Oscar picks a new date.
Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:30PM 
The Oscar prediction charts will be up soon but thought you should know if you haven't yet heard a couple of news items in relation to awards season. The Oscar ceremony is not reverting to February as we'd hoped (shame). The 94th Academy Awards will be held on March 27th, 2022 next year to be exact.
They're keeping the streaming eligibility rules but thankfully the eligibility calendar is back to the Calendar Year. Well sort of...
This year that means films released between March 1st through December 31st (shorter than usual due to last season's extension). Unfortunately holding the Oscars in late March again, after years of trying to get them as early as possible into the year, will result in lots of f***ery from the studios of one week qualifiers and the like that don't *really* come out. What we wouldn't give for a true calendar year; so elegant and simple!
In semi-related news the HFPA has hired ethics and diversity consultants and legal advisters and is expected to vote on new bylaws in July.
HFPA, Oscar Ceremonies, Oscars (21), release dates
Reader Comments (15)
I don't mind the late date as much, as it harkens back to the glory years before everything got rushed in February. And yes, there will be a lot of late-minute December releases. But at least audiences will have 3 months to see them instead of 2.
I think the 2019 Oscar season was pretty awful (other than the glorius ending with Jane Fonda and Parasite). In particular, the nominations felt rather uninspired and I think that's due to the shortened calendar. Here's hoping having the awards in March allows for more time for better, and even more unexpected, nominees.
Why do you persist in believing that a tighter deadline will mean Oscar movies all year long? They changed the date 17 years ago, and it never happened -- all it did was compress the race, forcing voters to watch all the contenders in a tighter frame. Giving outsized power to the bloggers and agenda-setters (like the Broadcast Critics), and cutting down on surprises.
Did you not notice that last year, with its extended dates, gave us late-arriving movies that did better than expected (The Father, Judas and the Black Messiah) and the most competitive best actor/actress tandem since 2001-2002? (Not coincidentally, the last years before the ceremony was moved from March to February.) When voters have more time to actually watch more films, they make less predictable choices.
I'd be thrilled with a permanent move to late March. It's only Oscar-compulsives, with their access to screener copies, who get bored with the race by then. Most normal folk are still catching up with the December releases.
Hurrah! The Governors Awards are returning.
Let the campaign begin. Liv Ullmann for the Honorary Oscar.
And then recognize either Dolly Parton for her generosity in literacy or Barbra Streisand for her significant financial contributions to women’s heart health for the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.
Paranoid -- but they won't really as what will happen is the the studios will do one week qualifiers and then hide the movie again until February so you're still going to have to cram your viewings in a short time frame.
Tom Q -- I'm a bit confused at your response since nowhere in this post did i say that a February date would result in Oscar movies all year long. Like you I do not believe that it would. But last year was no different than any year. It was just that December was February so it was still a last minute crunch and the "December" releases (aka the February releases) were the ones that overperformed. They didn't make unexpected choices *because* the race was pushed back (my theory at least) but because they just went for the late breaking stuff which is totally normal while the pundits and some of the critics and some of the awards shows were still focused on December which caused a disconnect which made things kind of weirdly suspenseful. I dont think it had anything to do with the later date other than the confusion the later date caused.
i WISH we'd have Oscar movies all year round of course. I get so tired of everything being crammed together. It's very anti-movie meant to train you that if serious movies are your sort of thing there's a season for it. Rather than to have you curious all year long about the movies. which is too bad.
I like the Oscars in March. It's a spring things.
And the Tonys are happening in September!
This is a tragedy! I thought they would revert to February. I will be out of the country and not be hosting my party for the first time in 21 years. :(. I would even cancel my plans but for my family have all gotten their tickets. Perhaps I will zoom in to another party.
March 27th it is!
Speaking of HFPA, did you noticed being a golden globe nominee/winner is no lo longer relevant for IMDB? I LOLed at it!
J -- well at least they didn't remove the awards from the site altogether. what a crazy time we're living in.
I'm fine if SAG are earlier and voters get the chance to reflect on their ballot. They did this year and we loved the results.
Nathaniel: apologies for misreading you. I saw this sentence:
"What we wouldn't give for a true calendar year"
and, connected to your dismay at the later date, thought you were advocating for what I expressed. (Possibly because I've read you advocating for the same in the past.) Sorry to have mistakenly misrepresented you.
For the record, like you, I'd love to have interesting movies all year round, but that ship has long ago sailed, well before the date shift from late March to late February.
We'll have to agree-to-disagree on how this past year played out. I saw a lot more movement in voters' thinking this year that seemed to correspond to how much time they had. It may be that The Father and Judas were "later" movies, but, the way the calendar went, everything was late this year -- Ma Rainey in mid-December was hardly an early release. I think Ma Rainey faded because more people saw it and didn't so much like it, while the other two appreciated in the public mind because they gave people powerful experiences -- even if the Broadcast Critics (who usually set the parameters) weren't so impressed by them.
I think the Oscars need to deal with the Honorary and In Memoriam section some stars deserve a tribute longer than 2 seconds of the smiling into camera.
Back in the day, didn't the DGA and WGA nominate writers quarterly and the winners of the quarterly awards were competitive for the official annual DGA. I read it in Tom O'Neil's awards book. Could we go back to that and how cool would it be for the Oscar race (maybe)?
Still not over the JLo snub.