There are 85-90 submissions; they get split into 7 groups for 1st-round viewing by volunteers. Yes, you could create limitless eligibility--but then you'd have to eliminate the requirement that everything be watched, which means it becomes a Best Picture-like contest among the highest-profile films.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Republican|North Carolina District 8
Mark Harris
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 497
Yes75%
No24%
Present0%
Not Voting0%
Party align93%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 8
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Mark Harris
U.S. RepresentativeRepublicanNorth Carolina District 8
SoupScore
Mark's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 14 sponsored · 69 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The greater the number of movies you have to watch, the more the system will privilege retirees and non-working members over active professionals. Which is what the old system was, and there is so much evidence that that did not work.
The problem is that members who volunteer to judge are already pretty stretched. You get assigned a set of 12-14 movies you have to watch, maybe 2 of which will make the final 15. Then you have to watch those 15 to pick the nominees. I'm not sure how adding another 40-60 eligible movies could work.
[Every MAGA voter across the country nodding slowly with a slightly glazed expression and murmuring, "That's right...yes...I DO have to show ID when I eat in a restaurant..."]
Or maybe just one actress!
Angelic Nicole Kidman in wheelchair: I heard the phone...did Taylor Sheridan call?
Slatternly Nicole Kidman standing over angelic Nicole Kidman with dinner tray [doing savage imitation): "Did Taylor Sheridan call?" Yeah, right after Scorsese. They. Don't. Remember. You.
[Quietly puts "What Ever Happened to Bobby Joe" treatment back in desk drawer]
Honestly, I want two different actresses to do this every year.
For a while back in the day, an updated version of Baby Jane was every screenwriter's practice script. I remember reading about a planned version with two brothers in which Tony Danza would play a paranoid punch-drunk ex-boxer. I am 80% sure I did not dream this.
It sounds like something out of an old Clyde Fitch play!
This goes to such a profound and dispiriting divide about what the purpose of voting is that I just don't have the heart to argue it with people here. (tl;dr: I'm with you.)
And maybe not even that!
Hello. I am your president. I saw a drawing of a giraffe and I said that's a giraffe. My ballroom will be very big. They are building an arch for me. My face will be on money. Only I know how do percentages. I did a war and sometimes it is over but sometimes not. I am alive. Daisy....daisy....
Nobody in the world is more committed to keeping the "Donald Trump has dementia" story alive than Donald Trump.
It's not about being an international figure so much as it's about being on a jury. In my experience, people take it seriously and are not thinking about down-the-road ramifications, just about the task in front of them. I just don't see a Cannes jury sitting down and saying, "So, the Oscars..."
Juries are so idiosyncratic, though--they're all going to have some % of people who will make a point of saying that the Oscars shouldn't even be considered.
I think festival juries tend to do their own thing, but if the net result is that more worthy films that are not submitted for political reasons can now contend for an Oscar, I think the risks are worth it. New rules can always be tweaked, but to me this is a step in the right direction.
I think the split-vote thing was an issue when nominators had to pick one performance but now, I believe they can pick both, unless I'm misreading the rules.
Great example--she definitely would have been in for Looking for Mr. Goodbar as well as for Annie Hall.
I'm searching my mind for historical examples of times when actors might have received double nominations in the same Oscar category (which will now be allowable). One is Dennis Hopper, who would have been nominated for both Blue Velvet and Hoosiers in 1986. Any others?
Sadly, no, they're not. I know many of the people who are replying.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History497 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
497 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-10 | H.R. 3838 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Agreed to |
| 2025-09-10 | H.R. 3838 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Agreed to |
| 2025-09-10 | H.R. 3838 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Agreed to |
| 2025-09-10 | H.R. 3838 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Agreed to |
| 2025-09-09 | H. Res. 682 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-09 | H. Res. 682 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-08 | H.R. 3425 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-08 | H.R. 3424 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.R. 4553 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-04 | H.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-03 | H. Res. 539 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-03 | H. Res. 672 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-03 | H. Res. 672 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-02 | H.R. 747 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-09-02 | H.R. 4216 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-23 | H.R. 4275 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-23 | H.R. 3357 (119th) | Fast-track passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Passed |
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 1917 (119th) | Fast-track passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Passed |
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 3937 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-21 | H.R. 3351 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-21 | H.R. 3095 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Failed |
| 2025-07-18 | H. Res. 590 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-18 | H. Res. 590 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 1919 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 3633 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-07-17 | H. Res. 580 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.