Instead of nominating an Iranian directed movie, they could have nominated an American directed movie. But it's true international has gotten kind of squishy in recent years, even the zone of interest. That was the UK's official entry. A movie that is completely in the German language with German actors. You know, that same year had like, what's the the Vimenders movie, which is all in Japanese, totally, which was, you know,

submitted as the Japanese film, but was made by a German filmmaker. It's been getting squishy. And, and the fact, that's another reason why the fact that these nominations have to come from a country's official film board is, is,

it's kind of a weird, like, bottleneck point that seems to filter out some heavy hitters in the process. So I, I appreciate, this amendment. It kind of feels like it's not going far enough. Like, it kind of feels like this is going to allow an extra one or two through, but it's another gatekeeping process, too. Like, if passing the country's national film board's sniff test is a gatekeeping process,

so is passing, like, the jury at Berlin or Venice. Yeah. That also kind of limits the type of movies that have a shot at getting into it. But at the same point, I mean, there has to be choke points here and there. They can't just consider all of cinema everywhere in the world. Like, that's not realistic. And you can't expect voters in Los Angeles to have like this extremely, um, dense understanding of all the movies that are coming out in Brazil and the Philippines and Cote d'Ivoire and whatever else.

Like you have to present them with a limited number of selections to choose from. Otherwise, they're just going to pick like the one. movie that they saw last year. So I understand that there has to be certain choke points. There has to be a certain selection process. This is a step in the right direction, I think. I do think it is good to try to free this process up a little bit more from government controls and from even like, you know, we're in Canada and I don't want to get to

Canadian. I already did with the hockey stuff. I'll try to avoid that again. But like the ones that the films of the Canadian government chooses to submit as official entries to the Oscars are often like. drawing groans from people in the Canadian cinema world. It being like, really, that's the movie. You know, it is kind of lame to have a government body decide what gets to be submitted to the academy.

And it does limit the range of potential options. And the other part of this rule is that now the director of the film will have their name on the trophy. So it will actually be awarded to a director and not just to a nation. Can you think of any other than, I guess we just covered a couple, but other than like the zone of interest or this year New Valvaig movies that might have benefited or not have been screwed over

if this rule wasn't in place and hadn't been changed recently. You know, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I imagine, like, I'm thinking things, like, there's probably some, like, Japanese, like, anime movies that would have been eligible

that weren't, like, put forward. Yeah. you know, I don't know, like, something like spirited away. I don't even know. I'm just like if that was even eligible or if it was already nominated. But I'm sure that there has been a, I guess the point that I'm driving at is I think that there is probably countries that have really developed animated film scenes that are constantly getting overlooked based on their, you know, having a mature, like,

actual cinema scene that that would have otherwise had a chance to get nominated. But they've got their own little ghetto too. You know, you make a Latvian movie about a cat and you can just, you can put it in the animated category. You can bypass the whole, the whole process for selecting real movies. All right. So those are the two kind of real official rule changes. There is a third part of this announcement.

And in some corners, this seems to be what's getting the most. attention. It's not really a rule change. It's more like just a clarification. They have in the same, as part of the same press release, announced that they are officially not going to be considering AI performances or AI generated scripts, uh, that those are not going to be eligible. No. Think of the data centers. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm saying this isn't really. a rule change because it's not like that was a thing that anybody really thought you could do before. They have just kind of made it clear in case anybody was doubting that you cannot do that,

that you cannot submit for official consideration, a performance or a script that has been a I generated. So is there clear verbiage on this like being directed specifically to just acting and writing categories or, you know, okay. So interesting that music was not. included in this because like I feel like that is maybe the furthest like chance of getting nominated but um you know I think that we would probably like it's likely that we will see films that are using AI scores uh and someone might have the audacity to to put it out there for your consideration there is a rule change about music actually which I almost forgot about about musical scores because that's kind of been lost in the shuffle too.

And I almost forgot about that. And maybe let's jump on that right away, because I don't have anything to say about the AI stuff. It's like, yeah, good, obviously. Like, I don't know. Like, who actually thought other than a few like absolute losers in San Francisco that an AI generated performance would win an Oscar? Like, no, of course not.

Anyway, there is a tiny tweak that they made to the eligibility around which songs can be considered for Best Original Song. And they have said that the song in a movie has to be playing for, I, you know what, I forgot to look this up exactly, but I believe it's 15 seconds.

I believe it has to play for at least 15 seconds before the credits start to be considered as a, as an application for Best Original Song. So songs that are play entirely over the credits and do not play at all during the movie are not eligible. Do they have that little grace period, 15 seconds, I believe.

So you can start it just. before the credits have. It continues through the credits, but it has to at least start a bit before the credits to be considered a song from a movie. Interesting. So I am really curious about how this is going to change the structure of songs that we see because I feel like there's lots of movies that have no songs that play within the body of the film and then have their credit song that plays during the end. Do we see more of these songs structured in a way where there's like a 15 second intro or outro on it that contains whatever the main kind of theme of the score that can so that that can

be included within within the film without, you know, adding something that has like a vocal texture that a director might not want? Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. I wonder if this is going to affect. more like the negotiations with singers than the way the movies are made themselves. Like if, say, James Cameron like taps Zara Larson to write a song for Avatar 4, is she going to be like, okay, but there has to be a contract saying that my song will play for

at least 15 seconds before the credits because I want to have Oscars eligibility. Yeah. I mean, I think that that's, that's, this is like kind of more of a structural thing. I don't think it's going to really impact the, the, the, category, like what gets nominated all that much. But really, though? I think it might. I think it might.

Like, I don't think train dreams would be nominated. The Nick Cave song from Train Dreams, which when those nominations come out, I saw a lot of people off the same reaction. There was a Nick Cave song from Train Dreams. Because nobody fucking heard it. Because they watched the movie at Netflix. And Netflix, as soon as the credits start, you get hit with a trailer for peeky blinders or something.

So people were surprised. They had to Google it up. and then Google it up. Jesus Christ, am I like 86 years old? They had to look it up and then find out that there is actually kind of hysterical Nick Cave song where the lyrics are something like, I had a dream about a train.

I don't know if you've actually looked up the song. It kind of sucks. It's really funny. It's very literal. It seems like he just did it one day after like kind of half watching the movie. but that's why I think it could actually affect things because the category has been getting by on songs that just played during the critics

and that nobody even really realizes those songs existed. So I actually liked the change for that reason. I, you know, there was actually an anonymous ballot of these past Oscars where somebody said, I refuse to vote for a song that only plays during the credits because that's not an actual song from the movie. And that was the first time I was like, oh yeah, you know what? That's a good point.

So I guess maybe that person is responsible for the world of the rule change. Maybe that was the person who was lobbying the academy. But that kind of makes sense to me. I like that. A song from a movie should be in the actual movie. So do you think that we're going to see like a reemergence of title sequences where we've got a song that plays over? I hope so. I feel like that's maybe the workaround that we're going to.

because presumably that would count, right? There are cheaper workarounds than that because I remember like, I remember like late 90s, early 2000s where you would have like the CDs that would be like music from the motion picture were like a kind of a big thing, like big tie things, you know, for movies like, you know, Godzilla or whatever the hell or flubber or, you know, any one of those big summer movies would have like a music from the motion picture album that would be like heavily positioned and would generally sell well. and often they would try to shoehorn.

The Godzilla one fox. It does. Yeah. Jamiriqui. Green Day. Puff Daddy featuring Robert Page. Yeah. Um, um, so it, Godzilla is actually one of those ones where I think like there's a moment where like you can hear like on the radio a bit of the song playing.

And I remember this in Spider-Man. Spider-Man is another one of those kind of like classic sound truck movies. There's a moment where like Uncle Ben is driving Peter. And as the car pulls up, there's like the nickelback song playing on the radio for like 10 seconds. And then he just turns off the radio and starts talking about responsibility. They used to do that where they just like jimmy in a little bit of the music. Maybe just as a way to like remind the audience, like, by the way, there is a soundtrack out there you have to buy. But we could see a resurgence of that just to meet the eligibility rule, just to have the song playing on the radio in the background for a little bit.

just playing on TV or something. I'm down with that. I'm down with that. Another clarifying question. Does it specifically say before the credits or is it like outside of the credits? Because I'm wondering if we see like post credit scenes where we get that worked in. Oh yeah. Yeah, that's a good question.

I don't have the wording in front of me. I think it probably says outside of the credits. So that's what I'm assuming because that makes sense. But I would like to see a rest of. of songs written for a movie that actually appear in the movie. Because I've been watching a lot of like 80s and 90s thrillers lately. And a lot of them do that. And it's really fun.

I just watched No Way Out a couple days ago. You know, that's like the Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman, like late 80s political thriller. Okay. And, you know, very tense. Most of it has like a Maurice Jarre since score going on. But then there's a moment where like Kevin Costner like hooks up with a chick in the back of a limo. And then as they start hooking up,

he's just suddenly this song breaks out. That's where the chorus is like, there's no way out. That stuff's awesome. Like when you just randomly have a scene that has a music where the chorus is the title of the film, just breaking over things. They love that stuff in the 80s. Like the 80s was full of that stuff.

And you know what? We could have a bit more of that, at least for like the summer blockbusters. I'm not saying I want to have that happen in, in Fatherland. But, you know, that's fun. The Summer Blockbuster is when they do that. Yeah, totally.

I think this is a good rule. I think it's going to be interesting to see how it changes movies structurally. But, yeah, again, I don't think that it's going to change too much. No. In terms of what's... Yeah. Or I don't think it'll change too much about movies, to be honest. But I do think it's a positive tweak.

I'm feeling very positive here today. It's like all these things. I'm like, yeah, good. Yeah, good. That sounds good. Like these are, these are good changes. I can't find anything to bitch about. I don't know about you.

Yeah, no, I think that these are all really good. Yeah. Any final thoughts on these, these rule changes slash precisions? No, I'm, I'm good. Yeah. Well, I say just keep out at Academy. Like, keep that and like the new,

the new categories, casting, stunts coming back. This, like, kind of drive to kind of make tweaks and improvements is a positive. thing and they should they should really keep that energy going. I do think that the academy should revisit our old episode where we went over our proposed changes for for the Oscars. We had some really good ideas. Yep, I agree. Anything else in Oscar season news that's been catching your attention lately?

Yeah. So I wanted to cover the news in two sections. So first I wanted to talk about some releases that I think have happened over the past couple weeks that, you know, could be sticky titles. This is not traditionally a time where we see a ton of films that are nominated as potential Oscar contenders. But I think that there are three films that have been nominated within the past couple weeks that I could see potentially being a little bit sticky and could be within that conversation. So I actually haven't seen any of these movies yet. So I'm mostly just like talking out of my ass and like what the general buzz is around these films.

Which is what counts. Yeah. The first one is Project Hail Mary, which is a, I think maybe the longest shot of these three movies in terms of like. How long of a shot, Craig? Is there like maybe a term for how long of a shot it is that you could use? Yeah, I do think that we could definitely see this. It sounds like the type of movie that we could get in the like. sound design and visual categories.

But you never know this is going to be the year of Sandra Healer, I think. So there could be some attention on her performance there. But like we talked about before, she does have like three other films that she's going to be in conversations with, with, you know, Fatherland and Digger and Rose, I think is another one that she is in. So I think it's possible. Also, Ryan Gosling, is just really well liked and people want to see him do well.

We've seen him get nominations for things like Ken before. So I don't think it's... Yeah. Let's go back to the source. I think that it's like it's not impossible that we see this being a bigger force than it might seem right now for a like April release or March release or whatever it was. the other two

February actually I think it was February oh my God okay well I am very out to lunch on this maybe early March actually yeah but it feels like a while this was it was after the Oscars which were mid-March so you're absolutely right yeah yeah sorry

you might timeline's all wrong and this is after the Oscars yeah um so the other two films are Michael which sounded like it was going to be an absolute train wreck in terms of the production they rethought or they re-shot like a third of it they are completely steering around the the controversy in this, but it's a biopic of the like biggest

pop star of all time and has been doing numbers at the box office. So I think that it would be absurd to rule it out. I think that the timing is a little weird on the release for this, but the fact that it's doing so well, I think it's going to be unavoidable within the conversation next year, whether it actually amounts to a lot of nominations is definitely still like remains to be seen. But it's definitely going to be a piece that we're going to be talking about in proper Oscar season, I think. And then the the final one is Devil Wears Prada 2, which again is like getting a fair amount of like buzz around it. What's that? Yeah, we've got Streep. We've got. So Streep isn't two of the movies that you've just mentioned.

by the way. What else is she in? She has a voice cameo in Project Hail Mary. Oh, okay. I did not know that. Stanley Tucci's in it. Then Ann Hathaway. Like those, I don't think that you can ever count any of those three out. So I think that that's a movie that could be a bit stickier than we think for, again, a spring release. Any thoughts on those?

Have you seen any of those? I've seen Project Hail Mary. My most recent piece on my substack, which I'm going to plug right now, if you look on substack for Dylan Ferguson, you can find by writing for free. My most recent piece is about Project Hailberry. The article is called Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind. And spoiler alert, I think it sucks. I'm not a fan. But a lot of people like it a lot.

And it does have that kind of charm factor that is wanting a lot of people over. I've seen lots of people talk about Oscar potential with that movie, but I kind of chalked it up to the fact that the Oscars had just happened when it came out, so that people were stealing that headspace. People were still singing Oscars mode. Though, like you, I'm like, man, it's kind of weird for a movie to be in the Oscar conversation for that long. So I'd be surprised if it really has the legs to carry it through. But I could definitely see.

But Sinners. Yeah. Yeah. Sinners is a good point of comparison, too, actually, in terms of being kind of a genre movie that had a pretty big budget that really found an audience that a lot of people really liked and a lot of people really wanted to support. Not a one-for-one comparison, but I could see that comparison being made. And yeah, I could see it getting the requisite blockbuster slot among the nominees.

I have a hard time picturing it being a best picture frontrunner, but I could definitely picture it getting into the nominations. And like you said, getting technical noms, acting possibly. I would be annoyed if Ryan Gosling got a best actor nomination for that movie. Just because I'm annoyed with Ryan Gosling. Like he had in his early career, Gosling, I loved Gosling. Like he had so much potential in those early roles. And I'm sure that potential is still there.

But it feels like he just wants to be Ken forever now. Like he just keeps being the charming, likable goofball. and these roles which don't show a lot of range or effort. And he is capable of a lot of range and effort. And I find it a little dispiriting that he seems to have kind of chosen to go the easy route for the rest of his career unless there's going to be another change up coming. But he took a few years off from acting. And when he came back, it kind of felt like he went Adam Sandler mode, like just like give me a paycheck and give me easy projects that I can know I can just easily pull off with my natural charm without like working too hard. And I find that really disappointing because he, in his early roles, I thought he was a much better performance than like Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio when they were young.

And but when Brad Pitt and Leo de Caprio turned 40, they changed the way they acted. They started putting an even more work, more effort. Yeah. And have started doing career best work post 40. So I find it disappointing that Ryan Gosling to me seems to be going in the opposite direction. So if you got a nomination, I would be annoyed because I'd be like, no, you're rewarding him for it. Stop doing that. Otherwise, Michael, I have not seen it.

I'm sure I won't. I don't want to, man. And I guess I'm, I'm hoping that we're done with giving biopics of musicians awards. I found it promising that the Bruce Springsteen movie last year was completely ignored. nobody saw it. Nobody even talked about it really in awards conversation that much. Deliver me to nowhere. That was a healthy sign. I think obviously the Bob Dylan movie the year before was an awards heavy hitter, but I also feel like since Bohemian Rhapsody, there's been more and more

people who are like, no stop giving these attention because I think a lot of people acknowledge now that in retrospect it was embarrassing that Bohemian Rhapsody was an awards heavy hitter. It was an embarrassing that it was an actual frontrunner for Best Picture, that it won best actor, that it won best editing, a decision which has been widely mocked since. That's actually

the decision that I've heard defended the most, to be honest. Editing? Editing, yeah. Oh, yeah. Apparently, what was shot was a complete mess. They changed directors halfway through or something like that. Yeah, yeah. So it was a movie that was entirely constructed within the editing suite. And

So for that fact alone, that is kind of where the defense is coming from. But I'm not going to be the one jumping to its defense. I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen a video showing clips from the movies and showing how like atrociously edited they seem to be. And I don't think a movie should get bonus points for having a troubled production. And I think that might be at least the only recent best picture nominee, if not the only best picture nominee ever that directed itself. it has no credited director. Brian Singer did most of it before he got fired and they patched together the rest like you said. And it has no credited director, which is a weird ass thing that I feel like we don't talk about enough.

Enough about Boyme in Rhapsody. I'm just saying that I feel like that more than any other movie, the kind of embarrassment over that has encouraged more people to like not want to position these musician biopics of which we have, you know, three or four every year now. as heavy hitters. I agree that Michael is going to be really hard to ignore. I'm sure it's going to continue to make big box office, not just in North America, but around the world. It's the kind of sure thing that the studio knows it will. How can you not? It's a Michael Jackson movie. I don't want to see it in the Oscars conversation. Man, I hope that doesn't come to pass. Devil Wears Prada. I could see it getting like a supporting actress for Meryl Streep, that I'm not sure I could see anything else.

It just feels too like, it doesn't feel like the kind of movie that the Oscars go for. You know, it's like a rom-com mode. So I think you're underestimating it because I could see Stanley Tucci being within the supporting conversation as well. And the fact that this is for sure

going to be within the costume design category. It's going to get eyes on it. It's going to have people, like people have already seen this movie, and people are going to see it more as part of the award season. So I think that this is going to get a bit more attention than people are expecting. It's just like it's a rom-com sequel, like a legacy sequel to a rom-com. That just doesn't feel like Oscars, you know?

Yeah. Well, we'll see. Yeah. So the other two news items that I wanted to talk about, one that is kind of getting a little bit of buzz right now on the Oscar forums that I'm tapped into is we got a first look at Dominic Seza in Tony. He's fronting a biopic about Anthony Bourdain. And I think the trailer just dropped today as we're recording this. I haven't watched it yet. I do really like Dominic Cezza. I do not like biopics, but I also do like Anthony Bordane. So I'm interested

to see what happens here. The fact that it's not a like musician biopic is maybe like a saving grace for it. This is a 824 is distributing this one and what's interesting is that this is being tapped for a summer release when a lot of people thought that this was going to be like a sure

fire like TIF winner or a real like Toronto International Film Festival heavy hitter here. And so the fact that it's getting a straight summer release as opposed to a festival release is an interesting

signal for how they are planning on positioning this. It seems like it's not going to be one of the movies that A24 is is backing. And maybe that like says something about the strength of their their roster more than anything else. But yeah, I'm curious if you've got any like feelings about this or what what you think of the buzz around this. No, not really. I remember it being announced like three years ago.

And this is like the first time I've heard of this movie since. It feels like it's been in production for a long time just based on from like the time between when I first heard that that casting happened like right after the holdovers. You know, I remember that that casting being announced. And I have not not seen any of this yet.

So I will withhold judgment. Yeah, I think it's interesting. We'll see what happens here. Antonio Banderas is in this as well. And so, you know, there's another Hollywood name that could be like talked about within the, you know, a legacy career career win. There could be a narrative that emerges behind him. So we'll see what happens there.

The other, the last thing I want to talk about is the fact that Greta Gerwig's Narnia has been moved to 2027 release as opposed to a 2026 release. People thought that that was going to be the movie that Netflix was going to put its way. wait behind. Speaking of movies, I first heard of announced like half a decade ago. Like, how long has it been? Maybe it just feels like it's been a long time since they officially announced that they're going into production on the Narnia movie. Yeah. So I'm curious as to what that means for like Netflix slate this year, because that seemed like it was going to be their movie. Does this mean that they're going to be active on the Fessel's circuit trying to pick something up? I think that that is likely the case. I can't think of anything that I've heard from them

that has been announced that they would be throwing their weight behind, but I guess we'll see. When is the Digger premiere? What festival is that going to be at? Now that I'm just thinking out loud here, because I feel like that's one that I'm really been waiting on its premiere for. Oh, that's a good question. I think they're going to do it at one of the fall festivals. Maybe they haven't announced which one yet. But I think it's expected at one of the fall festivals, maybe Venice. That's one that I'm definitely going to be watching because I, you know, I'm trying not to make predictions this early, even though Craig will not stop goading me. Let's do it.

See? This is what I'm talking about. But if I was making predictions, the one that I would feel most confident about is Tom Cruise best actor. It just feels like the goodwill towards Tom Cruise is at a high enough crest lately, you know, since COVID Top Gun 2. He's just reached such a high crest of goodwill and people actually being like, Mr. Movies is great that having him have the Iniratu movie come out now with a performance that might be a little different and more challenging for him. The timing just feels right for a, this is his year narrative. If the TikTok Scientology compound raids end up like continuing through the summer or they find him tucked away in some like back corner of the the Hollywood Celebrity Center, I'm wondering what that does to his chances. But no, I agree like Digger Tom Cruise seems like a lock.

If I were to do just like a pulse check on what I think the next, you know, the upcoming award season campaign. is going to look like, I think that it's going to be like Digger versus Odyssey. That seems like the two big pieces there. And Tom versus Matt for Best Actor? Could be. Because, I mean, honestly, as much as I do feel kind of confident in my Tom Cruise thing,

Matt Damon could also really benefit from me. This is his type narrative. Totally. Super overdue. Yeah. Back when, like, it was the year of the Revenant when Leo DiCaprio finally went his Oscar, I remember like 538, like the Nate Silver.

website did like an analysis of like which actor statistically is most overdue for an Oscar like, you know, weighing like having been in movies that received a lot of nominations and stuff. And Leo DiCaprio was not number one or even particularly close, but it was by far Matt Damon. Like, you know, take that for whatever it's worth. But but you know, and there's statistical analysis of who is most overdue was Matt David. And that was, you know, back 10 years ago. So that he does, he doesn't get that kind of. buzz, it seems. Like, he's just one of those guys who's in so many movies that he's almost like Kevin Bacon mode. Like, oh, he's Matt Damon's in this. I didn't know that. But I could see

him also having a very big surge of support. Like, yeah, it's about time somebody gave him an acting Oscar instead of his fake rating Oscar. Yeah. I am a little bit excited to see what the Scientology, like, presence on the campaign is going to be. Because obviously, that's going to be something that people are going to be talking about. And it's just really exciting to see like what that conversation. Yeah. Much to consider. Well, that's, that's it for me. Yeah, yeah. I think that's it for now. That's already quite a bit for an episode being recorded in early May. But let's see what the what the summer season has in hold in terms of, in terms of contenders. Right. Well, Craig, we'll catch you next time.

Any thoughts you want to leave our audience with? Just make sure you hit like and subscribe on whichever podcast platform you're listening to, whichever YouTube channel you're watching this on. We're going to be releasing this on our Bravo outsider channel, but we'll probably also put it on to the Oscars outsider channel. And yeah, hit subscribe on both so you don't miss it whenever we decide what we are. I would also like to see some comments of people. proposing some actors and actresses that they think might have benefited from being able to be

nominated twice for two different roles in the same year. You know, I didn't really think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure later today I'm going to be like, oh, what about that one? But I want to hear your guys' suggestions because I feel like that's a really interesting, like what-if exercise of Oscars history. Yeah, I'm Dylan Ferguson. I already mentioned I have a sub-stack. Feel free to check that out and follow me there.

like and we will catch you next time.