One of the early announcements, along with the Los Angeles, New York Film Critics and National Board of Review, will be the AFI top ten films of 2014. Through December, critics will be ringing in with their top ten films of the year, and eventually, a consensus will be born. How does the AFI stack up against the aggregate top ten? Movie City News compiled the Top Tens every year. I have compared the big top tens against it, with AFI and Producers Guild, along with Oscar’s Best Picture.
These top ten lists were compiled in January before the Oscars. Predicting the Oscar nominations off of these lists are not the easiest thing in the world to do for the simple reason that none of these groups tally their votes the same. With Movie City News, the AFI and the Producers Guild members who vote get ten slots. The Academy, since 2011, only has five nominee slots. As you can see, 2009 and 2010 were a lot easier to predict than Best Picture was, say, last year.
Even among these groups, though, there is a mix of what films they think are best. The Academy hovers somewhere between the producers and the critics, I’d say. While the AFI picks a small committee of judges to carefully select their nominees, the Producers Guild has a giant membership closer to the Academy’s, with 5000 members or thereabouts. Movie City News critics round out to roughly 200. The Producers Guild, like the Academy, uses a preferential ballot. They are the only voting body that does. But they get 10 nomination slots and not five, as I keep repeating because it doesn’t seem to sink in. Think five, not ten.
In Contention’s Kris Tapley does not participate with either Gurus of Gold or Gold Derby, thus we must click over to In Contention to find his predictions. His latest update is from the 17th — and he’s going with 8, not 9, assuming that this year there won’t be enough favorites to name the usual maximum of 9. Somewhere in the math universe that perhaps Christopher Nolan or Stephen Hawking can explain are how the new voting system arrives at 10. So far, they have never gotten there since reducing the nomination slots from 10 back to 5. It’s been only 9 for three years in a row. But, so the theory goes, this is a “Weak” year and thus, Tapley is betting one less than 9.
Here are Kris Tapley’s top 8 (not 9) for Best Picture:
“Birdman”
“Boyhood”
“The Imitation Game”
“Selma”
“Mr. Turner”
“The Theory of Everything”
“Unbroken”
“Whiplash”
I know our jobs as pundits is to anticipate what five films the Academy voters will choose but I look at Kris’ list and I think, what a bunch of wimpy picks. These are all good movies but the sum total of them, looking at them as a group? That’s a whole lot of soft sauce. And it isn’t the kind of lineup anyone producing that telecast is going to jump for joy over. Not a single hit in the lineup? Mmmm. It won’t do.
Right now, closing in on the end of November and heading into the critics awards (which could change everything), the Gurus of Gold’s latest looks like this:
And Gold Derby looks like this:
There are still so many questions unanswered so far in this year’s race that it’s tough to figure out how it might go. If you track back to last year at this time we were convinced of All is Lost and Inside Llewyn Davis getting in. Neither did. Dallas Buyers Club and Philomena, tracking kind of low and outside on the pundits’ charts, did get in. That is a really good example of the “think five” rule can push films that have deeper emotional impact over ones that don’t.
That is perhaps why Dave Karger, Scott Feinberg, Thelma Adams and Kris Tapley are all predicting Gone Girl will be shut out of the Best Picture race, never mind that it’s the highest grossing film of twice-nominated David Fincher’s career, and never mind that it will finish the year as the top earning adult drama, barreling towards $160 million, they are shaking their heads no because they don’t think “they” will go for it. Me, I’m looking at films like The Fighter and Black Swan and I’m thinking, there are going to be men with low hanging heavy balls who are going to want a film like Gone Girl in the race, despite it having the “chick flick” label.
So I disagree with my pundit pals, even Anne Thompson who has pushed Gone Girl way down to number 10, which would mean it would not get in. Here’s the scary part – they could turn out to be right. That would mean they really are going to spit in the face of the hordes of ticket buyers who came out to see one of the year’s most provocative and talked about films. A film so successful it seeing repeat viewings, driven by strong word of mouth. They’re going to say, nah, doesn’t matter because that isn’t the kind of movie we want representing us globally.
They said movies had to have pat endings to make money.They were wrong. They said a movie had to be touchy feely feel goody to make money. They were wrong. They said it’s better to have an established (code word for male) screenwriter adapt Flynn’s work and nope, they were wrong. It’s just been one long list of wrongs as far as estimating Gone Girl’s success.
One screening didn’t go well at the Academy on the film’s path to making, potentially, $180 million and that sinks its chances because the Academy members are resemble that small sampling of voters on that one day. That isn’t the industry I know and it isn’t the Academy I know. This isn’t the Spirit Awards and it isn’t the Gothams. It isn’t even the BAFTAS (yet). It’s the mother fucking Oscars, my friend. They know what a muscular hits means to their bread and butter.
But let’s look at how this thing could shape up from here, with no critics’ top tens to go off of yet, and with no one having seen Unbroken. Into the Woods was seen but it doesn’t look as though it has impacted any of the charts thus far, with the sole exception of Scott Feinberg, who has added it to his top Best Picture contenders.
I’m going to start with what I know about the AFI, even though their juries change. I don’t think anyone in their right mind working in Hollywood today, with the entire enterprise being turned over to tent poles and international super hero movies are going to look at Gone Girl’s success – a hard R movie made by a major studio that is that big of a success – and turn their nose up at it. They are just not that stupid. Best Picture of the Year means those films that achieved something exceptional and for Gone Girl, its box office is exceptional. The AFI named The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I suspect they will add Gone Girl to that list.
Wes Anderson has made the list a few times, including Moonrise Kingdom and The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I’m going to bet The Grand Budapest Hotel gets in.
I suspect they might go:
Boyhood
Birdman
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Foxcatcher
Selma
Whiplash
I feel most confident about these for AFI. Then, if you add in the two Brit films, which are US productions so they could qualify you would have:
Boyhood
Birdman
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Foxcatcher
Selma
Whiplash
Imitation Game
Theory of Everything
And that leaves one. That last one could be and might be either Unbroken or Interstellar.
That is how things might go for AFI. I have no idea what is in store for Unbroken and I refuse to speculate until I see it. If it is good and worthwhile it will be chosen by the AFI no doubt, which will put two films by women on their list like there were in 2010, when Lisa Cholodenko’s The Kids Are All Right and Debra Granik’s Winter’s Bone made the list.
Moving on to the Producers Guild, Gone Girl is assured a slot there, especially, as with AFI, with ten slots. So I’m still seeing the same list for PGA, with the same two stragglers, Interstellar and Unbroken fighting it out for the last slot. I think it’s possible the PGA goes:
Boyhood
Birdman
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Foxcatcher
Selma
Whiplash
Imitation Game
Theory of Everything
Interstellar
That’s just a guess, of course. But looking over the list of films and the pundits’ predictions I can’t help but zero in on these movies. We’ll see where Gone Girl, Selma, Grand Budapest, Interstellar and Unbroken land once the lists start coming in. This lineup could easily change.
No animated films: Which animated films from the past three years exactly do you think they would have nominated under the old system? Rango? Brave, which people at the time couldn’t even agree on whether it was a good movie? Frozen? That last one is probably your best bet, but still never likely to have been a nominee under any system. If there had been an animated film as acclaimed as Up or Toy Story 3, then I submit it would have been nominated. There simply hasn’t been.
More undeserving Oscar bait: this depends on one’s bias. I’d say that The Blind Side is every bit as bad as EL&IC, 127 Hours just as bad as War Horse. But regardless of taste, it’s inarguable that under the new system, you’ve had incredibly unusual picks like Amour and The Tree of Life. You’ve had arthouse fare like Her and Beasts of the Southern Wild. You’ve also had pictures that are not *quite* in the Academy dramatic wheelhouse like Hugo with its fantasy elements and Gravity with its sci-fi elements.
Fewer blockbusters: in 2012, what was it– seven?– of the nine nominees broke 100 million? Or by this do you really mean that they haven’t nominated an film that grossed as much as Avatar or Inception? Which would you propose they should have nominated? Most of the films that compare at the box office are YA adaptations, superhero films, or animated (see above). Skyfall surely came close to a nomination, but is a Bond film (unlikely under any system).
The greater point here is that any analysis of the two years under the 10-wide system and the three years under the 5-wide system is fraught with sampling bias and small statistical samples. You–or I– can cite examples, but they can never be wholly convincing because there simply isn’t enough evidence either way. But thinking logically about the change, I see no reason why it’s better to assume that Academy members are, on average, more likely to put ‘unusual’ films lower on their list. One could easily make the opposite argument that they have passion for the niche films and then fill the remainder of their ballot with more generalizable fare. AND, as I said, when Steve Pond did his analysis when the change was made (using critics’ ballots which one could argue are more diverse than Academy member ballots), only 10% of ballots went to their bottom half picks. When one thinks that that 10% of support is then divided up amongst 600ish Academy members with wildly different tastes, it’s difficult to believe that this made for some vast change in voting trends.
we don’t even know if those lower choice picks are more non-traditional films– animated, doc, genre pics– as Sasha always implies
The evidence would suggest it, though. Never mind the precursors, since we’ve come to see in recent years that their reliability can be very spotty. When it came to choosing their Best Picture nominees, the Academy was much more adventurous when choosing ten films than they have been with choosing five, and always winding up with nine eventual nominations. More undeserving Oscar bait, no animated films, no films directed by women, fewer bona fide blockbusters, fewer arthouse picks etc.
And thank you, Ryan, for tackling the math to try to reason with folks. A little part of me dies every time someone refers to “the nine” or “the Top Nine” as though it’s written in stone that there can’t be 7, 8, or 10 nominees.
The other thing that eats at my soul is this notion that voters listing only their “top five” changes the character of the Oscar race. When the rule was initially changed, a study of the Movie City News critics’ top ten lists found that only 10% of ballots went to the sixth or lower choice. Removing that 10%, the support of which would be divided between dozens of movies, should have minimal effect. (Not to mention that we don’t even know if those lower choice picks are more non-traditional films– animated, doc, genre pics– as Sasha always implies or less inspiring Oscar bait.)
DFA:
“So this year, for instance, my theory is that “The Theory of Everything” is in danger of being “snubbed” because I don’t believe enough people would make it their #1 choice, even if many may rank as high as #3 or #4 on many many ballots. I just don’t think the movie will generate the necessary passion.”
Be careful with that line of thinking. I ought to know: every year, I think the same thing about some generally-likeable, but not-particularly-raved-about film. Midnight in Paris and The Life of Pi that come to mind immediately. And every time, the nomination happens anyway. Remember- most Oscar voters don’t see the number of films we do. So 1% of #1 votes with large numbers of #2-4 is very possible for even the most uninspiring Oscar film (not saying that TOE fits that label).
Birdman
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into the Woods
The Theory of Everything
Unbroken
Whiplash
re: “Am I the only one who thinks Godzilla is one of the most misunderstood and unfairly devalued movies of 2014?”
No. I loved it. I love Edwards. I loved McGarvey’s and Desplat’s work.
Here’s my AFI predictions, keeping in mind that there are typically 2 to 3 differences between the AFI and Oscar line-up each year (I’ve included 3 here that I don’t think will be in the Oscar list, you can guess which):
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Selma
Whiplash
Paddy, true, but in the Blind Side era there was no lower limit as to how many #1 you needed to survive the first round of balloting, as long as you didn’t have the lowest amount of #1 votes of all films with #1 votes. Then you started getting whatever #2 and #3 votes etc could come your way. Today’s system of needing a minimum of 1% of #1 votes in the first round and there only being one more round of distribution to reach the minimum of 5% (not unlimited rounds until 10 are left standing as in the Blind Side era) makes it more difficult for films without strong #1 support to prevail. As Ryan pointed out earlier, 1% of #1 votes will get you through Round 1, but to survive Round 2 you probably need a higher %, something much more like 4%, 3% at least.
“Am I the only one who thinks Godzilla is one of the most misunderstood and unfairly devalued movies of 2014?”
I really liked it, though I should mention I’ve been less anxious to rewatch it than I though I’d be. Of course, it was the first movie I ever saw in 3D, so that might have helped it a bit – I don’t know. But I definitely don’t think it’s bad or unremarkable, although it does have its questionable moments. But I was thoroughly captivated.
And The Blind Side happened during the 10 nominee era, where a movie could get in without ANY #1 votes, as long as it had enough broad support in the lower rankings.
This is also incorrect. A film without any #1 votes during that (and this current) era would have been eliminated after the first round of vote counting.
GODZILLA was really bad though. The only sort of saving grace was Godzilla himself once they got around to actually showing him going into the water and all that. Out of all the Godzilla movies my favorite is DESTROY ALL MONSTERS. If you can use the CGI to makes as realistic a monster as they had in this year’s film and then you jack up the story so bad that some of us still prefer those old movies with the men in suits and puppets (?), that’s pretty bad.
then you jack up the story so bad that some of us still prefer those old movies with the men in suits and puppets
ok, but we’re trying to put the fight about The King’s Speech behind us.
Ryan: “If we go below 5% doesn’t that risk giving a very small handful of strange stubborn fringe nutballs in the Academy the power to name a BP nominee?
So that’s my roundabout way of saying that I’m a little bit aghast contemplate the ramifications of the 1% rule. A mere 60 people — and god knows who they are — can foist a BP nominee upon us? Holy yikes. No wonder things like The Blind Side can happen.”
As a short hand, saying “what you need is 5% to get in” is absolutely correct.
1% of #1 votes could get a movie in, but there better be enough #2 etc. votes to still reach that 5% threshold, so a mere 60 people still need plenty of additional support from at least 240 more to get their beloved nominee in.
And The Blind Side happened during the 10 nominee era, where a movie could get in without ANY #1 votes, as long as it had enough broad support in the lower rankings.
I think it’s because of The Blind Side especially that this new “the #1 passion vote is stronger than wide-if-not-super-enthusiastic-support” system was instituted. At least that’s how the Academy justified it. They said in their press release at the time that they wanted passionate love for a movie to count for more than mere widespread “like”. (I’m paraphrasing)
So this year, for instance, my theory is that “The Theory of Everything” is in danger of being “snubbed” because I don’t believe enough people would make it their #1 choice, even if many may rank as high as #3 or #4 on many many ballots. I just don’t think the movie will generate the necessary passion, even if the performances do. On the other hand I have hopes for Grand Hotel Budapest, because I think it will have lots of #1 votes, although probably not the 5% to get it in on the first ballot, and I am not positive the second round of ballot counting will supply enough #2 etc. votes to get it through. But I’m hoping.
Due to popular demand, here are my AFI predictions:
Birdman
Boyhood
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Interstellar
Into the Woods
A Most Violent Year
Selma
Unbroken
I stopped talking about Gareth Edwards clearly conspicuous remarkable talent months ago because it looked as if nobody thought his talent was clear, conspicuous or remarkable but me. And Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography was freakin majestic.
You’ll be slightly surprised to consider me among the co-signers to this statement. Honestly.
Ryan, your minimal scrutiny has prompted me to inquire and I’ve concluded my source within The American Film Institute has gone rogue. You know how careless I can be about fact-checking. The BABADOOK is an Australian production! Which now makes perfect sense. I didn’t know whether to file that genre wonder under “linguistically affected” (e.g., FARGO) or “indecipherable geographic backdrop” (e.g., OUT OF THE FURNACE) — but now I know it belongs with PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, another toughy one to figure out.
I hope you’re right about those Biopics though. That way we can start dreaming of INHERENT VICE’s chances.
“Am I the only one who thinks Godzilla is one of the most misunderstood and unfairly devalued movies of 2014? […] And Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography was freakin majestic.)”
*co-signing!*
For my money, still the movie of the summer!
Boyhood
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Birdman
Selma
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
Whiplash
The Theory of Everything
Exodus
erp., sorry, in the middle of all the math I forgot to go on record with my AFI predictions.
Birdman
Boyhood
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Inherent Vice
Interstellar
Foxcatcher
Nightcrawler
Selma
Whiplash
(it’s not that I’m mixed up or unsure about the eligibility of the British-flavored co-productions ((although I am)). It’s just this: Why would the AFI have to revert or resort to anything so deeply infused with UK influence when there are SO MANY purely American films that are equally outstanding? I can’t imagine why the AFI wouldn’t chose to celebrate purely American filmmaking, since it practically falls to the AFI and the AFI alone to celebrate American films as the Prime Directive of the AFI’s charter. It’s their fucking responsibility to honor American Films. We sould encourage — demand — that they do that. You know who does a fine job honoring UK films without the assistance of the AFI? The BFI.)
im going with:
Unbroken
Gone Girl
Interstellar
Whiplash
The Imitation Game
Selma
Guardians of the Galaxy
Birdman
Grand Budapest Hotel
Into The Woods
The Imitation Game is only a British film in filming location, casting, and subject matter. It was developed entirely in the US by Nora Grossman and Ido Ostrowsky with Graham Moore, funded by Teddy Schwarzman, and distributed by the Weinsteins. It’s way more American than British.
Gone Girl will definitely make the AFI + PGA top ten list. No doubt about it.
@Antoinette
Grace of Monaco had better come up on some best-of list or another this year. I don’t think it’s even being released in the US this year, but do I care?
@ Bryce
I never ever do this because it undercuts my credibility in the long-run, but today I’m changing my predictions. I have a hunch and some insider info confirming we’re in a for a bit of a stinker from AFI this year. The citations will go as follow, in no particular order.
UNDER THE SKIN
BEYOND THE LIGHTS
GODZILLA
LOVE IS STRANGE
THE GUEST
THE BABADOOK
NOAH
THE DROP
FURY
NIGHTCRAWLER
I keep hearing “rock awards season to its foundation” over and over again.
I keep hearing “rock awards season to its foundation” over and over again.
Just as I suspected, 5 Seconds of Summer are the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I wake up screaming.
I keep hearing “rock awards season to its foundation” over and over again.
Am I the only one who’s unconvinced about the eligibility and/or US credential prerequisites and/or immigration status of The Imitation Game and Theory of Everything?
(Am I the only one who thinks Godzilla is one of the most misunderstood and unfairly devalued movies of 2014? I stopped talking about Gareth Edwards clearly conspicuous remarkable talent months ago because it looked as if nobody thought his talent was clear, conspicuous or remarkable but me. And Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography was freakin majestic.)
But Bryce, how can The Babadook be eligible for the AFI?
You’re scaring me a little. If you need to talk to someone, call me on this hotline 1-800-ACK-NOAH.
don’t build that ark. pls, just don’t.
Ryan, Getting 5% of #1 votes on the first ballot already guarantees a spot in the nomination list (with I guess the one caveat*)- it doesn’t have to be as high as 9.1% (although it does make it ironclad).
If you are somewhere between 1%-4.999% after the first round you are not yet in, but you have a chance to get in during the second round (Thank you Robert A. for clarifying). During the second round discarded ballots or fractions of ballots from the high ranking #1’s get distributed. There is not third round of redistribution.
* Theoretically a movie that gets 5% could still be not nominated if 10 more movies got more votes (as there won’t be 11 nominees) or a movie with less than 5% could theoretically in because it winds up in 5th place after the second round (and there will always be at least 5 nominees), but both those scenarios are highly unlikely. When the new rule was introduced, the Academy accountants announced that in the previous 10 years the new rule would have given us between 5-9 nominees in each of those years. According to them there would have been years with as few as 5 and as many as 9 (they didn’t mention 10). That the last 3 years all have had 9 nominees has to be chalked up to coincidence, not statistical certainty.
DFA, it’s easy to see that you understand the system really well, so I’m just trying to assimilate everything you’re saying with what I feel I already know.
I was trying here to show in the simplest way possible that there can be 10 nominees. Your own explanation helps to show us how all the addendum and clauses and conditions that have been added to the accounting process (especially in the past decade) have the collective effect of putting up a smoke screen to obfuscate the ballot counting — (let’s face it; the Academy doesn’t much want anyone to know what they’re going to do before they do it. That defeats the whole structure of their Big Surprise.)
I think it’s no accident that the Oscars settled into a happy little system that worked fine for 75 years — but as soon as 10,000 Oscar watchers on 20 blogs started getting really good at knowing what the Academy would do, the AMPAS decided to throw a few wrenches into their machine and fuck up all the logical expectations.
But what they didn’t count on was just how severely their tinkering would fuck things up. It’s like climate change. Small changes in the ecosystem can cause unexpectedly huge disasters. Who would’ve guessed that “global warming” would dump 7 feet of snow on Buffalo New York? (well, The Day After Tomorrow knew, but since it was Roland Emmerich everybody just shrugged him off as a crackpot.)
I mean, geez, just look at the chaos caused when the DGA doesn’t announce nominees till a day after Oscar nominations ballots are due.
Me, personally, I LOVE THE CHAOS. I don’t WANT the Oscars to take their cue from the DGA. I want to see what the AMPAS members really think, without being led by the nose by the critics and guilds.
(SERIOUSLY: Rather than be appalled, I get a huge kick from seeing the Oscars fail to nominate the director of the Best Picture winner. It fills me with unrestrained glee. Makes me giddy. To witness the true tastes of the Oscar establishment be revealed has been really thrilling these past few years. I do not care that it makes them harder to predict. I’m ALWAYS attracted to crazy-acting unpredictable people.)
(See how I’m trying to write something that doesn’t involve math? That’s so I don’t lose your attention, Antoinette)
But we can talk about one little number and not make it about a math formula.
That 5% clause is my favorite aspect of the new system. It’s the salvation of the entire process. 5% of the Academy is roughly 300 people, 300 filmmakers. That seems to me the VERY LEAST amount of support that ANY movie should be required gather in order to get a BP nomination. That’s 1 of every 20 Academy members (which means 19 out of every 20 voters don’t agree).
If we go below 5% doesn’t that risk giving a very small handful of strange stubborn fringe nutballs in the Academy the power to name a BP nominee?
So that’s my roundabout way of saying that I’m a little bit aghast contemplate the ramifications of the 1% rule. A mere 60 people — and god knows who they are — can foist a BP nominee upon us? Holy yikes. No wonder things like The Blind Side can happen.
Why wouldn’t everybody just go ahead and predict 10 movies? What’s the advantage of picking just 9 or 8?
I only predict the films which I think have the required momentum at any given point in the race to get the nomination. Sometimes, that’s ten films. Currently, I have nine on my predictions list, but that’s only because none of the films which could vie for the tenth slot have yet convinced me that they have what it takes. Early days yet, ofc, but my principles remain the same through the season. But I get your point, Ryan. I just don’t predict with an eye to being correct, I predict with what my head and my heart are telling me.
omg the surplus rule is actually my favourite thing in the entire world. <3 surplus rule #surplusruleftw
James Schamus is wrong, it's not 10%, it's 20% extra that kickstarts my beloved surplus rule. But Robert A. indirectly corrected him. Just don't rub it in, Ryan: James Schamus, former CEO of Focus Features – I had my hopes pinned on Working Title as Universal’s last estimable tributary but then they went and made The Theory of Everything and it’s awful and now I wanna move to France.
Also, I don’t believe this whole 1% thing is correct. I believe that it is simply whichever films either a) do not place at #1 on any ballots cast, or b) receive the fewest #1 votes of those which did (whether that be one ballot, or two ballots, or 50 ballots) that are disqualified, and their corresponding ballots’ votes redistributed.
#bitchplzenigmacode #whoneedsalanturing
I had my hopes pinned on Working Title as Universal’s last estimable tributary but then they went and made The Theory of Everything and it’s awful and now I wanna move to France.
It’s going to be very hard for any of us to beat this as Sentence of the Day.
Can anybody tell me who won the “Guess the Exact Number of Nominees Prize” last year?
I did. It was a year’s supply of turtle wax. Worst part is, I don’t even have a turtle.
I couldn’t read Ryan’s gigantic math posts. I’ll get back to them. Here’s my wackadoodle list in the order I’m predicting them not alphabetical as they do.
DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
EXODUS*
INTERSTELLAR
BIRDMAN
THE IMITATION GAME
WHIPLASH
SELMA
BOYHOOD
GONE GIRL
INHERENT VICE
*Not sure if it’s eligible. If not, put THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
Hi Sasha Stone . After I have been following your last statements , referring to the Oscar race for this year, we should not write off UNBROKEN because of and in spite of the late screening and release dates . If this year is a film is full of ” Emmotionen” , then it is certainly Unbroken ! In addition , Universal Pictures leaves the film for us still fresh , so he could still advance to a late major contender . This is just about , “keep it for late and fresh” and then take all the winnings. Let’s see and hear your reactions Dear Saha Stone after you have seen the film, screening on 30. november …..! Please tell us your reaction – thanks a lot!
LCBaseball22: Making a prediction that excludes Boyhood borders on ignorance of the state of the race and/or a willful negligence of facts. I mean, for one, Fruitvale Station managed to get in on the AFI list last year! Fruitvale Station! Tree of Life managed it two years ago. Winter’s Bone managed it as well.
As you have made it known in other threads than this one you seriously doubt the clout of Boyhood in order to go all the way and claim the best picture statuette. But missing the Top 10 of AFI? No matter how bad the Boyhood team is going to deal with awards season from now on being included here is a god-given certainty. I think you know that deep down, even though you’re doing your utmost to neglect the reality of the situation.
I would say that Snowpiercer, Guardians of the Galaxy & The Lego Movie have an outside shot at breaking in, and surprise… problem is how divisive is going to be the fantasy/sci-fi vote, which in the end may leave out Interstellar out of the top 10…
I’d say…
1. The Imitation Game
2. The Theory of Everything
3. Boyhood
4. Birdman
5. Unbroken
6. Foxcatcher
7. Gone Girl
8. Whiplash
9. Inherent Vice
10. Selma
11. (alternate) Into the Woods
The charts are screwy again. It looks like the proper 2012 films are missing and what is labeled as 2012 should actually be 2011.
Anyways, the AFI voters LOVE Nolan, Fincher, Eastwood, Musicals, and Biopics. They like Anderson, Miller, Inarritu, and The Coens but never fell for Linklater or Leigh. And this is the AMERICAN Film Institute so they won’t go for the British films, other than perhaps for a “special award” And they almost always go for at least one blockbuster, comedy, and/or animation, as seen below…
2001: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring and Shrek
2002: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: Finding Nemo and The Last Samurai
2004: The Incredibles and Spider-Man 2
2005: The 40 Years Old Virgin and King Kong
2006: Happy Feet
2007: Knocked Up and Ratatouille
2008: Iron Man
2009: The Hangover
2010: The Town
2011: Bridesmaids
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
Last year was the only real exception here with the two Hank’s films Saving Mr. Banks and Captain Phillips being the only more commercial hits you could cite that Oscar doesn’t follow up on…
So with all that being said I predict…
Interstellar
Gone Girl
American Sniper
Birdman
Unbroken
Selma
Foxcatcher
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Into the Woods
The LEGO Movie/X-Men/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes/Guardians of the Galaxy/Edge of Tomorrow/Captain America 2/How to Train Your Dragon 2 (who really knows here but I bet one of these makes the list based on past precedence)
In the event that Unbroken is not a game-changer/contender and/or they do not attach to Eastwood’s film as much as in the past then replace either with Boyhood, which given the unanimous praise could be the first Linklater film to break through…
Here’s a copy/paste of part of an article from Entertainment Weekly that describes the process, including the 1% thing:
“Any movie that received at least 455 No. 1 votes is automatically a Best Picture nominee. Those ballots are set aside. However, there’s also a “surplus rule.” Simply put, any movie that initially exceeds the magic number by at least 20 percent has all its ballots redistributed based upon each voter’s next eligible choice. Each ballot is still worth only one point, but that point is now split between the voter’s No. 1 choice and some other film. I will spare you the math involved, but just keep this in mind: If an Academy member votes for a film that’s extremely popular, there’s a chance that voter’s No. 2 or No. 3 (or possibly No. 4 or No. 5) choice will have some influence.
At this point, every film with less than 1 percent of the total vote is disqualified, and those ballots are redistributed to their next ranked pick — as long as the movie is still in contention and not already nominated. If your No. 2 film was already eliminated or nominated, we’d proceed to your No. 3 choice, and so forth.”
So it sounds like in the first round of voting, if a movie hasn’t received 1% of the #1 votes, it’s eliminated from competition. If you have received 1% or more, you remain in the competition to see if the #2 and #3 votes etc somehow propel you to that magical 5% needed for a BP nomination. My guess, though, is if you only get 1% of the BP votes on the first round, it’s pretty hard to get up to 5% based on redistributed votes.
My guess, though, is if you only get 1% of the BP votes on the first round, it’s pretty hard to get up to 5% based on redistributed votes.
Depends on the relative distribution of the other films, I think.
1% of the ballots in round one would be 60 #1 votes, true. But in subsequent rounds, you don’t have to be #1 on anybody’s ballot. You just have to snowball enough 2s and 3s and 4s and 5s in order to rack up 300 ballots in your stack.
Gotta just reiterate: we can drive ourselves nuts figuring out these imaginary percentages, but all we really have to do to prove that 10 nominees are possible is simply make a list and show vote tallies.
I showed one way to do this already. So here’s another way:
850 votes for BOYHOOD
850 votes for SELMA
650 votes for BIRDMAN
650 votes for GONE GIRL
550 votes for INTERSTELLAR
550 votes for IMITATION GAME
450 votes for FOXCATCHER
350 votes for THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
350 votes for WHIPLASH
350 votes for UNBROKEN
here’s another way:
850 votes for BOYHOOD
850 votes for SELMA
650 votes for BIRDMAN
650 votes for GONE GIRL
650 votes for INTERSTELLAR
550 votes for IMITATION GAME
450 votes for FOXCATCHER
450 votes for THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
450 votes for WHIPLASH
444 votes for UNBROKEN
See? I did that without Stephen Hawking’s help. Stephen Hawking’s brain is OVERQUALIFIED for this math exercise — because all it requires is 2nd Grade arithmetic.
Q: How can the Academy ever arrive at 10 nominees?
A: See the two examples above. Those are only TWO of the TEN THOUSAND ways the Academy can arrive at 10 nominees.
Can anybody tell me why any of the 3 hypothetical outcomes I’ve proposed cannot be possible? Of course you cannot.
There is no magic happening here. It’s nothing fancy. It’s just basic Addition.
It’s just different ballots going to different movies in different ways.
The permutations are virtually endless.
you guys, I can show you 5000 different ways. 10,000 different ways. There are SO MANY ways that these 10 different movies can ALL get enough votes for a nomination.
Please don’t make me show you all 10,000 ways 😕
AND YES there are ALSO 10,000 different ways that we could get 9 nominees. And that could very well happen!
But this is not something that can be “predicted” so we should not waste our time trying. It’s very much so dependent on so many variables that the number of nominees becomes virtually a matter of pure happenstance.
We need to face that reality and try to stop pretending that mathematical accidents are trends. O! that way madness lies!
Another path to madness is to know something the way that I know this — and have nobody believe me.
🙂
We’d spend our time better by throwing a deck of cards in the air 5000 times and trying to guess the order that 5000 chimpanzees would re-stack the deck. Have fun guessing how many cards the chimpanzees will deal you in THAT game, Kris Tapley.
oh hang on Robert A. I see the path to nomination now.
And yes, I think we can agree that any movie starting out with only 1% of the ballots is going to have a steep hill to climb to reach 5%.
BUT… But. can we agree on this: Just because a movie is eliminated for having fewer than 1% of the ballots. does not mean that it starts out with 1%.
It might have 3% right? or 4%. or 5% (a magic number) Can we agree on that?
It might have 6% or 7%.
If a movie captures as much as 9.1% of the ballots then it Automatically becomes a BP nominee.
(This is a fact. Indisputable. Why? Because 10 movies can do that. But 11 movies cannot.
(11 x 9.1 = 100.1% – so that’s more than 100% of the ballots. Impossible. See?)
So yes, throw out all the movies with less than 1% .. those movies are sunk.
But of the movies that have more than 1%…. we have no idea where they stand. They can be starting with anywhere from 2% – 9% — as the redistribution rounds begin to add the surplus ballots to to their stacks.
Therefore. Of all the movies that are LEFT after eliminating the less than 1%… some will have a hard time getting to 5%. But many will have an easy time getting to 5%.
How many? No more than 10. But possibly and easily conceivably as many as 10.
Viola.
Suck on that, Pythagoras.
“Geez, YES. yes yes yes. 10 nominees are SO possible. And 9 and 8. And 7,6,5. AND TEN TOO. How is this even a question? It’s so obvious. Can we talk about Black Holes now?” – Stephen Hawking
Birdman
Gone Girl
Interstellar
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Selma
American Sniper
Unbroken
A Most Violent Year
Ryan, you’re not alone in understanding the math. I’m with you.
And yes, a “weak” year with a lot of choices is more likely to lead to many nominees.
On the other hand, a year with one or two super popular choice with monster #1 vote talleys doesn’t necessarily lead to a shorter list of nominees, since those movies get many of their #2 votes distributed back to other films down the list, which could lead to many nominees too, if there is a wide spectrum of choice in those second choice movies.
Like you say, the math can go many ways. The only reason to predict a smaller list of nominees is if you think fewer movies are likely to be chosen as anyone’s #1 film or if there are so many films that will be chosen as people’s #1 film that too few of them can end up with enough support.
Because to have a chance you must at least get 1% of voters to think you are the #1 film of the year on their ballot, and then after the second round of tallying the redistributed ballots (from those films who failed the 1% threshold or those who got a great excess of #1 votes) films must wind up with at least 5% of the ballots to qualify. You gotta have enough #1 vote love, and if not quite enough, must have enough #2 or #3 love from those other ballots who shared too much love or too little love at #1.
And yes, a “weak” year with a lot of choices is more likely to lead to many nominees.
On the other hand, a year with one or two super popular choice with monster #1 vote talleys doesn’t necessarily lead to a shorter list of nominees, since those movies get many of their #2 votes distributed back to other films down the list
DFA, thanks for filling in that other important step. I left that part out because it’s not easy to explain in simple terms. It involves fractions of ballots and votes that are worth “less than a full vote.” I can quote an explanation but I don’t entirely understand it myself:
See? … nope? me either. Not entirely. All those variable fractions of votes slip past my ability to visualize the system.
But that’s James Schamus doing the explaining there. James Schamus, former CEO of Focus Features, best friend Ang Lee and producer of most of Ang Lee’s movies.
In your last paragraph, DFA, you lost me. You say:
(( I’m not sure where that comes from. Can you link to your source? Do you mean 11% of the vote instead of 1% ? (1% is only 60 individual Academy members so I’m not sure how 60 members naming a movie as #1 on their ballots counts for adequate support.) (Because I think the purpose for refining the rules was to be sure that A LOT of Academy members agreed on the nominees.)
If that’s a typo, let me know and I’ll fix it. If you have a different understanding, I’m eager to hear how that 1% thing factors in. But as it stands now, that’s not like anything I’ve heard. ))
I had a typo of my own. I had written “11% to be guaranteed a nomination” — but that’s not right. What I meant was 1/11th of the ballots.)
Boyhood
Birdman
Foxcatcher
Selma
Gone Girl
Grand Budapest Hotel
Unbroken
Imitation Game
A Most Violent Year
Boyhood
Birdman
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
Inherent Vice
Interstellar
Into the Woods
Selma
The Imitation Game
Unbroken
My prediction on the AFI list:
Birdman
Boyhood
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Inherent Vice
The Lego Movie
Selma
Unbroken
Whiplash
Should probably note that many of those unreleased films likely have very small sample sizes… take with a grain of salt…
WILD in general seems to be undervalued as a potential BP Gatecrasher…
Yes, its prime force is in Best Actress, but it has other strengths. BFCA has it at 90 right now. Vallee is coming off of Dallas Buyers Club, which the Academy went crazy for. Fox Searchlight is distributing. Witherspoon’s star power will guarantee that it gets seen.
BFCA Score reminder:
Selma – 100
Boyhood – 96
Whiplash – 93
Birdman – 91
Gone Girl, Imitation Game, Wild – 90
A Most Violent Year – 89
American Sniper, Nightcrawler, Theory of Everything – 88
Grand Budapest Hotel – 87
Foxcatcher, Citizenfour – 86
Fury – 83
Still Alice – 82
Into the Woods, Interstellar – 80
Inherent Vice – 72
Mr. Turner – 65
Unbroken – TBD
I feel like WILD and INHERENT VICE could pop their heads in here, even if people are writing them off as Best Picture Oscar contenders.
IMITATION GAME is a British/American production. I’m pretty sure they’ll feel comfortable considering it eligible.
I don’t think The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything or Mr. Turner is eligible, since they’re British.
I’ll guess:
Birdman
Boyhood
Foxcatcher
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Inherent Vice
Into the Woods
Selma
Unbroken
Whiplash
Somewhere in the math universe that perhaps Christopher Nolan or Stephen Hawking can explain are how the new voting system arrives at 10… so the theory goes, this is a “Weak” year and thus, Tapley is betting on 8, one less than 9.
It makes me a little sad that I’m never able to convince anybody that 10 Best Picture nominees are absolutely possible. 🙁
I’m no Pythagoras so I can’t show the step-by-step mathematical proof — but the thing is, it’s not even necessary to use math to prove it.
“5-10 to nominees” is intrinsically inherently right there in the description of the new system. Don’t be mad at me for insisting on saying that it’s so. Blame those PricewaterhouseCoopers accountant geeks who set it up this way.
Let’s break it down. As simply as possible.
In order for any movie to AUTOMATICALLY win a BP nomination, all it takes is roughly 546 votes (the exact number of votes will vary a little from year to year because it has to be 1/11th of the total membership. Why? Because, with 6000 ballots, no more than 10 movies can ever get 546 of the votes.)
That’s a cold hard fact, easy to say in plain English: Any movie that gets 1/11th of the vote is AUTOMATICALLY a BP nominee.
The other relevant cold hard fact is equally easy to remember: No movie can be nominated that does not get 5% of the vote.
So we now have a simple range of votes, 546 (1/11th of 6000) and 300 (5% of 6000)
Any movie that gets between 546 and 300 votes can be a Best Picture nominee. (although: while 545 will unequivocally seal the deal, 300 will only put you in the game).
This isn’t hardcore headache-inducing math. It’s just common sense estimation eyeballing, right?
Some people’s common sense tells them that it looks very hard to have 10 nominees. That may be. I’m not talking about easiness or difficulty. My own commonsense tells me: It is absolutely possible.
Want to play around with a hypothetical example? Bryce, I’m going to enlist you in my test, ok?
950 votes for BOYHOOD
850 votes for SELMA
750 votes for BIRDMAN
650 votes for GONE GIRL
550 votes for INTERSTELLAR
450 votes for IMITATION GAME
350 votes for FOXCATCHER
350 votes for THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
350 votes for WHIPLASH
350 votes for UNBROKEN
___
5600
in this example: a total of 5,600 votes determines the BP nominees (leaving over a pile of stray votes for movies that didn’t reach the lower threshold of 300 to qualify)
Notice how even the 4 lowest vote-getters easily cleared the 300 qualifying threshold. Notice how the top vote-getters are strong in a reasonable spread — but notice how no movie runs too far ahead of the rest of the pack.
In this scenario, there is no super-power movie to stomp the hell out of all the other movies. It’s pretty evenly and comfortably spread out.
So. On the topic of this ostensibly “Weak Year” (a falsehood already, but that’s another discussion), I don’t agree with Kris Tapley at all.
Nope, I think a year in which there is No All-Powerful frontrunner simply means that it is much more likely for the voters to spread out all over the map — forming a lot of pockets of support for a lot of movies.
Remember: all any movie needs to get a Best Picture nomination is earn 5% of the votes — and then be lucky enough to earn that 5% in a year when there are no All-Powerful movies that eat up all the votes in the top 5.
Does this not make good sense to anybody? Honestly, you guys, it makes me feel so dejected and rejected to know that this simple explanation makes people look at me like I’m living in a dreamworld.
That example above is just ONE really basic way we could get 10 nominees. The actual number of ways we could get 10 nominees ranges from 1 way (show above) to roughly an infinite number of other combinations of ways — just think of all the numerical variations.
As long as all the movies get at least 300 votes (5%), there are thousands of ways the votes could add up to give us 10 nominees.
Are the accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers lying to us about the the “5-10 nominees” thing? Of course not.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is telling us point blank: “There can be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 nominees. Never mind that Adams guy and his common sense. Trust us.”
‘
I know I can’t convince anybody. The only way you guys will believe me is when it finally happens one day.
I can wait. I’m not gonna argue about it. I can wait to be proven right.
In 1990 if somebody said to me, “I like this new PGA Award because there is no fucking way that the PGA will ever tie.”
I would have thought, “um, that’s not true.”
And for 23 years, they would say: “See? The PGA never ties. That means they never will. Stop dreaming, Ryan. The PGA vote is never even close. They always hate all the movies except for the ONE they love most of all.”
For 23 years, I didn’t argue. I decided to just bide my time. Knowing that one day the PGA would prove me right. (right in my belief that many many years the tally must be tight and the winning margin razor thin).
🙂
Here’s the only the thing to remember: Numbers can add up in lots of ways. More ways than we fathom. More ways than 3 years of outcomes can possibly prove.
If Alan Turing were here, he would say: “yes, yes, fuck yes. Obviously, Ryan, obviously. Now please shut up.”
One more little thing:
Why wouldn’t everybody just go ahead and predict 10 movies?
What’s the advantage of picking just 9 or 8? Is there an extra bonus prize money for guessing the exact number of nominees? Who wins that prize? Can anybody tell me who won the “Guess the Exact Number of Nominees Prize” last year?
How about this: What if Warren Buffett said: “Here, I give you 10 chances to roll the dice, and if you roll snake eyes then I give you $1 billion dollars. Deal?”
Who among us would say: “Hey, fun game, Mr Buffett. But I only want to roll the dice 8 times or 9 times.”
How does that make sense? Warren Buffet is trying to give away a billion dollars and you’re not going to take as many opportunities as possible? Why?
I promise you, if you name 10 movies and only 9 movies get nominated, nobody is going to be laughing at you the next day.
So I advise: name the maximum of movies that you’re allowed to name. It can only help you, and nobody will hold it against you if there are 8 or 9 or 5 or 7 nominees. Nobody will laugh if you name 10 movies and only 8 make it.
(but if you want to laugh at Kris Tapley for only naming 8 movies that’s fine, because he’s clowning around trying to show off and nobody really even cares whether he’s right or wrong to say 8. Do we?)
(Love ya, Kris, but your logic looks a little wacky to me.)
Assuming they don’t count the two Brit films (even though they’re US co-productions) I think they’ll go with:
Boyhood
Birdman
Whiplash
Selma
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Unbroken
Foxcatcher
American Sniper
Into the Woods/The Lego Movie
People continue to wildly overestimate AMERICAN SNIPER, which is really strange ( and borderline irritating) because it has already been seen and reviewed by enough to anticipate lukewarm critical reception at best. Right now I don’t see it making a Best Picture line-up of nine.
BOYHOOD
GONE GIRL
INTERSTELLAR
BIRDMAN
FOXCATCHER
IMITATION GAME
SELMA
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
WHIPLASH
UNBROKEN (if it’s remotely good, even projectable will do)
Birdman
Gone Girl
Interstellar
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Selma
American Sniper
Unbroken
The Imitation Game…. Theory of Everything might not get a best picture nomination.
Boyhood
Imitation Game
Selma
Birdman
Gone Girl
Theory of Everything
Unbroken
Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
American Sniper