# Big Shake-up for next year's Oscars **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 24, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858 "2009-06-24T18:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/21 "2009-06-25T03:32:27Z")
Does this mean that \*\*Land of the Lost \*\*now has a chance? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/22 "2009-06-25T04:30:15Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Does this mean that \*\*Land of the Lost \*\*now has a chance? Not even if they allowed 100 nominees. ---
**Author:** ![gladtobeblazed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85f322/32.png) [@gladtobeblazed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gladtobeblazed)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/23 "2009-06-25T06:02:54Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/24 "2009-06-25T07:53:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Serenata67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/serenata67/32/10646_2.png) [@Serenata67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serenata67)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/25 "2009-06-25T16:00:04Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > …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! ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/26 "2009-06-25T16:08:31Z")
> [@gladtobeblazed](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/27 "2009-06-25T16:09:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/28 "2009-06-25T16:45:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/29 "2009-06-25T16:51:12Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/30 "2009-06-25T17:05:26Z")
> [@Serenata67](#): > > 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: ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/31 "2009-06-25T17:25:13Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > 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_). ---
**Author:** ![Serenata67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/serenata67/32/10646_2.png) [@Serenata67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serenata67)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/32 "2009-06-25T17:57:55Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![cactus\_waltz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@cactus\_waltz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cactus_waltz)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/33 "2009-06-25T18:04:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/34 "2009-06-25T18:35:04Z")
> [@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. 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). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/35 "2009-06-25T18:57:26Z")
> [@gladtobeblazed](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/36 "2009-09-01T23:14:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/37 "2009-09-01T23:34:54Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![HelloKitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecccb3/32.png) [@HelloKitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelloKitty)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/38 "2009-09-02T00:15:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/39 "2009-09-02T05:26:56Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858/40 "2009-09-02T05:41:56Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-shake-up-for-next-years-oscars/500858.md?page=3)