The modern Academy Awards landscape has evolved significantly since the expansion of the Best Picture category, frequently opening doors for commercial blockbusters and polarizing features that traditional Oscar voters might have historically ignored. As the current awards season progresses, two high-profile and critically panned releases—the Tom Cruise-led feature Digger and the blockbuster biographical drama Michael—continue to defy conventional wisdom regarding critical thresholds. Despite facing severe backlash from film critics, both motion pictures stubbornly remain on the periphery of the Best Picture conversation, protected by a combination of staggering global box office receipts, heavyweight industry backing, and historical anomalies that suggest critical consensus is not always a mandatory prerequisite for Academy recognition.
Historical Precedents: The Shadow of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
To understand why Digger and Michael refuse to fade away entirely, industry analysts frequently look back fifteen years to the 2011 awards cycle. During that season, Stephen Daldry’s adaptation of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close secured a shocking Best Picture nomination despite earning a meager 45 percent approval rating and a 5.6 average on Rotten Tomatoes, alongside a 46 on Metacritic. At the time, the film shattered expectations of what a Best Picture nominee’s critical profile needed to look like.
The inclusion of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close proved that a deeply respected director, combined with the emotional weight of a respected veteran actor like Max von Sydow securing a surprise supporting nomination, could drag an otherwise struggling film across the finish line. Today, Digger and Michael find themselves measured against that very benchmark.
Critical Metrics and Comparative Box Office Standing
The critical reception for both current contenders paints a stark picture of the uphill battle they face with reviewers, even as their commercial prospects vary wildly. Digger holds a 51 percent approval rating with a 6.0 average on Rotten Tomatoes and a 46 on Metacritic. While these figures place it slightly above the infamous historical threshold set by Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close on the Tomatometer, its Metacritic score mirrors that of Daldry’s 2011 film. Earlier comparisons likened Digger’s satirical tone and subject matter to Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up, yet Digger actually trails that film’s 56 percent approval rating, 6.3 average, and 49 Metacritic score. Furthermore, Digger faces domestic box office returns that may struggle to cross the $25 million threshold.
Conversely, Michael represents an entirely unprecedented scenario in Academy history. Operating with a dismal 38 percent approval rating, a 4.9 Rotten Tomatoes average, and a 39 on Metacritic, Michael sits well below the traditional threshold for any serious Best Picture contender. Even notoriously polarizing musical biographies like Bohemian Rhapsody and Elvis enjoyed significantly stronger critical backing during their respective runs.
However, Michael possesses one overwhelmingly unique advantage that dwarfs its critical shortcomings: a staggering global box office gross exceeding one billion dollars. While critics have savaged the feature, its commercial dominance has forced industry pundits to acknowledge its existence on the potential nominee bubble, purely out of fear that voting blocks influenced by commercial success or mainstream popularity might lean toward it.
Below-the-Line Strengths and Acting Contenders
Beyond the top-tier Best Picture category, both films maintain viable pathways to securing nominations in specific technical and acting branches, mirroring the strategy that saved Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.
Digger relies heavily on the enduring industry goodwill toward its star, Tom Cruise, whose potential inclusion in the Best Actor category would mark his first Academy Award nomination in nearly three decades. Even among cynical reviews, critics have frequently isolated Cruise’s performance for praise. Additionally, the film retains outside chances in technical categories such as Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design, providing a multi-pronged nomination package.
Michael boasts a similarly structured campaign. The biographical drama positions its lead, Jaafar Jackson, as a dark-horse contender in the Best Actor race, while two-time Academy Award nominee Colman Domingo maintains a presence in conversations for the Best Supporting Actor category. On the technical side, Michael can credibly compete in Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Costume Design, and Best Sound. These auxiliary categories act as vital safety nets, securing industry buy-in from craft voters who may not support the film for Best Picture but will recognize its production execution.
The Shape of the 2026 Race and the Guild Factor
The viability of both films is further enhanced by the overall composition of the current awards race. The 2011 lineup that accommodated Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is widely remembered as one of the weakest and lowest-reviewed fields in the history of the expanded Best Picture category. While the 2026 film slate has not reached those historic lows, it lacks the universal critical acclaim of recent powerhouse years like 2024 or 2025.
Within this compressed bubble, numerous moderately reviewed prestige projects and traditional studio bids are frequently traded on predictions lists alongside higher-rated alternatives. This environment creates a vacuum where traditional industry-friendly touchstones—such as blockbuster commercial appeal, ties to iconic entertainment figures of the last forty years, and powerful studio backing—can override critical disdain.
Industry observers note that until Digger and Michael are officially rebuffed by major voting bodies such as the Producers Guild of America (PGA), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), or the Golden Globes, they cannot be entirely discounted. The PGA, in particular, counts producers who deeply value commercial viability and global box office dominance among its voting membership, making it a critical test for Michael’s staying power.
Implications for the Academy’s Future
The persistent presence of Digger and Michael in awards discussions highlights a broader tension within the motion picture industry: the ongoing friction between artistic criticism and commercial populism. As television ratings for the Academy Awards remain a primary concern for broadcast networks and studio stakeholders alike, the inclusion of globally recognized pop-culture figures like Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise offers an undeniable incentive for broader audience engagement.
Whether the Academy will ultimately choose to overlook scathing reviews and controversial subject matter to secure a more commercially appealing broadcast remains the central question of the season. For now, the legacy of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close serves as both a roadmap and a cautionary tale, proving that in Hollywood, unconventional momentum and sheer institutional willpower can sometimes achieve the impossible on nomination morning.
