Big Shake-up for next year's Oscars

[MovieMogul]

Variety reports (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005322.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) that the Academy will now nominate 10 films for Best Picture--a practice they haven't done since 1943 (and even back then, it was largely a concession so that all the studios might get a select favorite in that group).

So, what do you think? Given the priority ranking system they use, might this give outlier films with smaller, avid followings (Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc.) a better shot at getting same street cred during awards season? Is this a sop to commercial interests given The Dark Knight's snub last year and Pixar's perpetual exclusion? Are we going to see more indies, foreign films, and early releases or (gulp) more "hits" like Mamma Mia!?

From the Academy's website (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html) and AMPAS president Sid Ganis:“Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”

[Erdosain]

I'm surprised that they're making such a huge change to something that has been successful for over 50 years, but I suppose it could be for the best. After that stinker "Crash" won a few years ago, I don't have any qualms about opening up the field a bit. Like this year, I felt "The Wrestler" really deserved to a least get a nomination.

The question is whether scattering the votes out may result in some wacky winners. ArchiveGuy, when you say they vote with a priority ranking system, does that mean that one movie gets 5, one gets 4, etc.?

[scout1222]

Hmm, I'll have to wait and see what 10 movies end up nominated. I could see it going either way, really.

[silenus]

This will be a disaster of biblical proportions. There are rarely enough quality movies these days to get 5 nominations, much less 10. I predict they switch from this in less than 3 years.

[RickJay]

This will be a disaster of biblical proportions. There are rarely enough quality movies these days to get 5 nominations, much less 10.
The thing is that with a list of 5, they almost always miss some of the year's best movies.

Expanding the list to 10 at the last awards would probably have increased the average quality of nominated films, since it likely would have meant including films like The Dark Knights and WALL-E that were better than some or most of the five movies they did nominate. (The Reader? Why?)

[MovieMogul]

The question is whether scattering the votes out may result in some wacky winners. ArchiveGuy, when you say they vote with a priority ranking system, does that mean that one movie gets 5, one gets 4, etc.?No, it means a stack is made of every film that gets a #1 vote. Any films with no #1s are out. Then they take the shortest stack, and redistribute those ballots based on the #2 rankings. Then the next shortest stack. And so on and so on. Hence, one ballot, one vote (not a numeric tabulation).

Essentially, a film that gets mentioned by 80% of the ballots, but only in the #3 or 4 position (they can rank up to 5) has a much smaller chance of getting in than a film with only 15% of the ballots if all those ballots rank it as #1. Some more explanation (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117998897.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1).

[silenus]

OK, with that system the chances of a really off film getting the nod are lessened considerably. Gives the studios more bragging rights (Nominated for Best Picture!) even if there isn't a snowballs chance of the movie actually winning.

[MovieMogul]

Expanding the list to 10 at the last awards would probably have increased the average quality of nominated films, since it likely would have meant including films like The Dark Knights and WALL-E that were better than some or most of the five movies they did nominate. (The Reader? Why?)That's unquestionably true, though the Director slate will still be limited to 5, so while the list is a wider one, there will still be the perception of which films were in the "top" 5 and which the "bottom" --and since Best Picture winners almost never win (once in the last 70 years) without a Director nomination, will Academy members prioritize their vote even more based on what favorite has a better chance of winning as opposed to which they simply think is the best?

[MovieMogul]

Gives the studios more bragging rights (Nominated for Best Picture!) even if there isn't a snowballs chance of the movie actually winning.Conversely, it's going to strain the pocketbooks of some of the studios even more during campaign season. Strategically, with only 5 slots available, studios often put their money on the horse in their stable with the best chance of sneaking in, and siphon more of the advertising dollars toward that film (for FYC ads, etc.). With more at stake, will that same amount of $ get watered down amidst more contenders, or will each studio with more than one film in play end up doubling its investment to get as many seats at the table as possible?

[Wheelz]

Gives the studios more bragging rights (Nominated for Best Picture!) even if there isn't a snowballs chance of the movie actually winning.It also dilutes those bragging rights by half. Hell, why not just do away with nominations altogether and let members vote for any film they like?

[RickJay]

That's unquestionably true, though the Director slate will still be limited to 5, so while the list is a wider one, there will still be the perception of which films were in the "top" 5 and which the "bottom" --and since Best Picture winners almost never win (once in the last 70 years) without a Director nomination, will Academy members prioritize their vote even more based on what favorite has a better chance of winning as opposed to which they simply think is the best?
That's an interesting point. Even within the industry there's a lot of open confusion as to what the distinction is between the two - hell, there's an academic term for the notion that a director more or less makes the movie himself.

[hajario]

It's a marketing scam. When a film gets nominated, more people want to see it. I've know lots of people who will rush out and see any film nominated for Best Picture that they haven't already seen because they want to see all of them before the awards show.

[RealityChuck]

What that means, of course, is that it's increasingly likely that most of the Academy doesn't really like the Best Picture winner.

A film could easily win the award with 80% of the Academy actively hating it. That's possible now, but highly unlikely. But the Academy requires a simple majority of votes, so with 20% and all the other candidates getting 6-10% or so, 20% works just fine.

Any small group -- older academy members, younger academy members, etc. can vote as a block and win the award for any film they choose.

[MovieMogul]

It's a marketing scam. When a film gets nominated, more people want to see it. I've know lots of people who will rush out and see any film nominated for Best Picture that they haven't already seen because they want to see all of them before the awards show.They're also doing it for the ratings--with a few popular films in the mix as Best Picture, the hope is that more people will tune in to watch.

[MovieMogul]

Any small group -- older academy members, younger academy members, etc. can vote as a block and win the award for any film they choose.Just so long as other blocks don't combine their collective voting strength behind one candidate, too.

Vote splitting is often overhyped as a variable in these sorts of things, but speculation now will run even more rampant. And since none of the other categories are expanding, we hold the very real possibility that a film gets nominated for Picture and perhaps...nothing else? 15 years ago, Four Weddings and a Funeral managed a pic nod and only one other nomination (screenplay), so if the right type of breezy, popular (and light on fancy production values) hit strikes a chord, you may have more weird anomalies popping up.

[Justin_Bailey]

I'm positive this was done solely in response to the uproar over the best movie of last year being completely snubbed (The Dark Knight for those who are just now emerging from their rock).

I mean, in ten years, who will remember Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon and The Reader?

I can see Milk being considered a "great movie" for some time to come, but the Benjamin Button backlash is already on and Frost/Nixon is already being called overrated.

While The Dark Knight's legend continues to grow.

[hajario]

I mean, in ten years, who will remember Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon and The Reader?

Of your list I only saw Slumdog and Dark Knight and I liked Slumdog much better. Other than the opening scene and the pencil trick, I didn't like Dark Knight much at all.

[Red Barchetta]

Of your list I only saw Slumdog and Dark Knight and I liked Slumdog much better. Other than the opening scene and the pencil trick, I didn't like Dark Knight much at all.

Agreed.

[astorian]

It may or may not be a great idea, but they HAVE to try it, because the ratings have been dwindling for years, as the Oscars become less and less distinguishable from the Indie Sprit awards.

Increasingly, all the awards go to art-house films that the public in general hasn't seen and isn't interested in seeing. People won't keep tuning in each year to watch movies they've barely heard of win awards.

If there are ten nominees, there's a better chance that one or two movies people actually care about will be up for big awards. That can only help the ratings.

[RealityChuck]

Just so long as other blocks don't combine their collective voting strength behind one candidate, too.Yes. Which ultimately means whichever block makes up of more than 20% of the membership gets to dictate the winner.

[Frostillicus]

Does this mean that Land of the Lost now has a chance?

[astorian]

Does this mean that Land of the Lost now has a chance?


Not even if they allowed 100 nominees.

[gladtobeblazed]

It may or may not be a great idea, but they HAVE to try it, because the ratings have been dwindling for years, as the Oscars become less and less distinguishable from the Indie Sprit awards.

Increasingly, all the awards go to art-house films that the public in general hasn't seen and isn't interested in seeing. People won't keep tuning in each year to watch movies they've barely heard of win awards.

If there are ten nominees, there's a better chance that one or two movies people actually care about will be up for big awards. That can only help the ratings.

Why should the Academy even care about ratings? Can't they survive without being broadcast? The public be damned, the Academy should only concern itself with recognizing the artistic merit of films. If that means that eventually the public stops tuning in, then so be it. As was said upthread, there are rarely 5 films even worth nominating.

[DMark]

I see this as a formula for major upsets.

For instance:
1. Serious film.
2. Serious film with big actor.
3. Serious film with great cast.
4. Serious film with hotly debated subject material.
5. Serious film with great historical reference.
6. Serious film with small, independent cast.
7. Serious foreign film.
8. Serious film documentary.
9. Action adventure blockbuster.
10. Quirky, raunchy comedy.

The top 8 from above will split votes all over the place.
The action adventure blockbuster will bring in the television audience, but not have a prayer of winning.
The quirky, raunchy comedy will get the most votes, simply because those core voters don't like serious films and wouldn't have voted for the top eight unless they were the only films to vote for.

[Serenata67]

...If there are ten nominees, there's a better chance that one or two movies people actually care about will be up for big awards. That can only help the ratings.

So true. The more "the people" are invested in it, the more they'll watch. But this also means that the more movies that get nominated, the more likely it is that any given person will have seen more than one of them. And now, because said person saw two or three, we'll suddenly have an office full or Roger Eberts arguing the merits of Night at the Museum 2 over Twilight over Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs... assuming any of those would be nominated!

[astorian]

Why should the Academy even care about ratings? Can't they survive without being broadcast? The public be damned, the Academy should only concern itself with recognizing the artistic merit of films. If that means that eventually the public stops tuning in, then so be it. As was said upthread, there are rarely 5 films even worth nominating.

Hey, as I said earlier, if Hollywood WANTS the Oscars to become the Indie Spirit awards, then fine, leave things as they are. The awards will continue to go to arthouse films nobody's seen, people will stop watching, and the awards can be given out at the Knights of Columbus banquet hall in Fresno.

But if Hollywood wants to be relevant, and it actually wants people paying attention to its biggest event, there's no choice but to expand the process so that some popular favorites win awards now and then.

[Gangster Octopus]

I think they should have 64 movies nominated and then have a March Madness style bracketing contest where memebrs of the acacadmay vote on head to head matchups. They could all be in the audience with little buttons to vote and it could be done real time.

[Max Torque]

Pfft. So now there'll be ten dry talky dramas up for the award instead of five. Yippie skippy.

If they want a mix that permits more popular films, they need to split it up. Have a category for "Best Drama" and one or more categories for "Best Comedy", "Best Action Movie", "Best Shakycam Historical Epic", or whatever. "Drama" will still be the prestige category, but everyone else will have a shot too.

[astorian]

Pfft. So now there'll be ten dry talky dramas up for the award instead of five. Yippie skippy.




That's a posibility. If there'd been ten nominees last year, are we SURE that "Dark Knight" or "Wall-E" would have gotten one of those new slots? Maybe we'd just have gotten another five depressing arthouse flicks like "Revolutionary Road" or "Wendy and Lucy."

[Justin_Bailey]

So true. The more "the people" are invested in it, the more they'll watch. But this also means that the more movies that get nominated, the more likely it is that any given person will have seen more than one of them. And now, because said person saw two or three, we'll suddenly have an office full or Roger Eberts arguing the merits of Night at the Museum 2 over Twilight over Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs... assuming any of those would be nominated!

I love the handwringing people are doing about "unworthy" films being nominated now that the field has been opened up to ten.

As if there are only five real movies released a year and everything else is crap... :rolleyes:

[MovieMogul]

That's a posibility. If there'd been ten nominees last year, are we SURE that "Dark Knight" or "Wall-E" would have gotten one of those new slots? Maybe we'd just have gotten another five depressing arthouse flicks like "Revolutionary Road" or "Wendy and Lucy."Batman & Pixar pulled in 8 and 6 nominations in, respectively, so that suggested a rather broad level of support in the Academy. I have a really hard time imagining any other movies making it and those not. R.Road barely squeezed out 3, and W&L couldn't even manage an actress nod for Michelle Williams.

Personally, I think if they had broadened the field to 10, the additional 5 would've been:
The Dark Knight
Doubt
WALL-E
The Wrestler

and one true wild card (either uber-indie like Happy-Go-Lucky or hyper-commercial like Iron Man).

[Serenata67]

I love the handwringing people are doing about "unworthy" films being nominated now that the field has been opened up to ten.

As if there are only five real movies released a year and everything else is crap... :rolleyes:

I wasn't saying that's not true. There are lots of good films released each year. The point I was making was that opening it up is more likely to create "arm-chair" film critics. And I just plain old don't wanna listen to the obnoxious guy down the hall at work rant and rave about the two movies he saw that actually got nominated. Suddenly because they can compare they know everything. (I have the same beef with people who follow a couple of sporting teams and suddenly know everything about all the teams... and their quarterbacks are the best, of course.)

[cactus waltz]

The problem with the Oscars for me isn't in the movie selection as such. Because I do think they have gotten a lot better with sorting out movies in the past few years. A bit rough possibly, but betterHowever, the fact that awards are distributed amongst so few titles is a big issue. This year was ridiculous. If you had removed Slumdog Millionaire there would be almost no awards left to give.

[MovieMogul]

The problem with the Oscars for me isn't in the movie selection as such. Because I do think they have gotten a lot better with sorting out movies in the past few years. A bit rough possibly, but betterHowever, the fact that awards are distributed amongst so few titles is a big issue. This year was ridiculous. If you had removed Slumdog Millionaire there would be almost no awards left to give.But that varies from year to year. Given that there are 20 feature film categories (excluding documentaries), here's a breakdown of how many films "shared the wealth" this past decade.

2008: 9 flims
2007: 13 films
2006: 13 films
2005: 12 films
2004: 11 films
2003: 8 films
2002: 10 films
2001: 12 films

The two big sweeps (Slumdog and LOTR:ROTK) account for the single digits, but otherwise, quite a few films walked away with something (though inevitably, never enough to some people's satisfaction).

[Dewey Finn]

Why should the Academy even care about ratings? Can't they survive without being broadcast? The public be damned, the Academy should only concern itself with recognizing the artistic merit of films. If that means that eventually the public stops tuning in, then so be it. As was said upthread, there are rarely 5 films even worth nominating.
I believe that the broadcast fees represent the majority of the Academy's income. It supports their scholarships, film preservation, research, etc. Without those millions, the Academy would have to shrink.

[MovieMogul]

Well, it looks like the preferential ranking system that I described in Post #6 will also be used to tabulate the winner of the 10-way Best Picture race on the Oscar ballot. A breakdown (http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/academy-makes-big-changes-best-picture-voting_5700):When the best picture is named at next year’s Academy Awards, the honor might not go to the film that receives the most votes.

In a major move that could transform Oscar campaigning, and one that the Academy has not talked about until now, voting for the slate of 10 best picture nominees has been changed dramatically.

Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference -- and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.

As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.

It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).

“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap. “You could really get a fragmentation to the point where a picture with 18 or 20 percent of the vote could win, and the board didn’t want that to happen.”

Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.

Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter’s ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.

But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.

If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven…

Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent.

[Markxxx]

It's a marketing scam. When a film gets nominated, more people want to see it. I've know lots of people who will rush out and see any film nominated for Best Picture that they haven't already seen because they want to see all of them before the awards show.

I agree 100% with this, I know people that sit through films just to say they've seen all the nominated films. If it doesn't increase the film going audience it'll increase the rentals.

[HelloKitty]

I've always wanted them to have separate categories for Best Drama (5 pictures nominated) and Best Comedy/Musical (5 pictures nominated).

Even with increasing the field to 10, I doubt that we'll see anything other than mostly dramatic pictures nominated for BP.

[DMark]

Archive Guy, that ranking of the films, on a scale of 1 to 10 is a smart idea!

This should make it a bit more fair. As I suggested in my post above, otherwise - if you could only vote for one - all of the quality films would have been split, and the lesser, "quirky" films would have had a better chance, simply because those voters wouldn't care for and of the serious films and they would have become the overpowering bloc of voters.

This way, you can sort of vote for multiple films, and the numbers will reflect that. Even the fans of the quirky films will at least have to rank the other films, giving them votes.

[TWDuke]

I agree 100% with this, I know people that sit through films just to say they've seen all the nominated films. If it doesn't increase the film going audience it'll increase the rentals.On the other hand, I usually made an effort to see most or all of the nominated films, but this year I'll probably pass because that's a lot of films and being Oscar-nominated just became less special.

[MovieMogul]

Some minor Oscar updates: The Producer's Guild (PGA), emulating the Oscars, will also have 10 nominees in their year-end awards.

And here's an awards calendar for future reference:

Tuesday, Dec. 1 – Gotham Awards, Indie Spirit nominations
Thursday, Dec. 3 – National Board of Review Awards announced
Sunday, Dec. 13 – Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards winners plus AFI top 10 list unveiled
Monday, Dec. 14 – New York Film Critics Circle winners plus Critics Choice Awards nominations
Tuesday, Dec. 15 – Golden Globe nominations
Thursday, Dec. 17 – SAG Awards nominations
Sunday, Jan. 3 – National Society of Film Critics
Thursday, Jan. 7 – DGA film nominations
Monday, Jan. 11 – WGA film nominations announced
Tuesday, Jan. 12 – National Board of Review dinner
Friday, Jan. 15 – Critics Choice Awards
Sunday, Jan. 17 – Golden Globes
Saturday, Jan. 23 – SAG Awards
Sunday, Jan. 24 – Producers Guild of America Awards
Saturday, Jan. 30 – DGA film awards
Tuesday, Feb. 2 – Oscar nominations
Saturday, Feb. 13 – Art Directors Guild
Saturday, Feb. 20 – WGA Awards
Sunday, Feb. 21 – BAFTA Awards
Thursday, Feb. 25 – Costume Designers Guild Awards
Friday, March 5 – Indie Spirit Awards
Saturday, March 6 – Razzie Awards
Sunday, March 7 – Academy Awards

[Equipoise]

Some minor Oscar updates: The Producer's Guild (PGA), emulating the Oscars, will also have 10 nominees in their year-end awards.

And here's an awards calendar for future reference:Thanks for the list.