In the circle of gal pals we’re playfully calling Oscar’s Angels, I discuss with Anne, Thelma and Susan the Best Picture race. Eventually, it got to the undeniable truth about the Oscars: they’re won by consensus. How you get to a Best Picture nomination is broad support among the various branches. If you have a film that is beloved by the writers, the designers, the directors, the executives and especially the actors, your chances for Best Picture rise measurably. You can’t really get in with just one branch standing behind you. Note the one director nomination for David Lynch for Mulholland Drive.
But then Anne and I got into it on Twitter. On her blog, Thompson on Hollywood, she mentioned having met with Oscar strategist extraordinaire, Cynthia Schwartz, and that she thought The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had a great chance at getting Director, Screenplay and Actress nominations but wouldn’t get picture. We batted i back and forth. I took the position that if you’ve got those three branches behind you along with however many guilds, with a system like this one specifically, it’s more likely than not that you will get a Best Picture nomination. Even with only five slots, you’re looking at a strong probability for Picture if you’ve already got writing, directing and acting. That means the clout of the DGA, the WGA and the SAG are already behind you. But probably the PGA is also in there since they still have ten nominees.
Anne said no, not under the new system that relies on racking up number one votes. I’m thinking if the direction is Oscar caliber, then the film itself will have ardent fans. Of course, none of us will know until we actually see it. My point only was that if you concede Director, Screenplay and Actress and add David Fincher in the mix, the man who directed the best film of last year and famously lost the Oscar in a spectacular defeat – you have a recipe for, at the very least, a Best Picture nomination. Seems like a no-brainer to me. If you want to be cautious about it you’d say that no nominations are assured until the film can be seen and appraised. And I’d agree with that. The same goes for War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, We Bought a Zoo, etc. But we were having this debate today; not the day after Christmas.
Nonetheless, I wanted to find evidence back up my theory. I’ve been throwing around the “number 1 this and number 1 that” ever since the AMPAS threw a new wrench into the works. So I decided to look for those numbers Tom Sherak is talking about when he says they “did a study” and came up with a number between 5 and 9 as the Best Picture totals for films in the years between 2001 and 2008 — when The Dark Knight’s exclusion caused such an uproar they changed it to ten nominees. But after they did that, they felt they’d made a mistake. Maybe 10 nominees allowed too many fringe favorites. This new procedure provides for the possibility that there might be more than five that they absolutely love but if there aren’t (and, as you’ll see below, there often aren’t) they don’t have to fill in all ten blanks just for the sake of it.
Maybe they felt that they lost some of the suspense when they widened the field. Maybe the race became too predictable (literally, too easy to predict). Maybe some didn’t like that the Academy was honoring “little” movies and not “big movies.” Either way, after having done the research year by year (which took me all day, I might add), I’m now convinced that this is a great system. It’s still not quite as dramatic as five nominees for Best Picture. I’d like that better if the films they chose in a given year were actually great films. Most of the time, they’re not. In fact, a straight flush of excellence is so rare, when I finally got to 2006 it was like the clouds parted — a magnificent revelation — wall-to-wall cinematic greatness! Finally!
Then came No Country for Old Men. And after that, Slumdog Millionaire. I stopped before The Hurt Locker because they went to ten and the study Sherak cited only goes to 2008. With the exception of Return of the King, most of the Best Picture nominees and winners within than span were just so mediocre. But when The Departed won, and then No Country won — it felt, to me, so unexpected. So magnificent.
Anyway, check out the research below. It isn’t perfect. Some years I included BAFTA, other years I didn’t. I put in the Globes because they show what’s popular when the race begins.
First, the new rules:
RULE SEVENTEEN SPECIAL RULES FOR THE BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR AWARD
1. A Reminder List of all eligible motion pictures shall be sent with a nominations ballot to all active and life members of the Academy who shall vote in the order of their preference for not more than five pictures.
2. The pictures receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Best Picture award. There may not be more than ten nor fewer than five nominations; however, no picture shall be nominated that receives less than five percent of the total votes cast.
3. The individual(s) who shall be credited for Academy Award purposes must have screen credit of “producer” or “produced by.” Persons with screen credits of executive producer, co-producer, associate producer, line producer, produced in association with or any other credit shall not receive nominations or Academy statuettes. The nominees will be those three or fewer producers who have performed the major portion of the producing functions. The Producers Branch Executive Committee will designate the qualifying producer nominees for each of the nominated pictures. The committee has the right, in what it determines to be a rare and extraordinary circumstance, to name any additional qualified producer as a nominee.
4. Final voting for the Best Picture award shall be restricted to active and life Academy members.
Then, this from a Hollywood Reporter interview with Tom Sherak:
“With the help of PricewaterhouseCoopers, we’ve been looking not just at what happened over the past two years, but at what would have happened if we had been selecting 10 nominees for the past 10 years,” said Academy president Tom Sherak, who noted that it was retiring Academy executive director Bruce Davis who recommended the change first to Sherak and incoming CEO Dawn Hudson and then to the governors.
During the period studied, the average percentage of first-place votes received by the top vote-getting movie was 20.5. After much analysis by Academy officials, it was determined that five percent of first place votes should be the minimum in order to receive a nomination, resulting in a slate of anywhere from five to 10 movies.
“In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies,” said Davis. “A best picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit. If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.”
If this system had been in effect from 2001 to 2008 (before the expansion to a slate of 10), there would have been years that yielded five, six, seven, eight and nine nominees.
The final round of voting for best picture will continue to employ the preferential system, regardless of the number of nominees, to ensure that the winning picture has the endorsement of more than half of the voters
In trying relieve some of my anxiety, I’m going right to the source, into the mouth of the beast, the Academy itself. What a peculiar challenge they have put forth to us. From the years 2001 to 2008, had they opened their arms to more than five, the results would have been, five, six, seven, eight and nine nominees.
But they don’t say which years resulted in which totals. So I’m going to look back, to investigate starting at 2001. We’ll wade through the dust, to see if we can deduce which years might have had the most nominees, and which years that might have had the least. The least being five. It helps that I started this site in 1999, so I’ve lived through all of these years and I remember the circumstances inside out. Who could ever forget them. 9/11 seemed to shake things up everywhere, even in the Oscar race.
Let’s go back to Titanic.
Well okay, not literally Titanic, although the methods would be the same.
2001
A Beautiful Mind (4 wins – Picture, Director, Supporting Actress, Screenplay; 4 more nominations – Actor, Editing, Makeup, Score)
Fellowship of the Ring (4 wins – Cinematography, Effects, Makeup, Music; 9 more nominations – Screenplay, Sound, Picture, Music, Editing, Director, Costume, Art Direction, Actor)
Gosford Park(1 win – Screenplay; 6 other nominations – Picture, Director, Art Direction, Costume, 2 Supporting Actress nods)
Moulin Rouge (2 wins – Art Direction, Costume; 6 more nominations – Actress, Cinematography, Editing, Makeup, Picture, Sound)
In the Bedroom (0 wins; 5 nominations – Picture, Screenplay, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actress)
Would have been contenders:
Black Hawk Down (DGA, WGA, CAS, Ace-WON, ADG) 2 wins – Sound and Editing; 4 more Oscar nominations -Best Director, Cinematography.
Amelie (ASC, ADG)- 5 Oscar nominations, Screenplay, Sound, Foreign Lang, Cinematography, Art Direction
Other films that sort of seem like maybe — David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (but with only one Oscar nomination for Director, probably not), Memento — only editing and screenplay. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone with three techs – Art Direction, Costume, Music.
But I think only two movies might have ultimately pushed through — so my guess for 2001: 7 Best Picture nominees.
2002
Chicago (6 wins – Picture, Supporting Actress, Editing, Costume, Art Direction, Sound; 7 more nominations – Actor, Actress, Supporting Actress, Cinematography, Director, Song, Screenplay)
Gangs of New York (0 wins; 10 nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Actor, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Song, Sound)
The Hours (1 Oscar win – Actress; 8 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Editing, Costume, Score)
LOTR: Two Towers (2 wins – Sound Editing, Effects; 4 more nominations – Picture, Editing, Sound, Art Direction)
The Pianist (3 wins – Director, Screenplay, Actor; 4 more nominations – Picture, Editing, Cinematography, Costume)
Could have been contenders:
Road to Perdition (PGA/CDG/ASC) 1 Oscar win – Cinematography; 5 more nominations -Actor, Art Direction, Score, Sound, Sound Editing)
Adaptation (PGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE) 1 Oscar win – Chris Cooper; 3 more nominations – Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay
About Schmidt (Globes/WGA/ACE/CDG) 2 Oscar nominations – Actor, Supporting Actress
Far From Heaven (ASC/SAG(2)/WGA) – 4 Oscar nominations – Actress, Screenplay, Cinematography, Score
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (PGA/WGA/ACE nominee)
Since there was never ten, this seems to be a good candidate for the year of 9. I’ll guess either Greek Wedding or Far From Heaven failed to make the cut.
My guess for 2002: 9 nominees for Best Picture
2003
Return of the King – (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/ACE/CDG/ASC/ADG) 11 wins – clean sweep – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Visual Effects, Sound, Score, Song, Makeup, Costume, Art Direction
Lost in Translation (DGA/ACE/ADG) 1 win – Screenplay; 3 more nominations – Picture, Director, Actor
Seabiscuit – (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/ADG) 0 wins; 7 nominations – Picture, Screenplay, Editing, Sound, Costume, Cinematography, Art Direction
Master and Commander (Globes/PGA/ACE/ASC) 2 wins – Cinematography, Sound Editing; 8 more nominations – Picture, Director, Editing, Art Direction, Costume, Makeup, Sound, Visual Effects
Mystic River – (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/ADG) 2 wins – Actor, Supporting Actor; 4 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actress
Could Have Been Contenders:
Cold Mountain (Globes/PGA/WGA/ACE/CDG/ASC/ADG) 1 win – Supporting Actress; 6 more nominations – Actor Editing, Song, Score, Song, Cinematography
City of God 4 nominations – Director, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography
Last Samurai (PGA/ASC/ADG) – 4 nominations – Supporting Actor, Art Direction, Costume, Sound
My guess is that City of God, Cold Mountain and maybe Last Samurai would squeezed in and that for 2003 there would have been 6 Best Picture nominees.
2004
Million Dollar Baby (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/ADG) 4 wins – Picture, Actress, Supporting Actor, Director; 3 more nominations – Screenplay, Actor, Editing
The Aviator (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/CDG/ASC/ADG) – 5 Oscar wins – Supporting Actress, Editing, Costume, Cinematography, Art Direction; 6 more nominations – Picture, Screenplay, Directing, Supporting Actor, Actor, Sound
Finding Neverland (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/ACE/ADG) 1 win – Score; 6 more nominations – Picture, Actor, Screenplay, Editing, Costume, Art Direction
Ray (Globes/DGA/SAG ensemble/ACE/CDG/ASC) 2 wins – Actor, Sound; 4 more nominations – Picture, Directing, Editing, Costume
Sideways (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG/ACE) 1 win – Screenplay; 4 more nominations – Picture, Director, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor
Eternal Sunshine (Globes/WGA/ACE/CDG/ADG) – 1 win – Screenplay; 1 more nomination – Actress
Vera Drake – 3 nominations – Director, Actress, Screenplay
Hotel Rwanda (Globes/SAG ensemble/WGA/CDG/ADG) – 3 nominations – Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay
So I’m going to guess that all three of these would have made it – and so for 2004 I say 8
2005
Crash (PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/ADG) 3 wins – Picture, Screenplay, Editing; 3 more nominations – Directing, Song, Supporting Actor.
Brokeback Mountain (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/ACE/ASC) 3 wins – Director, Screenplay, Score; 5 more nominations – Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Cinematography
Capote (PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/WGA/CDG) 1 win – Actor; 4 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actress
Good Night, and Good Luck (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG/WGA/ACE/CDG/ASC/ADG)
Munich (DGA/ACE) 5 nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Score
Walk the Line (Globes/PGA/ACE/CDG/ADG)1 win – Actress; 4 more nominations – Actor, Editing, Sound, Costume
The Constant Gardener (Globes/WGA/ADG) 1 win – Supporting Actress; 3 more nominations – Screenplay, Editing, Score
Memoirs of a Geisha (ASC/ADG) 3 wins – Cinematography, Costume, Art Direction; 3 more nominations – Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Score
I don’t think, in the end, Geisha would have made it. It’s possible. But the pattern that emerges is that the heart of the Academy is Directing, Screenplay, Editing. We already knew that. But I do think that Walk the Line and The Constant Gardener could have.
So my guess for 2005 is 7 Best Picture nominees
2006
The Departed (Globes/PGA/WGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/BAFTA/ACE/ADG) 4 wins – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing; 1 more nomination – Supporting Actor
Babel (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/Sag ensemble?BAFTA/ACE/CDG/ADG/CAS) 1 win – score; 6 more nominations – Directing, Editing, Screenplay, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actress, Score
Letters from Iwo Jima (Globes) 1 win – Sound Editing; 3 more nominations – Picture, Directing, Screenplay
Little Miss Sunshine (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/SAG ensemble/BAFTA/ACE/CDG) – 2 wins – Supporting Actor, Screenplay – 2 more nominations – Picture, Supporting Actress
The Queen (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/BAFTA/Eddie/CDG/ADG)
Dreamgirls (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG ensemble/ACE/CDG/ADG/CAS) 2 wins – Supporting Actress, Sound; 6 more nominations – Supporting Actor, Song, Song, Song, Costume, Art Direction
Pan’s Labyrinth (CDG) 3 wins – Art Direction, Cinematography, Makeup; 3 more nominations Screenplay, Foreign Film, Score
I’m fairly certain that Dreamgirls would have made the cut. Going to throw in Pan’s Labyrinth because clearly they loved that movie. So for 2006 my guess is also 7 Best Picture nominees.
2007
No Country for Old Men (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG enemble/WGA/ASC/ADG/BAFTA/CAS/) 4 wins – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actor; 4 more nominations – Sound, Sound Editing, Editing, Cinematography
Michael Clayton (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/SAGx3/ACE/ADG/1 win – Supporting Actress; 6 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Score
There Will Be Blood (Globes/PGA/DGA/SAG+1/WGA/ACE/ADG/BAFTA/2 wins – Actor, Cinematography; 6 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Sound Editing, Art Direction
Atonement (Globes/BAFTA/ADG/CDG) 1 win – Score; 6 more nominations – Picture, Actress, Screenplay, Costume, Cinematography, Art Direction
Juno (Globes/PGA/SAG+1/ACE/) 1 win – Screenplay; 3 more nominations – Picture, Actress, Directing
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/ASC/ADG/CDG) 4 nominations – Directing, Screenplay, Editing, Cinematography
Ratatouille (ACE/ADG)- 1 win, 4 more nominations – Screenplay, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
This is a tough call. It’s possible Ratatouille could have made the cut. But I’m more sure Diving Bell would be in there. So I’m going to guess that for 2007 there would have been 6 Best Picture nominees.
2008
Slumdog Millionaire (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/SAG Ensemble/ACE/ADG/BAFTA/CDG/CAS 8 wins – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Sound, Score, Cinematography, Song; 2 more nominations – Song, Sound Editing
Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Globes/PGA/DGA/WGA/SAG Ensemble/ACE/ASC/ADG/BAFTA/CDG/2 wins – Visual Effects, Makeup, Art Direction; 10 more nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, Supporting Actress, Editing, Sound, Score,Costume, Cinematography
Frost/Nixon (Globes/DGA/WGA/PGA/SAG ensemble/ACE/ADG/BAFTA) 5 nominations – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, Editing
Milk (Globes/DGA/WGA/SAG ensemble/ACE/ADG/BAFTA/CDG/2 wins – Actor, Screenplay; 6 more nominations – Picture Director, Supporting Actor, Editing, Score, Costume Design
The Reader (Globes/SAG+1/ASC) 1 win – Actress; 4 more nominations – Picture, Directing, Screenplay, Cinematography
The Dark Knight (DGA/WGA/SAG+1/ACE/ASC/ADG/BAFTA/CDG/CAS/2 wins – Supporting Actor, Sound Editing; 6 more nominations – Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Makeup, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects
Wall-E (ACE/ADG/1 win – Animated Feature; 5 more nominations – Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound mixing, Song, Score
Wall-E is a tempting choice. You could probably get seven out of that. You could maybe add Doubt. But I feel like The Dark Knight was really and truly pushing through, like Dreamgirls. This is why I think 2008 would have had 6 Best Picture nominees.
What I noticed going back in time was that there were very specific movies that stood out as films that I know beyond a shred of doubt would have pushed through – Dreamgirls and The Dark Knight. There is only one year where 9 seemed like a worthy lineup, but most of the time, the natural number seemed to be rest around 6 or 7. 8 if it was an exceptional year.
I looked at the various films’ placement in the Globes, and the guild awards first. I then looked at how many nominations they got for the Oscars. Of course, as these things go, if a film is getting heavy placement in the guild awards it’s possible that their own choices could be impacted. Also, this is the first year they are relying on the number one votes. When they had five nominees they did not do that.
5% of the total vote is the minimum a film needs to make it to the second round as a nominee. The first thing they do is put them into piles of #1 votes (thanks to you commenters for clarifying this). 1% is needed, I suppose, to make it to the second round. Anything under 1% is tossed. Then they go through and they find those with a minimum of 5% of the total vote. There is some kind of explanation about the surplus rule. Let me quote a commenter DFP:
My understanding is after Round Two you need 5% of total ballots to be a potential BP nominee. If no more than ten movies are left in the running, those movies are the nominees. if there are more than ten, my guess is the ten highest vote getters are in. But based on what the academy reveals about past analysis that would not have happened, as after Round Two there were never more than nine movies left.
Which means Round One is the round that determines the movies over 5% or between 1-5%. The latter ones then depend on #2 and #3 etc. ballots to help push them over the edge into over 5% territory. If you survive Round One with over 1% you are still in the running.
However it is true that you are much more likely to survive into Round Two if you have 3% or 4% of number 1 votes. A movie with only 1.5% of Number 1 votes will need to be the #2 choice of many many more people to make it through.
But what I keep trying to make clear is 5% isn’t the hurdle for Round One. 1% is.
5% is the hurdle for Round Two after just one round of redistribution of ballots.
Redistributed ballots come from the under 1%, as well as (in fractions) from the big vote getters (somewhere over 10%, maybe 12%, can’t remember which).
According to the accountant’s analysis, that is all it would have ever taken to get 5-10 nominees with no leftovers.
Here is the breakdown of the branches.So what is 5% of the total vote? If there are roughly 6,000 voting members, a fair estimate of ballots returned might be, say, 5,000? In that case, 5% of that is around 250. A film would need at least that many number one votes to make it in. If fewer members turn in their ballots, obviously the number goes down. If more people turn in their ballots, that number goes up. But it might be a safe way to look at it to think of the magic number as somewhere between 200 and 350.
Actors Branch
Chair: Annette Bening
Members: 1,183
Art Directors Branch
Chair: Rosemary Brandenburg
Members: 364
Cinematographers Branch
Chair: Caleb Deschanel
Members: 202
Directors Branch
Chair: Kathryn Bigelow
Members: 367
Documentary Branch
Chair: Rob Epstein
Members: 157
Executives Branch
Chair: Robert Rehme
Members: 442
Film Editors Branch
Chair: Michael Tronick
Members: 220
Makeup Artists & Hairstylists Branch
Chair: Leonard Engelman
Members: 118
Music Branch
Chair: Bruce Broughton
Members: 236
Producers Branch
Chair: Mark Johnson
Members: 446
Public Relations Branch
Chair: Marvin Levy
Members: 366
Short Films and Feature Animation Branch
Jon Bloom
Members: 343
Sound Branch
Chair: Kevin O’Connell
Members: 407
Visual Effects Branch
Chair: Bill Taylor
Members: 289
Writers Branch
Chair: Frank Pierson
Members: 375
Not to be smartypants but LOTR:The Return of the King won SAG ensemble in 2003…
Not to be smartypants but LOTR:The Return of the King won SAG ensemble in 2003…
a week late but still an interesting conversation here at AD.
I believe the surplus rule has changed from how it was described last year. it’s not the percentage, but a percentage of the percentage. So if King’s Speech gets 35% of the vote, all the King’s Speech votes are redistributed from it, but each redistributed vote is only worth 35% of a vote. If Social Network gets 25% of the vote, all the Social Network votes are redistributed from it, but each redistributed vote is only worth 25% of a vote:
http://moviecitynews.com/2011/10/1-week-to-20-weeks-to-oscar-counting-best-picture-ballots/
a week late but still an interesting conversation here at AD.
I believe the surplus rule has changed from how it was described last year. it’s not the percentage, but a percentage of the percentage. So if King’s Speech gets 35% of the vote, all the King’s Speech votes are redistributed from it, but each redistributed vote is only worth 35% of a vote. If Social Network gets 25% of the vote, all the Social Network votes are redistributed from it, but each redistributed vote is only worth 25% of a vote:
http://moviecitynews.com/2011/10/1-week-to-20-weeks-to-oscar-counting-best-picture-ballots/
Sasha, I agree with many people here: you would consider Talk to Her in 2002 as a potential contender (2 noms and a win in main categories: Director and Original Screenplay).
Sasha, I agree with many people here: you would consider Talk to Her in 2002 as a potential contender (2 noms and a win in main categories: Director and Original Screenplay).
Wait. So there are fractions now? lol Where is the original link to this year’s math that explains the balloting rules? I gotta read it for myself. XD
Wait. So there are fractions now? lol Where is the original link to this year’s math that explains the balloting rules? I gotta read it for myself. XD
Oh. I forgot to do guesses. Okay. In order.
1. War Horse
2. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
3. J. Edgar
4. Midnight in Paris
5. Hugo
6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2
(Right now I’m guessing only six nominees. But just in case…)
7. Moneyball
8. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
9. The Descendants
10. The Help
Now this is based on this system. If it were a 5 movie year, or a 10 movie year, I’d probably have different choices. My thought is that War Horse is going to have a bazillion first place votes. So I tried to guess-redistribute what it’s fans might put for #2. I left off The Artist because Midnight in Paris and Hugo should get first place from it’s fans.
Oh. I forgot to do guesses. Okay. In order.
1. War Horse
2. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
3. J. Edgar
4. Midnight in Paris
5. Hugo
6. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2
(Right now I’m guessing only six nominees. But just in case…)
7. Moneyball
8. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
9. The Descendants
10. The Help
Now this is based on this system. If it were a 5 movie year, or a 10 movie year, I’d probably have different choices. My thought is that War Horse is going to have a bazillion first place votes. So I tried to guess-redistribute what it’s fans might put for #2. I left off The Artist because Midnight in Paris and Hugo should get first place from it’s fans.
The back and forth on counting procedure going on here has been fascinating. I don’t think i’m any the wiser about how it will all pan out, though.
The back and forth on counting procedure going on here has been fascinating. I don’t think i’m any the wiser about how it will all pan out, though.
If The Dark Knight would have made it in, it would have won Best Picture!
If The Dark Knight would have made it in, it would have won Best Picture!
Ryan, they take all the ballots and sort them by their #1. For those films that get 20% or more of the vote, they take all the ballots and devote a ***portion of each ballot*** to the second place film on that ballot.
Example:
War Horse gets 1500 ballots, about 25% of the total vote. It only needed 5%, 1/5 of what it actually got. Thus, the Academy will count each vote for War Horse as only 1/5 of a vote. The other 4/5 of EVERY ballot in the pile will go to the movie in second place on that ballot.
So let’s say that of the 1500 War Horse ballots, 500 were for EL&IC, 300 for The Artist, 200 for the Help, and the rest were broken up between movies that don’t matter. Since each of the ballots in redistribution now only counts as 4/5 of a vote, EL&IC gets 400 votes (4/5 of the 500 second place votes it got), The Artist gets 240, and The Help gets 160 from the reshuffling.
Put another way, if I vote for War Horse/EL&IC in that order and War Horse triggers the surplus rule with 25% of the vote, then 20% of my Academy vote will go to War Horse and 80% to EL&IC.
*Note (Don’t read if you just figured this out… haha): The one thing we don’t know (at least I don’t believe we know it) is how much something that triggers the surplus rule is ‘bumped down to,’ so-to-speak. So will a surplus ballot pile get bumped down to 5% of the vote or just under the 20% mark or somewhere in between? Obviously, the answer will determine how much second place votes matter for people voting for popular films.
Evan! Thank you!
That’s about as clear as complex mud can be.
Seriously, you answered my 2 worst confusions
A film has to reach 20% of #1 votes before surplus ballots are generated
ALL the surplus ballots are then redistributed among the #2s (at reduced value)
====
As for how far the surplus-initiating films are bumped down. My guess would be back down to 10% (…because the maximum number of nominees is 10?)
Seems silly to knock a hugely popular movie all the way back to the minimum 5% threshold. And 20% feels hoggish.
Because I would hope the goal would still be find as many as 10 films so long as 10 have strong support — instead of trying to pare the field down closer to 5 with stingy redistribution.
Otherwise what’s the point of allotting 10 possible slots. You’d want to fill those slots, if possible. (or at least I would)
I can’t help feeling it’s going to look embarrassing if the Academy can only find 6 or 7 movies they give a damn about. Pathetic reflection on the industry, if that’s the case.
Ryan, they take all the ballots and sort them by their #1. For those films that get 20% or more of the vote, they take all the ballots and devote a ***portion of each ballot*** to the second place film on that ballot.
Example:
War Horse gets 1500 ballots, about 25% of the total vote. It only needed 5%, 1/5 of what it actually got. Thus, the Academy will count each vote for War Horse as only 1/5 of a vote. The other 4/5 of EVERY ballot in the pile will go to the movie in second place on that ballot.
So let’s say that of the 1500 War Horse ballots, 500 were for EL&IC, 300 for The Artist, 200 for the Help, and the rest were broken up between movies that don’t matter. Since each of the ballots in redistribution now only counts as 4/5 of a vote, EL&IC gets 400 votes (4/5 of the 500 second place votes it got), The Artist gets 240, and The Help gets 160 from the reshuffling.
Put another way, if I vote for War Horse/EL&IC in that order and War Horse triggers the surplus rule with 25% of the vote, then 20% of my Academy vote will go to War Horse and 80% to EL&IC.
*Note (Don’t read if you just figured this out… haha): The one thing we don’t know (at least I don’t believe we know it) is how much something that triggers the surplus rule is ‘bumped down to,’ so-to-speak. So will a surplus ballot pile get bumped down to 5% of the vote or just under the 20% mark or somewhere in between? Obviously, the answer will determine how much second place votes matter for people voting for popular films.
Evan! Thank you!
That’s about as clear as complex mud can be.
Seriously, you answered my 2 worst confusions
A film has to reach 20% of #1 votes before surplus ballots are generated
ALL the surplus ballots are then redistributed among the #2s (at reduced value)
====
As for how far the surplus-initiating films are bumped down. My guess would be back down to 10% (…because the maximum number of nominees is 10?)
Seems silly to knock a hugely popular movie all the way back to the minimum 5% threshold. And 20% feels hoggish.
Because I would hope the goal would still be find as many as 10 films so long as 10 have strong support — instead of trying to pare the field down closer to 5 with stingy redistribution.
Otherwise what’s the point of allotting 10 possible slots. You’d want to fill those slots, if possible. (or at least I would)
I can’t help feeling it’s going to look embarrassing if the Academy can only find 6 or 7 movies they give a damn about. Pathetic reflection on the industry, if that’s the case.
Ryan, I wasn’t solely referring to your “Brit-bashing”, but to Sasha and her continuous campaign against non-American productions (read: British) this year as well as last year. A position I have persistently been trying to challenge because it’s a position that I firmly believe she ought to be too intelligent a person to uphold. The Oscars, as I stated earlier on, looks parochial to an outsider for having the nerve to boldly assert its global reach and aspirations, yet only be in the service of American film-making. That position is untenable and quite chauvinistic, if you ask me. Maybe a longstanding period of cultural hegemony has left America “untroubled” by this curious by-product (parochialism) of said hegemony?
And of course, you can find ten worthwhile international films every year that are worthy of a bp nomination! If you can find ten American films, then why not? The problem is that the national committees that select movies for the Oscars seems more intent on choosing “Oscar bait” material (that’s how mediocre Danish productions like In A Better World or Babette’s Feast won the statuette!) instead of serious art. I think it is seldom that the best of the best is being chosen by the national committees. I mean, wouldn’t you agree that the Susanne Bier’s of this world (and I’m not blaming her, she is perfectly capable of making good movies inside the confines of sentimental genre pics) will get picked before the Lars Von Trier’s of this world (to continue with a Danish example)? Surely.
Tero: your point, that when it comes to the Oscars the shared language and cultural interaction make it impossible to make a clear distinction between the UK and the US is a valid one. And I appreciate your input to this discussion. It would be interesting if one day the best foreign movies could be in contention either on their own terms (and not bother with “competing” in the bp category with American titles as well, which is ludicrous) or be wholly accepted by the Academy and invited into the fold on equal terms (which I know is impossible, since Americans are not any better than the rest of us, we all want our “own” movies to perform well, naturally).
Therefore the best, most worthy thing the Academy could do, would be to let go of any aspirations of being a “World Cup for Movies” and instead focus on being a celebration for the art of American cinema. A worthy cause, indeed.
Ryan, I wasn’t solely referring to your “Brit-bashing”, but to Sasha and her continuous campaign against non-American productions (read: British) this year as well as last year. A position I have persistently been trying to challenge because it’s a position that I firmly believe she ought to be too intelligent a person to uphold. The Oscars, as I stated earlier on, looks parochial to an outsider for having the nerve to boldly assert its global reach and aspirations, yet only be in the service of American film-making. That position is untenable and quite chauvinistic, if you ask me. Maybe a longstanding period of cultural hegemony has left America “untroubled” by this curious by-product (parochialism) of said hegemony?
And of course, you can find ten worthwhile international films every year that are worthy of a bp nomination! If you can find ten American films, then why not? The problem is that the national committees that select movies for the Oscars seems more intent on choosing “Oscar bait” material (that’s how mediocre Danish productions like In A Better World or Babette’s Feast won the statuette!) instead of serious art. I think it is seldom that the best of the best is being chosen by the national committees. I mean, wouldn’t you agree that the Susanne Bier’s of this world (and I’m not blaming her, she is perfectly capable of making good movies inside the confines of sentimental genre pics) will get picked before the Lars Von Trier’s of this world (to continue with a Danish example)? Surely.
Tero: your point, that when it comes to the Oscars the shared language and cultural interaction make it impossible to make a clear distinction between the UK and the US is a valid one. And I appreciate your input to this discussion. It would be interesting if one day the best foreign movies could be in contention either on their own terms (and not bother with “competing” in the bp category with American titles as well, which is ludicrous) or be wholly accepted by the Academy and invited into the fold on equal terms (which I know is impossible, since Americans are not any better than the rest of us, we all want our “own” movies to perform well, naturally).
Therefore the best, most worthy thing the Academy could do, would be to let go of any aspirations of being a “World Cup for Movies” and instead focus on being a celebration for the art of American cinema. A worthy cause, indeed.
^This.
I have thought about the very same thing many times. I wanted to make one for Finnish TV as an insert for an Oscar show, but never got around to it.
^This.
I have thought about the very same thing many times. I wanted to make one for Finnish TV as an insert for an Oscar show, but never got around to it.
Why doesn’t somebody just make a Youtube video about the voting/redistribution/counting, so people can SEE it in stead of reading the rules cause that seems to confuse people a lot. 🙂
Why doesn’t somebody just make a Youtube video about the voting/redistribution/counting
should be easy enough to adapt this video, retitle it AMPAS Rule 34
Why doesn’t somebody just make a Youtube video about the voting/redistribution/counting, so people can SEE it in stead of reading the rules cause that seems to confuse people a lot. 🙂
Why doesn’t somebody just make a Youtube video about the voting/redistribution/counting
should be easy enough to adapt this video, retitle it AMPAS Rule 34
In that scenario no film could get enough of the 2 or 3 votes to make it to 5%. But in all likelihood something like Inception might have been at 4% and would get enough partial votes from say people who had it at #2 behind TSN plus #2 votes behind things with less than 1% like Deathly Hallows Part 1 for instance.
If it just had 3% in the first round maybe it wouldn’t make it. Maybe it Toy Story 3 and would both climb over 5 which would be my guess.
When thinking about how many nominees there are going to be ALL you have to think about is what will get 5% right away plus what piles (after a round of distributing surplus and under 1% votes) will have over 5% of ballots in the end.
According to the history they researched in all likelihood there will be between 5 and 9, maybe 10. My guess if it there are less than 5 they would just go to the old system of more rounds of redistribution until there are 5 but the press release made it seem like this never happened in their research.
Dean, we’re still and always looking for that 5% number and then maybe also those films that might trigger the surplus rule, like The Artist. So 5% of 6,000 is around 300. Seems to be it wouldn’t be that hard for a popular movie to get that number, either with a healthy share in the first round or with partial votes. 300, and that’s a high estimate, doesn’t seem so unattainable. Right now I think those that should have no problem getting a BP nom would be:
The Artist
The Descendants
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
The Help
But that’s five right there. Still have a good many to go yet.
Tinker Tailor
War Horse
Extremely Loud
Dragon Tattoo
My debate with Anne that Dragon Tattoo couldn’t get director, star and screenplay and not make Picture seems sound. To get 300 votes for a film that hits in those branches seems like a no-brainer.
My debate with Anne that Dragon Tattoo couldn’t get director, star and screenplay and not make Picture seems sound. To get 300 votes for a film that hits in those branches seems like a no-brainer.
And then there’s the other factor you mention at the top of your post, Sasha. There’s bound to be a significant percentage of the AMPAS who feel as others do — (sotto voce: *that Fincher was robbed last year*). Voters who surely hope Dragon Tattoo is an undaunted audacious followup to that debacle.
If Dragon Tattoo does deliver, I think we can rely on those voters to rally: Ever stalwart!
Can someone explain the surplus rule in simplest terms?
My main problem grasping redistribution of surplus ballots is who decides which specific ballots are the extra ones? Sort of sucks for Moneyball if all the ballots with War Horse at #1 and Moneyball at #2 get locked down for War Horse in the first round. And then come a big batch of ‘surplus ballots dealt out from 200 traditionalists who have War Horse at #1 and The Help at #2.
Doesn’t that make it too much of a game of chance? What am I not understanding about which ballots are deemed surplus?
In that scenario no film could get enough of the 2 or 3 votes to make it to 5%. But in all likelihood something like Inception might have been at 4% and would get enough partial votes from say people who had it at #2 behind TSN plus #2 votes behind things with less than 1% like Deathly Hallows Part 1 for instance.
If it just had 3% in the first round maybe it wouldn’t make it. Maybe it Toy Story 3 and would both climb over 5 which would be my guess.
When thinking about how many nominees there are going to be ALL you have to think about is what will get 5% right away plus what piles (after a round of distributing surplus and under 1% votes) will have over 5% of ballots in the end.
According to the history they researched in all likelihood there will be between 5 and 9, maybe 10. My guess if it there are less than 5 they would just go to the old system of more rounds of redistribution until there are 5 but the press release made it seem like this never happened in their research.
Dean, we’re still and always looking for that 5% number and then maybe also those films that might trigger the surplus rule, like The Artist. So 5% of 6,000 is around 300. Seems to be it wouldn’t be that hard for a popular movie to get that number, either with a healthy share in the first round or with partial votes. 300, and that’s a high estimate, doesn’t seem so unattainable. Right now I think those that should have no problem getting a BP nom would be:
The Artist
The Descendants
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
The Help
But that’s five right there. Still have a good many to go yet.
Tinker Tailor
War Horse
Extremely Loud
Dragon Tattoo
My debate with Anne that Dragon Tattoo couldn’t get director, star and screenplay and not make Picture seems sound. To get 300 votes for a film that hits in those branches seems like a no-brainer.
My debate with Anne that Dragon Tattoo couldn’t get director, star and screenplay and not make Picture seems sound. To get 300 votes for a film that hits in those branches seems like a no-brainer.
And then there’s the other factor you mention at the top of your post, Sasha. There’s bound to be a significant percentage of the AMPAS who feel as others do — (sotto voce: *that Fincher was robbed last year*). Voters who surely hope Dragon Tattoo is an undaunted audacious followup to that debacle.
If Dragon Tattoo does deliver, I think we can rely on those voters to rally: Ever stalwart!
Can someone explain the surplus rule in simplest terms?
My main problem grasping redistribution of surplus ballots is who decides which specific ballots are the extra ones? Sort of sucks for Moneyball if all the ballots with War Horse at #1 and Moneyball at #2 get locked down for War Horse in the first round. And then come a big batch of ‘surplus ballots dealt out from 200 traditionalists who have War Horse at #1 and The Help at #2.
Doesn’t that make it too much of a game of chance? What am I not understanding about which ballots are deemed surplus?
I would love to think in another world Nolan’s The Prestige would have made it to the big dance as well.
I would love to think in another world Nolan’s The Prestige would have made it to the big dance as well.
The FL nominated films should be among those released in the US during the calendar year, like all the other categories.
It would make sense then for a supercommittee to reduce these to around 50-60 as they exist now, then screen them for the committee to select 6 films and the supercommittee to add 3 (the current system) so not all the good films are overlooked.
Then the nominees would be familiar to the US audience and more reflect the mainstream moviegoing experience.
That is the only logical system. They need to scrap the idiotic country submission one, and having films submitted that almost entirely have not been released yet in the US.
The FL nominated films should be among those released in the US during the calendar year, like all the other categories.
It would make sense then for a supercommittee to reduce these to around 50-60 as they exist now, then screen them for the committee to select 6 films and the supercommittee to add 3 (the current system) so not all the good films are overlooked.
Then the nominees would be familiar to the US audience and more reflect the mainstream moviegoing experience.
That is the only logical system. They need to scrap the idiotic country submission one, and having films submitted that almost entirely have not been released yet in the US.
Or:
A) One entry if the country produces a maximum of 50 theatrical releases a year.
B) Two entries if 51-100 releases produced.
C) Three entries if 101-150 releases produced.
D) Four entries if more than 151 releases produced.
But this would be a nightmare since many films in Europe are co-productions.
Or:
A) One entry if the country produces a maximum of 50 theatrical releases a year.
B) Two entries if 51-100 releases produced.
C) Three entries if 101-150 releases produced.
D) Four entries if more than 151 releases produced.
But this would be a nightmare since many films in Europe are co-productions.
How about everybody calm down and wait another 3 months to know what REALLY happens? Nobody here is a member of the Academy. That being said, Globe and SAG noms are only 2 months away!
How about everybody calm down and wait another 3 months to know what REALLY happens? Nobody here is a member of the Academy. That being said, Globe and SAG noms are only 2 months away!
You do know that we were only joking about BFF (aww)?
A possible solution:
Country with maximum 10M population = 1 entry (All Nordic countries, Israel)
Maximum 30M = 2 entries (Netherlands, Greece, Belgium)
Maximum 50M = 3 entries (Poland, Canada, Spain)
Maximum 100M = 4 entries (Germany, France, Italy)
Maximum 2B = 5 entries (China, India, Russia, Japan, Mexico)
This system would probably double the amount of entries, but most countries would still be able to send just one film.
You do know that we were only joking about BFF (aww)?
A possible solution:
Country with maximum 10M population = 1 entry (All Nordic countries, Israel)
Maximum 30M = 2 entries (Netherlands, Greece, Belgium)
Maximum 50M = 3 entries (Poland, Canada, Spain)
Maximum 100M = 4 entries (Germany, France, Italy)
Maximum 2B = 5 entries (China, India, Russia, Japan, Mexico)
This system would probably double the amount of entries, but most countries would still be able to send just one film.
There is no need to discuss or argue more on new rule of #1 votes. Because academy not voted with their mind, they voted with their heart. They don’t think about how much like the film but thought how much they love it. So here is mine –
1. War Horse
2. EL and IC
3. J. Edgar
4. The Descendents
5. The Ides of March
6. The Artist
7. Moneyball
should be
8. The Tree of Life
There is no need to discuss or argue more on new rule of #1 votes. Because academy not voted with their mind, they voted with their heart. They don’t think about how much like the film but thought how much they love it. So here is mine –
1. War Horse
2. EL and IC
3. J. Edgar
4. The Descendents
5. The Ides of March
6. The Artist
7. Moneyball
should be
8. The Tree of Life
The point about Anglophone countries being close cousins to the US for filmmaking purposes is true – but it gets complicated for FL purposes. Canada is 70% English speaking, and a heavy participant in US movies, yet they have been regular contenders for the award. India has more English speakers than any country in the world (and uses the language in its courts and for other government purposes), yet it of course competes.
Of course, one of the worst aspects of this awful category is that the initial list of potential nominees is nation-based, with Iceland with 300,000 citizens having the same number of entrants as France or Germany or Italy, and the choices often being political and/or aimed at the lowest common denominator factor in the FL committee. And thus a non-English language film from the UK or New Zealand competes, though the likely will never be heard of again, while The Skin I Live In or The Kid on a Bike don’t. It’s totally ridiculous.
The Kid on a Bike
whoa, yes! what a fine film. It’s shot into my Top 10 for the year and likely to stay there. So that’s a perfect example — why isn’t it even Belgium’s official Oscar pony? And you already answer the question, scottferguson: Politics and back-room maneuvering.
Is it only because the Dardenne Brothers have already been Belgium’s selection three times in the past? Maybe there’s a reason for that. Maybe they’re Belgian national treasures.
Whatever the precise reason, the machinery of the system disregards what’s best and turns the Oscars into a global marketing tool. …oh.
The point about Anglophone countries being close cousins to the US for filmmaking purposes is true – but it gets complicated for FL purposes. Canada is 70% English speaking, and a heavy participant in US movies, yet they have been regular contenders for the award. India has more English speakers than any country in the world (and uses the language in its courts and for other government purposes), yet it of course competes.
Of course, one of the worst aspects of this awful category is that the initial list of potential nominees is nation-based, with Iceland with 300,000 citizens having the same number of entrants as France or Germany or Italy, and the choices often being political and/or aimed at the lowest common denominator factor in the FL committee. And thus a non-English language film from the UK or New Zealand competes, though the likely will never be heard of again, while The Skin I Live In or The Kid on a Bike don’t. It’s totally ridiculous.
The Kid on a Bike
whoa, yes! what a fine film. It’s shot into my Top 10 for the year and likely to stay there. So that’s a perfect example — why isn’t it even Belgium’s official Oscar pony? And you already answer the question, scottferguson: Politics and back-room maneuvering.
Is it only because the Dardenne Brothers have already been Belgium’s selection three times in the past? Maybe there’s a reason for that. Maybe they’re Belgian national treasures.
Whatever the precise reason, the machinery of the system disregards what’s best and turns the Oscars into a global marketing tool. …oh.
The category is Best Foreign Language Film, not Best Foreign Film. The determining factor is language, with one caveat – no US non-English language film can compete (mainly because there is no US official body to designate one).
This year, after many years of allowing it, the Academy has ruled that Puerto Rico may no longer submit, apparently with the feeling that since its filmmakers are US citizens and have US passports they shouldn’t be treated differently than mainland Spanish-language films.
The category is Best Foreign Language Film, not Best Foreign Film. The determining factor is language, with one caveat – no US non-English language film can compete (mainly because there is no US official body to designate one).
This year, after many years of allowing it, the Academy has ruled that Puerto Rico may no longer submit, apparently with the feeling that since its filmmakers are US citizens and have US passports they shouldn’t be treated differently than mainland Spanish-language films.
From my point of view, USA and UK are ONE country (what it comes to Hollywood/Oscars).
So, BFF (aww) should be at least USA/UK -free, Australia/New Zealand and the likes, too.
From my point of view, USA and UK are ONE country (what it comes to Hollywood/Oscars).
So, BFF (aww) should be at least USA/UK -free, Australia/New Zealand and the likes, too.
Let me put it this way. If we’re trying to find US-only productions where British talent is nowhere to be seen (actors, directors, writers…), well, good luck on your search. These movies are in a minority in Hollywood. You’ll find plenty in indie scene, though.
Let me put it this way. If we’re trying to find US-only productions where British talent is nowhere to be seen (actors, directors, writers…), well, good luck on your search. These movies are in a minority in Hollywood. You’ll find plenty in indie scene, though.
The Brit bloc voted likely will be diluted this year – only one film can be listed #1. And Shame might end up getting a lot of those votes. We Need to Talk About Kevin some as well.
The Brit bloc works best when their is one go-to choice among the potential nominees. That doesn’t seem to be the case this year. And of course many members will vote for a non-British film #1.
The Brit bloc voted likely will be diluted this year – only one film can be listed #1. And Shame might end up getting a lot of those votes. We Need to Talk About Kevin some as well.
The Brit bloc works best when their is one go-to choice among the potential nominees. That doesn’t seem to be the case this year. And of course many members will vote for a non-British film #1.
Who knows? A LOT, more than 10%, I imagine.
But I know what you are after, Scott. Don’t you think their votes go for something like War Horse rather than Harry Potter? IF some of them vote in patriotic way – and this I doubt. I don’t see Brits voting en masse just for England’s (Scotland’s etc) sake. Maybe they had that effect on The King’s Speech and Shakespeare in Love, but that’s another case. Or maybe Harvey Weinstein has a secret mailing list sent to British people only?
There’s no conspiracy. UK just has an enormous effect/contribution to Hollywood. Always has.
For example in Best Actress (3/5 expected nominees):
Meryl Streep – playing a Brit
Glenn Close – Ireland
Michelle Williams – American character, movie takes place in England
All the above films are British productions (and UK/Ireland for Albert Nobbs), USA not involved except in the nominees’ birth place.
THIS would be a problem for BFF (aww), UK = foreign.
Who knows? A LOT, more than 10%, I imagine.
But I know what you are after, Scott. Don’t you think their votes go for something like War Horse rather than Harry Potter? IF some of them vote in patriotic way – and this I doubt. I don’t see Brits voting en masse just for England’s (Scotland’s etc) sake. Maybe they had that effect on The King’s Speech and Shakespeare in Love, but that’s another case. Or maybe Harvey Weinstein has a secret mailing list sent to British people only?
There’s no conspiracy. UK just has an enormous effect/contribution to Hollywood. Always has.
For example in Best Actress (3/5 expected nominees):
Meryl Streep – playing a Brit
Glenn Close – Ireland
Michelle Williams – American character, movie takes place in England
All the above films are British productions (and UK/Ireland for Albert Nobbs), USA not involved except in the nominees’ birth place.
THIS would be a problem for BFF (aww), UK = foreign.