The Academy has imposed a new rule requiring Oscar voters to see every nominated film before voting, and Entertainment Weekly secured an exclusive in which anonymous insiders shared their reactions to the change.

The headline of EW's report frames the story around the response of unnamed Academy members or industry figures to the new viewing requirement. The exclusive format indicates the magazine obtained comments from voters who would not speak on the record about a policy shift that directly affects how ballots are cast.

For the awards desk, the rule itself represents a structural change to the voting mechanics. Under the new requirement, members who want to cast valid ballots must watch all nominees in the relevant category. The rule puts new pressure on the Academy's screening program, which must make nominated films available to members before the final voting window opens.

Why does the rule matter?

It effectively turns every category into a "must-watch" zone for voters. Members who skip screenings cannot claim ignorance of the field when their votes are tallied. A voter who skips a screening and still casts a ballot does so in defiance of a stated rule, which differs from casting a ballot while simply uninformed.

The anonymous nature of the insider reactions indicates that even Academy members who are familiar with the change prefer not to attach their names to public commentary. Industry watchers will read between the lines of those observations EW has surfaced, looking for signals about how the rule is landing inside the branches — actors, directors, writers, and craftspeople who each maintain their own viewing habits and priorities during awards season.

What does the rule change?

At minimum, it tightens the chain of accountability between the Academy's membership and the eventual winners. The exclusive also signals that the rule is fresh enough that members are still processing it. Reactions collected in the immediate aftermath of a policy announcement tend to be more candid than comments made once the change becomes routine, and EW's timing in landing the story suggests the magazine positioned its reporters to capture the early reactions before the discourse settles.

For the broader race, the rule introduces a new variable into how members approach the ballot. A film that is widely seen has a structural advantage, while a contender that struggles to get voters in front of a screen faces a tougher climb — regardless of its critical standing. The new requirement effectively builds a viewing threshold into the voting process.

What's the trade-press read?

Entertainment Weekly's exclusive is a first read on how the membership is receiving the change. The magazine's willingness to publish anonymous reactions suggests the comments would not have been made on the record, and the breadth of insider response likely speaks to the rule's reach across the Academy's voting body.

Awards-watchers will parse the anonymous quotes for tone as much as content. Skeptical reactions would suggest implementation friction; supportive ones would signal that the membership views the rule as a corrective to past voting patterns. EW's exclusive effectively sets the frame for how the trade will discuss the rule in the weeks ahead.