Plans for a new "outstanding achievement in popular film" category at the Oscars, which caused uproar when it was announced last month, have been shelved.
Which is not to say it isn't happening, it just isn't happening in time for next year's 91st annual Academy Awards.
"There has been a wide range of reactions to the introduction of a new award and we recognise the need for further discussion with our members," the Academy's CEO Dawn Hudson said in a statement which seemed to gently understate the furor.
So, like the Daleks in Doctor Who, just delayed, not defeated.
The thing is this: the Academy does have a problem, which is that the lineup for the night's top award is confined to an ever more artful collection of movies, seeming never to snare the members of the billion-dollar box office club.
Less box office at the pointy end of the Oscars translates to smaller television audiences for its telecast and smaller television audiences are a challenge to both the commercial value of the telecast to the Disney studio, which owns it, and to the relevance of the awards themselves.
In that sense, it's rather like the "if no one sees you win an Oscar, did a tree really fall over in the woods?" conundrum.
The most recent Oscars, for example, was the lowest rating in its nine-decade history with just 26.5 million viewers in the US; arresting that decline is no doubt high on Dawn Hudson's to-do list.
The debate, however, is whether an award for popularity over quality is the answer, particularly when the Oscars themselves are so deferentially draped in their own gravitas.
They are many things, but they are not the People's Choice Awards.
The new "popular" category was revealed to voting members of the Oscars governing body, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in a letter circulated last month.
As Hudson said, that decision was met with a "wide range of reactions". The problem is that almost all of them were negative.
Chief among them was the risk that embracing highly commercial films would expose the Oscars to ridicule, and that by creating a "popular" category some films which were both critical and commercial successes, such as Black Panther, could be relegated to the secondary category simply because they made money.
The letter, written by Hudson and the Academy's president John Bailey, also announced a raft of changes including a new airdate from 2020 and a plan to remove some categories from the live broadcast.
No one is ever going to argue any awards telecast is too short, and plainly there is an issue with the Oscars running too long. "We are committed to producing an entertaining show in three hours," Bailey and Hudson said in the letter.
Capping the telecast is intended to help in "delivering a more accessible Oscars for our viewers worldwide".
Ultimately, however, the thorny issue of quality versus quantity may not be the biggest challenge the Oscars has set for itself.
While the television audience is mostly focused on the key categories, the Academy's voting membership are engaged in a much broader raft of film production disciplines.
And under the proposed changes some of those - potentially sound mixing, film editing, costume and makeup - would be pushed to the sidelines.
Given factions of the industry continue to argue for the inclusion of even more disciplines, such as stuntpeople, voice over and motion capture performers, choreographers and casting directors, turning half the membership into second class citizens isn't going to win anything, least of all an Oscar.