New Voting Procedures

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Okri wrote:I genuinely think something needs to be done with the academy/re: voters. And the general public of course.
Dismantling the institution of showbiz awards from the bottom up would be a nice start.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Big Magilla wrote:Okri, nothing wrong with change but this latest change is nuts. If they want to have ten nominees and assign ten points to everyone's no 1. choice down to 1 point for everyone's no. 10 choice that might be a reasonable change but this retrograde idea of sorting ballots into piles and hand counting them as though calculators and computers had never been invented isn't change it's nonsense.
I don't know how dismissive I am with this change, truth be told. There seems to be a number of things to sort out with it, and I'm leery about the whole changeover in general. And this change is a definite boosting of the mediocre above the exhilarating. But I genuinely think something needs to be done with the academy/re: voters. And the general public of course.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Mike Kelly wrote:How often does a member change his opinion from the nomination ballot to the award ballot? And if so, why?
Maybe they actually saw the movie in the interim.

I was actually thinking of the older folk as those who might have some difficulty adjusting how they marked their ballots -- especially after a lifetime of just making one selection. You can of course argue we're better off without them voting. But I can foresee situations where I'd find it irritating to so quantify a list of ten. I certainly had difficulty drawing up my all-time list for this board some years back. I felt fairly confident within each group of, say, 10-20, that I preferred them to the 10-20 just below; but within the group, the ranking was hopelessly arbitrary. Some years I may find it hard to make a single selection out of a group of five (or ten) nominees as well, but it's not quite as daunting as being forced to stratify everything.

My biggest problem with this system is, I think it may ultimately move power over to those with the lamest taste. Think about it: those whose first place choices got the least support get to try over and over again (your second choice isn't popular either? On to the third), possibly boosting mid-level films no one particularly hates over the most widely admired. Whereas if discerning opinion is split between (again the hypothetical case) No Country and There Will Be Blood, their second place votes (possibly for one another) can be of no extra help. We can get to a point where the lamest voters, by refusing to ratify a near 50% choice, can, by their fifth or sixth place votes, elevate Juno or Atonement to winner-by-default. (The infamous Crash/Brokeback upset would, it seems to me, be even more likely under this scenario, as all those who simply didn't want Brokeback to win would be allowed to successively vote for every alternative until some other film got to majority) I don't see why 50% should suddenly become a sine qua non, when it has never been in the past.

Okri, to respond to your question (and other points) would take me a bit longer than I have right now. I'll get to it sometime over the next day or two. It's a complicated answer.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Okri, nothing wrong with change but this latest change is nuts. If they want to have ten nominees and assign ten points to everyone's no 1. choice down to 1 point for everyone's no. 10 choice that might be a reasonable change but this retrograde idea of sorting ballots into piles and hand counting them as though calculators and computers had never been invented isn't change it's nonsense.

Mike, all nominations are submitted in preferential order. I believe the latest rule for Best Picture submission is ranking just your top three picks.

I'm sure lots of members change their minds from nomination to actual award voting. Obviously if their first choice isn't nominated, that would be one reason. Another would be if they had seen another nominee for a second time and liked it more. Then there are those outside influences. Heavy campaigns may bring in more votes for a certain film or turn away potential voters out of disgust. For example, I'm not sure how many people intent on voting for The Alamo or The Color Purple changed their minds because of Chill Wills and Margaret Avery's ad campaigns but I imagine there may have been some.
Mike Kelly
Temp
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
Location: Melbourne, FL, USA

Post by Mike Kelly »

Can someone go over the Nomination rules for Best Picture again? Would the Academy members on their nomination ballot put their choices for Best Picture in preferential order - listing 10 films. If that's the case, when the actual nominees for Best Picture were announced, they would just have to substitute the nominated films for those on their nomination list that didn't get selected.

So, for example, if I were a voting member and 6 of my 10 films made it into the finals, I would have to assimilate the 4 new ones. If I'd already seen those titles, theoretically they would be ranked 7 through 10. If I hadn't seen a nominated film, I would watch it and determine where it would fit.

Of course it also begs the question: How often does a member change his opinion from the nomination ballot to the award ballot? And if so, why?
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

1. I've gotta say, few words make me recoil as much as "tradition." I don't think the fact that something's always been done a certain way is a reason not to change the way it's being done.

2. Additionally, I've gotta wonder exactly how difficult is it to say "rank ten films in order of preference." Now, you might argue that after a certain number, the difference between six and seven is unremarkable and the ranking is somewhat arbitrary, but if someone is unable to rank ten films... Maybe being an unrepentant list-o-phile is skewing my perception.

3. Mister Tee, do you think the academy is fine the way it was? Would you recommend any changes in general?
Mike Kelly
Temp
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
Location: Melbourne, FL, USA

Post by Mike Kelly »

A good explanation of how the new rule works:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news....lea.php

A better explanation of how the new rule works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm5XUi3tKos
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:Perhaps the Oscars should apply a kind of Grammy-style rule. Presenters and, potentially nominees, are forbidden from appearing as presenters on other programs during the awards season.
This used to be the rule and may still be. Exceptions were made for prior year's winners to present at the Globes, BAAFTAs and SAG awards.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Mister Tee wrote:Somebody over at Poland's site yesterday proposed making the whole contest like American Idol -- eliminating nominees by low vote-getting totals one at a time. And the truly sad part: 80-90% of the folks at his site (and Wells' and Tapley's, who linked) thought it was a fabulous idea.
I'll go one better. Not only should they be elminated one at a time, they should do it Agatha Christie "Ten Little Indians" style. Take everyone involved in each nominated film and knock them off throughout the course of the show until the only winner is left standing.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

It's not like the Miss America pageant isn't suffering from falling ratings.

This is a different television landscape. Events don't happen on broadcast TV with the regularity they used to. It's the same thing hindering the Miniseries, which has gone from massive, multi-night event pictures to two- or three-part programs that were only slightly too long to fit to one night.

People just don't watch TV the same way anymore, preferring to catch things online or on TIVO and live events are hurt by this simply because most people who would TIVO wouldn't get to watch until after the winners are announced and thus the fun is ruined, so they don't tend to watch anymore.

Perhaps the Oscars should apply a kind of Grammy-style rule. Presenters and, potentially nominees, are forbidden from appearing as presenters on other programs during the awards season. The Grammies prohibit their performers from appearing in any other programs prior to the event so as to preserve some of the exclusivity.

However, that won't necessarily help because the audience for the super popular people (people like Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr, Miley Cyrus, etc) are super popular to certain demographics that aren't going to watch the Oscars anyway or anyhow. These personalities don't really appeal to the Oscar audience. And the traditional Oscar audience couldn't probably care less about those individuals (except maybe Downey Jr or Depp).

There is no magic bullet anymore. The most they could hope for at this point is to make a more interactive experience focusing on the internet as a medium to deliver content. They've really avoided any such major initiative on the internet. They've done little polls revealed during the show and such, but nothing truly interactive: such as getting a live, backstage look through the entire show. Displaying the green room online. Or hell, they could even vote for presenters online.




Edited By OscarGuy on 1251916482
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

The American Idol countdown idea really isn't all that new. Miss America has been doing it for decades - introducing all 50 contestants, then narrowing them down to ten, then five, then announcing 4th runner-up, 3rd runner-up, 2nd runner-up, 1st runner-up and finally the winner.

The Directors Guild had ten or more semi-finalists whittled down to five finalists for most years until 1970. Even the Oscars at one point in the mid-1930s announced runners-up after the ceremony.

A Miss America style knocking down to five finalists and then announcing the 4th runner-up, etc. leading to the winner wouldn't be a bad idea as long as they stick to Best Picture. To do it with individual awards would be too embarrassing to the nominees.

This, however, is not likely to bring in more viewers. The simple fact of the matter is that most people are unfamiliar with most of the nominees and therefore have little or no rooting interest. If they want to increase viewership they need to increase exposure to the nominated films.

People do not go the movies the way they did in the past. People, especially older people, may want to see the more highly touted independent films but unless they're shown at their local cineplex, which is becoming rarer and rarer, they're going to wait until they're available on DVD.

A rule change that would make sense is to either move the cut-off period back to October 31st if they want to keep the awards in January, or move the nominations back to late February where they used to be. Either change will give the eventual nominees ample time to have had a theatrical run and be available to the general public on DVD.

A second rule would then also needed to be added, stipulating that any film for which Academy members are sent screeners must be made available to the general public by the Tuesday before the nominations are announced. Any film not made so available will be disqualified and the film or films garnering the next highest number of votes beyond the requisite number of nominees in whichever categories the film or films qualified for will be nominated instead.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

It could be worse for some people on this board:

Please welcome the director of such Academy Award winning Best Pictures as Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner: Marc Forster.

Or

Please welcome the director of such Academy Award winning Best Pictures as Billy Elliot, The Hours and The Reader.

Then of course, we could all celebrate at Italiano's misery and congratulate Oscar winning producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon. :)
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Eric wrote:Great. Looking forward to the most lukewarm movie in the lineup winning on a consistent basis.
I can hear it now, "Producer of four Best-Picture-Academy-Award-winning films, Edward Zwick!"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Somebody over at Poland's site yesterday proposed making the whole contest like American Idol -- eliminating nominees by low vote-getting totals one at a time. And the truly sad part: 80-90% of the folks at his site (and Wells' and Tapley's, who linked) thought it was a fabulous idea.

This is what we're up against, with the Oscar bloggers and now, apparently, some in the academy: people -- mostly younger -- who have no real emotional attachment to the tradition of the Oscars, who swoon over American Idol, and who see no problem with upending the entire 80-year-old format in favor of something that matches what they've been watching over the last few years. It'd be like suggesting we stage the World Series based on a fan vote of their favorite players -- maybe even mix in some amateurs. I mean, Series ratings have been declining; they've got to draw in a new audience somehow.

I fear the Academy (like the network news division), is trying so desperately to appeal to a group that is never likely never to take any great interest that they're ignoring and risking alientaing their core fans.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

This is an ode to mediocrity.

How this would work with ten nominees is anyone's guess but with five nominees - two each appealing to two very different groups and one middle-of-the-road film that is neither loved nor hated by either group would benefit from placing third on both sets of ballots as well as placing first on just enough other ballots to win.

Example - 1969: Midnight Cowboy and Z on one hand; Anne of the Thousand Days and Hello, Dolly! on the other.

The winner: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”