Sorry, Proudliberaldan, I said that in the first round of Oscar voting, prior to the nominations, I see all films with a reasonable chance. The equivalent would be for an Emmy panelist to see every episode of every eligible series. Not just those nominated. Is it better to choose an award by committee and disenfranchise most of an academy's members? Or to trust that all of the members wil have a sense of responsibility to their craft and the stature of the award? I like the way we do it --but I can certainly understand your reasoning.

Proudliberaldan implies that Academy members often vote without seeing some or all of the eligible films. During the first round of balloting, that may be true. No one has time to catch the several hundred movies released annually that technically qualify for consideration. But as an Oscar voter, I feel an obligation -- as do virtually all of the Academy members I know -- to see every film with a reasonable chance. And once the nominations are announced, to see every nominated film, performance and contribution, if not in a theater at least on DVD. For most of us, election to the Academy is a high point in our careers, confirmation that all of the effort, achievement, frustration and fun, over the years, was worthwhile. And we'll be damned if we'll take it lightly. Or capriciously.

A little less patting ourselves on the back for no good reason ain't necessarily a bad thing.

I have heard that many writers are working now on the prostitution business due to this strike. I've also heard that now they are working as prostitutes, they feel more authentic, honest, free and most of all, creatively challenged.

brokenglish.blogspot.com

If they do the contingency plan, can't they still have the nominees in the audience and the winners come on stage? After all, if there is to be no "writing" for the show (they'll show clips and all that instead of having Billy Crystal or whomever doing his stand-up and instead of writers writing witty things for presenters to say), then why would the writers guild object to the stars attending?
I probably don't understand what's going on so I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify...

I hope this strike is settled soon and I hope the actors can get a good deal without a strike.

I also hope the Oscars also go forward because they are important for the industry as a whole.

While AMPAS is arranging back-up plans for the ceremony, why don't they try something novel like requiring their members to actually see all the nominations before voting? That's a big help in making these decisions!

At least the Television Academy has strict requirements about viewing before voting. An Emmy may not have the prestige as an Oscar, but it certainly has more credibility.

But, the Oscars are important for the industry and everyone loves a party, so I hope this is settled. I have lots of friends in side businesses or who work as designers, crew, caterers, etc., and they'd like to get back to work too.

However, I support unions and the need for stronger unions, and I think the writers are correct on the issues. It just seems that the Motion Picture Academy is the wrong target or protest, just like the Television Academy was the wrong target by the 1980 SAG strike.

The voting rules for the Oscar may be a crock, where they members don't have to see all or even any of the nominees before voting, but the Academy doesn't produce the films that hire the writers and writers.

It's sort of like boycotting the electric company for the Exxon oil spill.

What Ganis is REALLY saying is we have an obligation to not be denied our megamillions in profit that we make off this to finance our Hollywood lifestyles.

I work in the Motion Picture business. I hope everything is settled soon.

I hate awards season. I hope they're all cancelled. As Woody Allen said in 'Annie Hall': "They do nothing but give out awards. Greatest facist dictator - Adolf Hitler."