I think it's quite honourable what Moore has done, by allowing the
film to be shown on TV to help oust that incumbent of yours in the
White House. This means that, by Academy rules, the movie CANNOT enter
the race for "best documentary", a category that it would probably
almost certainly have won (although I guess it would have been up
against "Touching the void" and maybe the "Story of the weeping
camel", not sure).

He'll still hope for a nomination for best picture but I don't think
he's likely to get anywhere with that.

So he's passing up the chance of almost another guaranteed Oscar to
put on his shelf, in order to get as many people as possible to
discover the truth about Bush in time for the elections. Hats off to
the man. It fits in well with his ideals that he was not that
interested in profit, and that he was encouraging people to make
pirate copies and download his film off the net if it was the only way
they would see it.

However, my point is, WHAT A STUPID REGULATION that you cannot apply
for a documentary Oscar if your picture has been shown on TV
beforehand. Why?

You can still apply for one of the other categories, such as best
picture, but not the best documentary. Can anyone explain why this is
the case? What's the point of it? Documentaries are more often than
not very factual pieces that deserve to be on TV as soon as they are
made. If anything, they should only allow Oscars for documentaries
that HAVE been on TV!!

The amount of brilliant documentaries I have seen on TV and thought
wow, that deserves an Oscar, and then realised that of course it won't
be eligible!!! About time someone changed the rules I think!

TRISTÁN

PS. don't want to turn this into a pro-Bush anti-Bush flame war... I
just wanted to discuss whether or not it's time they changed the
stupid rules governing documentaries being ineligible for Oscars if
they've been televised. Discuss! :-)