Screenwriting : Birdman Wins by Stacy Gentile

Which of course is a brilliant point. If you are going to do the film yourself, you can write the script any way you damn well please. It's probably easier on the re-writes too.

Yeah, I never really understood the advise to look up your favorite movie scripts and copy them. It's almost never in a format the industry excepts because these are most likely established writers or, as you guys pointed out, writer/director collabs.

Poor choice of words on my point. Not "copy" But "study" like you have pointed out, Lisa. I think it's terrible advise to give to newer writers. Yes, I do agree that you need to learn the basics and then let your creativity take over. So that's why I don't understand this advise to study your favorite movie scripts. They're almost all bad examples.

Lol haven't read the script yet but I know exactly what you mean;) A lot of people think that ripping your work to shreds is "being honest," which may or may not be true, but I've always thought that criticism carries with it the responsibility to say how something can be improved, which is rather more difficult than finding fault;) Ignore those who obviously are taking out their anger issues on everyone they can, and move on to those being genuinely helpful (much more rare, unfortunately, but they're out there... and right here).

Well, studying scripts is one of the best ways to learn craft, technique and story structure. For a new writer, this is invaluable. However, I can see your point, Jean-Pierre, for someone just starting out -- finding one's bearings in all the "guidelines," "how to" books and formatting "rules" -- it's confusing to even understand the differences between a spec script and a shooting script, let alone understand that just because Shane Black or Tarantino writes a certain way it does not mean that it is okay for everyone else.

I was thrilled BIRDMAN won; winning several categories. Well deserved. Exciting.

It's definitely all about figuring out which screenplays you should study from. That's why I cringe whenever I see someone tell a newer writer to pick their favorite movies and google their scripts. It's not always the best advise. On more than once occasion, I've took it upon myself to google their suggested scripts and if it's not "industry spec ready" (Just made that up) I'll message them with better examples.

You are so right, Stacy. Peer to peer review isn't worth much. People critique based on what they have read. Producers have a very different criteria than anonymous people on message boards. So you're right - if the script for "Birdman" were posted on line for peer to peer review most people would say it doesn't fit the criteria that have read about.

Jean-Pierre, I disagree with you. Very strongly. Reading is ALWAYS good for writers. Novels and screenplays. Everything. A screenwriter who does not read screenplays is a foolish writer.

He may have meant that when you google a screenplay you never get the spec script--you get the more advanced version with all of the camera shots and everything--I believe that's why he said "which screenplays you should study from..."

I read the script too and thought there were a ton of things that would have never passed a contest. When you are the writer and director though, you seem to get more forgiveness on those things.

I feel a writers should be a readers. All screenplays are a good learning tool. I feel it's very important for writers to read unproduced scripts form unproduced writers, spec scripts, shooting scripts, scripts from writer/directors, scripts from writer/producers... Reading is very, very important.

@ D Marcus - "Jean-Pierre, I disagree with you. Very strongly. Reading is ALWAYS good for writers. Novels and screenplays. Everything. A screenwriter who does not read screenplays is a foolish writer." --- Yes. I one hundred percent agree with this statement, so you agree with me. :) But I do DISAGREE with your comments on peer to peer feedback. You obviously are not going to start out writing, hand a producer a script, and it's genius. You need some sort of feedback. And if you're just starting out, you'll be wasting your money on coverage. Peer to Peer feedback is important in my opinion. It's free, and unbiased advise. If you think it's terrible advise, ignore it. If it's good advise, great! Who's to say the peer doesn't give advise a producer would be proud of? It's definitely worth it in my opinion. @ Lisa - If you've never suggested that a newer writer should study a script from their favorite movie, then my comments are not geared toward you.

I'm glad we agree, Jean-Pierre. When you said it's "terrible" advice to give to newer writers I though you meant the advice of reading your favorite movie scripts. I think it's great advice. I always suggest newer writers read a script from their favorite movie. I must have misunderstood your opinion on that - it seemed you were saying that newer writers shouldn't study a script from their favorite movies so I thought there was a disagreement. I never said to ignore peer to peer feedback. Nor did I say or suggest that new writers would start out out writing, hand a producer a script, and it's genius. Not sure where you thought I suggested that. Stacy made and excellent point - that the script for "Birdman" would likely be picked apart by peers but a producer found it worthy of production. Peers have a different criteria than producers. That's what I said and that's what I meant.

It also helps when you're a Hollywood Insider who has been writing and directing in the movie business for the last 20 years; have 15 director credits; and have made movies like Biutiful, Babel, 21 Grams, and Amores Perros. If anyone is exempt from having to adhere to what the "Current Favored Rules" are, it's someone like Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. For the rest of us writers who are aspiring to get good representation/option our scripts/sell our scripts/become Hollywood Insiders, I'd say stick to Blake Snyder's Beat Sheet the best you can; tell a great story that is relevant and salable today; market it properly; and hope for the best. :)

@ D Marcus, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with what you're saying now, but agree with what you said before. That should clear up what we said, right? ;) But in all seriousness "But a producer found it worthy of production" - I was about to take back everything I said because this sounded to me like the writer of Birdman was a person just breaking into the industry. But then I IMDB'd it.

Worldview Entertainment, a NYC firm that no longer exists (big lawsuit going on), took on the "Birdman" project mainly because they wanted to make a New York centric project for under $20. Since the partners split up, Chris Woodrow raised $5 to do his next film (with his new company, new partners).

In my experience, it's rare to find an actual shooting script online. What you generally find are later, pre-shoot drafts.

If you are starting out as a screenwriter, learn the rules of screenwriting, know the rules of screenwriting. After you have achieved success as a screenwriter you may be able to break the rules and get away with doing so.

Stacy, "Birdman" reached the film's financiers via CAA. Despite the prestige of CAA, though, every other script the agency suggested to Worldview Entertainment was a TURKEY -- but at least one took flight. :-D

Hi Stacy, Thanks so much for sharing this script with us. I agree, it's not written too well, rather melodramatic but good ending and some dark comedic moments. Must be the execution more than the script that got the attention.

We hear so much about how important the "First 10 pages" are - how it must grab the reader's attention because the poor devils work so hard and have so many scripts to consume at their disposal - be honest, did the First 10 pages of Birdman grab you? Remember, this movie won Academy Awards, so did we witness 10 pages that would alert an executive and electrify an A list actor? I thought it was okay and the script got better as it went along, but I wasn't hooked nor overly impressed in the sense that we are in the presence of "quality" work - I haven't seen the film yet so this screenplay is my initial exposure to Birdman - I'm interested in hearing how many people saw "hit" upon reading the script.

Stacy, thank you for providing the script, made interesting reading - I enjoyed the script, it was okay, but at no stage did I feel intimidated by the quality/power of this writing - did anyone else?

I don't disagree, Owen, but tell me, did you read this screenplay and were you "hooked" after 10 pages? These were not four mugs that wrote Birdman, it's meant to be a quality of work that surpasses our humble writing and for us to aspire to this level - while it was okay, I was underwhelmed and curious to know what effect, if any, it had on other members.

I haven't judged the script re execution nor the fact they applied different rules to what we were taught - makes no difference to me, but the quality of writing, the story, does - we are told incessantly about the value and importance of the first 10-15 pages - I can only speak for myself, but the initial 10-15 pages did not alert me to a great script "looming" and so compelling that I would not be able to stop reading - of course, others will have a different reaction, I'm simply curious to see how many people were engaged where I was not.

An A-List Director aided with the script. If he says it's good, then everyone is going to read it until the end, no matter how compelling the first 10, 15, or 30 pages are. I was honestly bored with the beginning or Birdman and didn't finish it during my first viewing. But eventually I went back to it after all the hype, sat my hyperactive ass down and enjoyed what became an excellent piece of work.

You are correct, Owen. None of the adages (or "rules") are 100% true and accurate 100% of the time. The adage of having a strong first ten pages isn't all that murky. As you point out some scripts don't live up to is opening and the story suffers. I don't believe that means the "rule" is murky. And personal taste comes into play. I think the opening of "Zombieland" payed off well. I think the opening of "Birdman" is extraordinary.

The first ten pages clearly set up Riggan's external and internal conflicts. Inarritu addresses the shallows and depths of ego/consciousness; insecurities/achievements; narcissism/guilt/understanding;, love/false love; emptiness/attainment/fulfillment; struggle/salvation/redemption in ways that are contemporary, evocative, compelling and entertaining. Plus, there is even a trick ending - did he (Riggan) or didn't he? Birdman is one of the greatest scripts I ever read.

Bill, I don't doubt it is an excellent script, but did the first 10 pages "hook" you in, did you find those pages compelling or did it get better as you kept reading - or, most important, did you read the script AFTER you saw the movie? I haven't seen it, yet.

Read it today. First ten weren't great, but it picked up after that. This is one of those "cut a few days out of someone's life" where you don't really have a dramatic inciting incident, scripts -- one where the focus is on the characters. Did give me some good chuckles, but once again the humor is mostly sexually oriented. There were a few typos and a name mistake -- which I'm surprised didn't get fixed. A couple of times I had to backtrack for clarification.

Chanel, I read it before and after. Every page hooked me in deeper and deeper. My original comment in this post quasi-confirmed that Inarritu seems to break some of the "Current Favored Rules of Moviemaking." He really sticks to a lot of the rules, though. Maybe things don't happen exactly at the page that they are supposed to happen, but script doctor/film critic Selen Bertero does a great job of showing how Birdman works on the Blake Snyder Beat Sheet, which you can find on her blog here. http://magicofstory.com/snyders-beat-sheet-applied-to-inarritus-birdman/ I think that many, if not most, production companies and film studios would have turned down Birdman, simply because they were not looking for an "Introspective and Philosophical Movie that Delves into the Tortured Soul of a Washed-Up Comic Book Movie Actor/Guilty Bad Father/Guilty Ex-Husband Who Originally Meant to Be a Serious Actor and Who Seeks Salvation and Redemption by Staging a Serious Play that is Well-Received and Who Still Might Commit Suicide Because He Really is that Tortured." That's pretty heady stuff, to be sure, and not exactly aimed at young people; is not a comic-book movie; and is not a feel-good movie or escapist movie. But I'd imagine Birdman is going to be a film school staple for a long time.

It's so hard to Judge what will strike a chord and what won't in movies, books, music, etc. some people read 'Fifty Shades of Grey' and thought 'this will never sell'. Someone else read it and saw gold. I'm sure there are millions of great scripts that were passed on, and we'll never know how they would've appeared on the silver screen. But someone read Birdman and saw the potential…or had it improved upon until it reached its potential.

I turned it off after 40 minutes. I thought it was really bad.
No stakes, unlikeable protagonist, not funny yet clearly supposed to be a comedy, a 'who cares' goal, annoying score, didn't seem authentic to the theatre world, and I know that world, "Look at me" cameos/over-populated with big names. Zach Galifaniks is the producer, Naomi Watts etc.

Bottom line - write what you know. And limit co-writers to ONE other person. This was written by FOUR Mexican dudes when it should have been written by a guy who's lived Broadway for years. If i see a script written by four Mexicans it better be set in Mexico

But hey it got 96% on rotten tomatoes so what do I know, but that was my gut reaction....Maybe it was too art house for me

Nicely put, Bill, I will read the script beyond the 12 pages I've read - the fact it may not conform to "normal" parameters is of no consequence as long as the writing/story is good.

"If i see a script written by four Mexicans it better be set in Mexico" - Racism at its prime. It may have gotten a 97%-%100 on Rotten Tomatoes if it had been written by someone in theater. But clearly these guys knew what they were doing if it won best picture, and critics and audiences came to the consensus that it was a good film. But I understand it isn't for everyone. I don't agree that the screenplay is one of the best written scripts I've ever read, but it picks up and pays off in my opinion. (Well, the film. I didn't read the script)

I read the first 21 pages of the script. I agree it wasn't all that compelling. I read that when you write a log line you should go from general to more specific, so when I saw the log line: INT. HALLWAYS - THEATER I thought it should read: INT. THEATER - HALLWAYS Anyway I know I shouldn't concentrate on stuff like this it takes away from the enjoyment of reading the script. But I think it ties into this discussion.

Slugline

Well, since Oct 17th it's only made $38m even with the Oscar nom and Oscar win... so in the real world, a script like that is not going to interest too many people in the biz. (I wrote a column for Indie Film Channel Mag for a while, and $38m was the average domestic income for an indie film with critical raves or Oscar nomination... that exact amount!)

I can't get into the script, but i'll keep it for further study. There's nothing about it that's stands out though. It feels like talking heads. I'll see the film to see how it was translated though.

Michael, I actually prefer HALLWAYS prior to THEATRE, that's how I write it.

Whoa, do we really need to go down that path, Owen? He saw no merit in the film, not to his taste, that doesn't make him narrow-minded, and we need to tread carefully citing someone as "racist" - I prefer at this stage to think his outrage is the fact four non theatre people wrote this story, an area Dave suggests he has a measure of expertise - as in if four Australians writing about American culture might tread on some toes - to condemn someone from one short paragraph makes me uncomfortable, I'm prepared to give Dave the benefit-of-the-doubt - I can only suggest we ALL choose our words more wisely before this deteriorates into a conversation inappropriate on this site, only an opinion.

Owen, I'm a little sensitive with the word "racist" - here, in my country, I disagreed with a comment an Aboriginal made, she called me a "racist" - I criticised an Aboriginal, I was called a "racist" - I am not a racist and was highly offended at the remarks - I don't think we should judge someone for making an unfortunate comment, not in this forum - his remarks may have been tasteless, but I have heard remarks said that couldn't be uttered here, remarks with malice, I don't want to give examples of what I deem "racist", not here - I simply suggest we should be very careful when accusing people of being "racist" - I understand where you're coming from, but I prefer to give Dave the benefit-of-the-doubt - I would prefer we dilute this conversation.

Thanks Chanel. Owen, first off, Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. My point was to write what you're familiar with. If four Japanese guys wanted to write a movie about the IRA, that would be a red flag too. The best work comes from a combination of creativity/imagination and real-world truth/experience. I didn't get that vibe of truth from Birdman. Everytime it seemed like it was capturing the backstage world perfectly, it then went into something that was way off base - such as the way the critic acted or how Edward Norton completely threw the preview and went off book because it was just a preview (who does that?!), not to mention the blocking of actors onstage with their backs to the audience and the idea that Ed Norton could come in the day of a preview and jump into a role. Also the idea that NY theatre is all about art not profit - the reality is they'd put Snooki or Kim Kardashian on Broadway if they thought it would sell tickets. None of this would matter that much if it was actually funny, but it wasn't even mildly amusing.

Once you've mastered something you are free to improvise.

Dave your example is not legitimate. Of course it would be more authentic if a group Irish people wrote about the IRA over a group of Japanese people. But if a group of Japanese people who live, or steadily visit Ireland decided to write about a ballet performance in Ireland, it shouldn't be a problem. Are you telling us that Mexicans don't have theaters?

Yeah I probably made big presumptions about these guys, but that was cause their movie just seemed fake, not because they are from another country. Of course 4 Mexican men or women could write authentically about whatever, even the IRA as long as they felt it, but for whatever reason I didn't buy that what they were writing had anything to do with any truth, it just seemed like a director trying to show off and be considered a great artist. Which wouldn't bother me that much if the movie just came out and disappeared but when it wins Best Picture, it has me wondering wtf people saw in it - and also making me question myself because a whole lot of smart people I respect really liked it as well. I really don't go out of my way to disagree with consensus for the sake of it or be "cool" - in fact i hate that. But there are a couple people who agree with me, Rex Reed who is a big NY critic completely decimated it. So maybe I'll go find Rex and have a beer with him as the two people in the world who weren't buying what Inarrito was selling this time around.

A lot of people hate on Crash for Best picture, I thought Crash was solid, so I guess this is my "Crash"!

I've been the the theater all my life. "Birdman" seemed very authentic. Where it went "way off base" was the element of fantasy the writers included. How can a fantasy be "way off base"? I also don't understand the "who does that?" statement. It's not a documentary it's a story. Characters often act in a non-realistic ways in fiction stories. That what makes characters interesting. Just a year ago I produced a play where the lead dropped out just 18 hours before the second preview. We replaced her with an amazing actress who stepped in and killed it. Hardly 12 hours from the phone call to curtain. Regardless, no one is right when it comes to personal opinion. Rex Reed felt the same as Dave. Many people didn't like "Birdman". Rather than having a beer with someone who already holds your opinion you should have a beer with someone who is challenging. Discussion isn't about winning or agreement - it's about learning and growing. Limiting yourself to only those you already agree with can be...well... limiting.

D.M., unfortunately it can also lead to heated arguments and bad feelings.

I read around 25 pages of the Birdman script and after that scene in the costume department, I watched the film. What I loved about the way it was written: it was a stage play and film script combined (the energy of a live audience and the fantasy of cinema). Having written both and acted on stage and in films as an amateur, I was deeply drawn into the story. And after reading the thread here, I've experienced a wide range of emotion - no doubt Birdman has captured much of the same.

I hear ya, Harold. Most people are hurt by the opinion of others and would rather avoid heated arguments. So people tend to stick with people with whom they already agree. Even a different opinion on a movie or script seems to lead to bad feelings. The need to be"right" keeps us from learning and (all too often) even listening.

D Marcus, i'm well aware that you learn more from someone with a different opinion, I'm from Dublin which is probably the world capital of heated yet respectful debates trust me!

As others have said here, BIRDMAN is not a prime example of what to do or not do re: the screenply, because it was co-written by its director. That puts a whole different spin on things. The "first ten pages MUST grab the reader" always applies - because in most cases - unless a project comes in pre-packaged with an A list star and/or director - it will not be read immediately by the one person per studio who can green light the project. It is read by an overworked and overloaded reader contracted to the studio or producer. One who takes a pile of scripts home each weekend - with no obligation to necessarily read until FADE OUT. If the reader is not intrigued/grabbed/titillated/hooked by page 10 - it goes back in the pile and they pick up the next screenplay. I am a writer. A WGA member. I've read (and written) many screenplays. As a loose rule - certain screenplays READ well. Shane Black is spectacular at writing screenplays that READ WELL. Tight, descriptive and with crazy/funny asides to the reader that are the writer's version of breaking the fourth wall. They are a lot of fun to READ. But screenplays are written to be FILMED. So Shane has a great talent for getting a good read and then things are off and running. He has sold his stuff for some of the highest amounts ever for a script. I wouldn't suggest glomming onto his particular technique - because either you can do it or you can't. And I'm not so sure I agree with those who suggest reading a lot of screenplays as a way to learn to write. A). as others have said - you don't know what version you're getting online or elsewhere. B). The final shooting script is NOT what got the film made - it's the result of input from the director, maybe the actors, the studio execs etc. You don't know the numnber of iterations it's gone through to get to the final result (I read the original screenplay of Raiders of the Lost Ark - one of my favorite movies written by one of my favorite writers - and trust me - the final movie - directed by Spielberg - is way better than the screenplay. Writing is an interesting profession - screenwriting is a hybrid. You need to be concise - solid with story and wonderful with characters and dialogue. Reading may not be the best learning tool. Because reading does not a writer make. WRITING makes a writer. The more you do - the better you get. You improve as an editor of your own work. Less married to every word. Reading scripts does not teach you how to come up with a great idea. A filmic idea as opposed to a stage idea. A novel idea. During award season - when studios offer to provide us with copies of the screenplays - I usually e-mail the award office and ask not to be treated as a 2nd class citizen (as a writer) - send me the screener like everyone else gets. A movie is written to be SEEN, not read. Let me SEE it and then I will determine whether it's award worthy, because I know that it STARTS with the page - and I will accord praise accordingly to the credited writers of the finished film (even though, oftimes, credits are not completely accurate.)

Sometimes I think (In most cases) it's who you know, not what you know.

Leon - it's always WHAT you know (and how well you know it) in the execution, but oftimes WHO you know it getting it sold (but not necessarily made). You need connections, a great agent and a whole lotta luck.

After reading the first 21 pages of the script I had the opportunity to see the movie. I usually create these high expectations when movies get awards and good reviews and end up being disappointed when I finally see the movie. But I have to admit I really, really liked this movie. I thought the dialogue was good and found myself rooting for the main character and actually all the characters. I thought it was a good mixture of both internal and external struggles.

Just a comment in here, by Robert McKee about the differences between the screenplay that's written and the final cut. Please have a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IhX7f5IX44

Cynthia - watched about half of McKee's comments. One man's opinion. Albeit - that of a supposed "Guru" for screenwriters large and small - but his opinion just the same. I have a friend - a writer - who has a half a dozen big screen credits and has been a writer, staff writer and supervising producer on nearly that many TV series - who is of the opinion (his) that after 3 sets of revisions - the script isn't necessarily getting better, only "different" - based on the input from others - studio execs, producers, the actors - and in his opinion - it is oftimes getting worse. McKee - would have you believe that "90% of the time" in movies and TV - the finished product is better - and because it has been improved upon - the writers keep their mouths shut and take credit for the "better" end product. I once wrote a thriller where someone is murdered on page 12 of my screenplay. Sets everything in motion. The movie was made. One of the "changes" was that in the finished product - the woman who dies on page 12 of my script - not only doesn't die, she turns out to be the murderer. In my opinion - Mr. McKee and his books and lectures have done more harm than good - because all the studio execs and wannabees - the ones who can barely read much less be qualified to give notes on the work of others - use McKee's books as some sort of Bible which tells them the formula that must be followed - writ large by his highness - and they criticize based on the act breaks or character arcs deviated from - and give reams of idiotic notes based on same. There is no formula. Good writing comes from the gut and inspiration of the individual writer. You want formula - buy a cookie cutter and have everything look and smell and taste the same. He's making a nice living telling others how to do something he doesn't do himself - which is write TV shows and movies that get made.

Michael --- yikes! The woman who died on page 12 (of your original script) ........ I hope a lot of people read your interesting comment on the script doctors out there.

I finally read the script, it was good, but I would never have believed it would attain the success that it has - good, but not compelling in my eyes - now to see the movie.

I have challenged myself to try and read all the screenplays that were nominated this year. Thus far, I have read Birdman, Nightcrawler and Whiplash. While I managed to get through Birdman and Nightcrawler, Whiplash blew me away! Can't wait to see the movie. Has anyone else read the script? Would be interested in their opinions.

Chanel, "Birdman" did not do big box office. Following the Oscars, some theatres began showing it again. Personally, given the choice between a stage play or a film with a male lead (yawn) or a female lead, I'll pick the one with the ACTRESS as a lead.

LindaAnn - yeah - true story. The producers were a handful. My deal also called for me to be paid 5% of the budget of the script - and then they brought in another writer to gut the script of everything that might have been costly to make (on what they said would only be $2.5 million to begin with) and then they spent a third of what they said they would. I threatened to sue for false inducement to sign the original deal. The movie was pretty bad - but they left my name on it all alone - even though it bore scant resemblance to what I wrote (see previous "change"), but it did so well on video that they made a sequel. I found out about the sequel through a friend who read about it in the "films in production" chart in the Hollywood Reporter and called me. My agent contacted the producers about getting my sequel payment (contracturally - they owed me 50% of my money from the first movie - even if I didn't write it) - and the title was my title with a "2" after it - and had some of the same characters in it. They denied that it was a sequel. I had to hire a lawyer and threaten to sue them. Took 2 months before they paid up. Hollywood...what a concept (although the producers were Canadian - they even tried to pay me in Canadian money instead of US...) Nancy - I have not read the scripts for any of those 3 movies - but seen them all - Whiplash and Nightcrawler twice apiece. They were all on my personal Ten Best list for last year. Whiplash is a beaut. Nightcrawler should be seen for Jake Gyllenhaal's performance alone. And BTW - the screenplay was nommed by both the WGA and the Academy.

Chanel and LindaAnn re: BIRDMAN - box office is not a good arbiter of how good a movie is. Not sure how Birdman reads, but as a cinematic work - it's a marvel. The camerawork alone is spectacular - done as a series of 20 minute unbroken takes - and there is a whole lot going on. The actors were rehearsed to a fare thee well and really delieverd. Considering that much of the film was shot inside the actual St. James Theater on Broadway - with its narrow halls, stairwells and small dressing rooms - it is a marvel to watch. You might have to see it twice because the first go round is so technically dazzling that you might miss a bunch of the dialogue and performances - and they are uniformly excellent - Keaton, Stone, Norton, Galifianakis - everyone. Tremendous piece of work.

I read through the first few pages and found nothing wrong with it at all. It is a shooting script so it has already been through multiple rewrites and polished to a fine sheen. Every writer needs to read as much as they can (I even read the cereal box) as a means of honing their own skill. Every writer must develop his/her own style and one of the better ways of doing that is to read other writers work – but not to copy it.

Box office shouldn't mean anything to the Oscars. It should be for the BEST in a given category - regardless of BO. They expanded the Best Picture to 10 movies - to include more BO champs (with good reviews - like Batman Begins or Guardians of the Galaxy) but they still don't nominate them and leave empty spots. Either fill them (and get rid of the weighted voting BS) or go back to 5 nominees again.