Originally posted by seanflynn: Another supposed member pipes in at Nikki Finke:
This is nothing but a cheap, venal ploy that makes me ashamed to be an Academy Member. I particularly resent the fact that the membership didn’t get to vote on this subject. Now we’ll have twice as many producers complain about not winning!
It’s true that in the old days there were 10 noms for Best Picture, but there were also more than twice as many movies made per year.
Comment by Bob — June 24, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
For myself - I have been hearing from my Acad member contacts. They tend to be in the exec branch, which means in some cases this does present some opportunities for films they are attached to for a nomination more than before, but even they seem to recognize that has pluses on minuses. To a person, though, they are stunned that such a huge change would be put through without any feed back, but just a fait accompli.
One person mentioned that with Ganis retiring from his position, he might be trying to position himself for a new studio gig, so was under extra pressure to do them a favor and carry water for them. And this came from someone who claimed to like him.
Maybe if the membership would have been consulted they would have agreed there was a problem but found some other way to deal with problems in the system.
Also, the fact that this change may be the result of the Academy president trying to weasel his way back into an exec position and kowtowing to producers and studio folk it seems like the solution may be part of the sleazy, damnable "System".
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 27152 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by pacinofan: And it is not you disagreeing with me that makes me use the word "lunacy". There are a few others here saying give the new system a try. I do not agree with them but do not think they are indulging in crazy talk. It is your nutty ramblings about the Academy members as if they are each and every one of them corrupt for not constantly and vigorously fighting against the system that makes me use the word "lunacy".
I know this is an unfair comparison but is there any difference between those Academy members who sat quietly and did nothing to change the system or provide impetus for a change and with the quiet Germans who did nothing when the Nazis who hauled off Jews, gays and others to their death camps? These Academy members at least had ample means of protest and avenues for communicating their dissatisfaction and initiating change. They could have written letters to the editors or taken out ads in the LA Times or one of the trade publications or one of the many bloggers. They could have addressed or communicated with the Board of Governors. They could have started some grass roots cause for change. I'm not aware of any of this but I welcome any evidence that they did. Instead, they remained quiet and did nothing. As the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. They failed to execute on that responsibility and thus they receive no indifference from me.
I could respect them if they had tried and failed but it seems they didn't even try. Now that Ganis or the Board of Governors has made this change, it only lessens my respect for those members that decry it and offer up no alternatives or reasonable (yes, I know that's subjective) explanations for their dissension. At least I can respect that member who complained that the decision should have been put to a vote by the full membership. That complaint addresses a possible flaw in the solution's implementation even if they deride the ramifications of the solution. Perhaps if these members cmplaining about this solution had taken some action of their own, they might not have anything to complain about now.
FYC: "Up" for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director
I know this is an unfair comparison but is there any difference between those Academy members who sat quietly and did nothing to change the system or provide impetus for a change and with the quiet Germans who did nothing when the Nazis who hauled off Jews, gays and others to their death camps?
OH.MY.GOD.
Dark Knight being ignored (or other flaws in the Oscar system) somehow is comparable to the Holocaust, even if we really don't mean to say it.
OH.MY.GOD.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
The Dark Knight is a poor movie and it deserved the snub.
Sorry.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Originally posted by pacinofan: And it is not you disagreeing with me that makes me use the word "lunacy". There are a few others here saying give the new system a try. I do not agree with them but do not think they are indulging in crazy talk. It is your nutty ramblings about the Academy members as if they are each and every one of them corrupt for not constantly and vigorously fighting against the system that makes me use the word "lunacy".
I know this is an unfair comparison but is there any difference between those Academy members who sat quietly and did nothing to change the system or provide impetus for a change and with the quiet Germans who did nothing when the Nazis who hauled off Jews, gays and others to their death camps? These Academy members at least had ample means of protest and avenues for communicating their dissatisfaction and initiating change. They could have written letters to the editors or taken out ads in the LA Times or one of the trade publications or one of the many bloggers. They could have addressed or communicated with the Board of Governors. They could have started some grass roots cause for change. I'm not aware of any of this but I welcome any evidence that they did. Instead, they remained quiet and did nothing. As the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. They failed to execute on that responsibility and thus they receive no indifference from me.
I could respect them if they had tried and failed but it seems they didn't even try. Now that Ganis or the Board of Governors has made this change, it only lessens my respect for those members that decry it and offer up no alternatives or reasonable (yes, I know that's subjective) explanations for their dissension. At least I can respect that member who complained that the decision should have been put to a vote by the full membership. That complaint addresses a possible flaw in the solution's implementation even if they deride the ramifications of the solution. Perhaps if these members cmplaining about this solution had taken some action of their own, they might not have anything to complain about now.
First, you have no evidence that members did nothing.
Second, I have no problem calling this post comparing doling out movie awards to the Holocast- lunacy.
Weren't you the guy who had problems with my (comic) hyperbole? Well you blew any hyperbole on my part out of the water.
Posts: 27152 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by pacinofan: First, you have no evidence that members did nothing.
Second, I have no problem calling this post comparing doling out movie awards to the Holocast- lunacy.
Weren't you the guy who had problems with my (comic) hyperbole? Well you blew any hyperbole on my part out of the water.
That's why I said above that I welcome any evidence proving or suggesting that members had made efforts to change the system. In the absence of that proof, the only substantive and realistic assumption that can be made is that they didn't.
Was the comparison I made a bit hyperbolic or unfair or outlandish? Absolutely and that was the point. A simple comparison using voters who don't vote in an election and then complain afterwards about the results of the election simply doesn't catch the eye or strike a nerve any more. Seanflynn's ridiculous histrionics aside, the inactivity comparison exists even if no life or death situations were involved. The fact is these people had an ability to promote or even enact change and they failed to do so. Their complaints will receive no sympathies from me.
FYC: "Up" for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director
Originally posted by pacinofan: First, you have no evidence that members did nothing.
Second, I have no problem calling this post comparing doling out movie awards to the Holocast- lunacy.
Weren't you the guy who had problems with my (comic) hyperbole? Well you blew any hyperbole on my part out of the water.
That's why I said above that I welcome any evidence proving or suggesting that members had made efforts to change the system. In the absence of that proof, the only substantive and realistic assumption that can be made is that they didn't.
Was the comparison I made a bit hyperbolic or unfair or outlandish? Absolutely and that was the point. A simple comparison using voters who don't vote in an election and then complain afterwards about the results of the election simply doesn't catch the eye or strike a nerve any more. Seanflynn's ridiculous histrionics aside, the inactivity comparison exists even if no life or death situations were involved. The fact is these people had an ability to promote or even enact change and they failed to do so. Their complaints will receive no sympathies from me.
Seanflynn's histrionics!!! Pot calling the kettle black time.
Posts: 27152 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Interestingly, Hollywood Reporter finds a lot of studio execs as bothered by this as most of us are:
Studios wary of broader Oscar field Concerns of dilution, more late openers among worries By Elizabeth Guider
June 24, 2009, 07:35 PM ET
If ever there were a time that the town needed a jolt of adrenaline, Wednesday was it -- but from, of all places, the staid, mostly predictable Academy?
What everyone thought would be another sleepy announcement about an arcane rule change in the doc or foreign language category turned into the headline of the day -- opening up the Oscar race to 10 best picture nominees.
Do what?
The rationale is not that hard to fathom: The awards telecast has been dwindling in the ratings for a decade; at the same time, folks have been carping about the tilt of the noms -- too arty, too limiting, too too -- or the exclusion of comedies or the relegation of animation to its own category. Some had even hazarded aloud that, of all things, the Golden Globes were the guys with the right idea, even if their 10 best pic noms are bifurcated by genre.
So with one masterstroke, all the goal posts have been shifted.
Most folks were gobsmacked by the news, with many -- think all those filmmakers who believe their films have been snubbed -- applauding the stratagem. As for wannabe Oscar consultants, now is the time to hang out that shingle.
"I think (Academy president) Sid Ganis has a great marketing mind and that this is a brilliant move," media consultant Michael Levine said. "After all, the biggest sin these days is irrelevance, and whether the expansion ultimately resonates with the public or not, the move will get a lot of attention. Sometimes you just have to do something bold to re-energize a classic brand,"
But from a different perspective, longtime Oscar maven Tony Angellotti, who now consults for Universal and Disney Animation, thinks the move could well dilute "both the quality and the impact of the award. I would imagine the studios are grieving over this. They'll have to spend more money and not likely see a return -- just what they don't need in a recession."
In fact, one studio exec compared the Academy bombshell to getting doused with a bucketful of cold water. He confided that he has enough trouble every awards season figuring out whom they have to satisfy with an Oscar campaign and which talent they can safely neglect or do less for.
"Were we behind this move by the Academy? No way," one top studio exec said. "We're going to have to spend more money in marketing campaigns for one or more unlikely winner, and mostly there's very little financial upside even when we do win. All of this takes enormous time and energy, and now it's extra time and energy."
Another studio exec shook his head in dismay. "This now likely means more filmmakers will want to see their movies open late in the year so they can still be in release during the crucial period between nominations (Feb. 2) and the actual telecast (March 7). It's simply going to clog up the distribution pipeline or mean we have to consider re-releasing one title or another. Don't even mention what it might do to DVD campaigns."
The studio naysayers were reluctant to speak for the record, however, as they know that the town has become obsessed with and obsessive about awards. They do not want to appear churlish.
The most obvious contingent of happy faces might very well be the talent behind, say, "Up." Almost certainly a shoo-in in the still-to-remain animation category, the Disney/Pixar hit now stands a much better chance of getting into the top 10 as well. So too -- given what's out there so far this year -- is a film like Michael Mann's period actioner about John Dillinger, "Public Enemies," which is beautifully crafted, well acted, neither too arty nor too mainstream commercial.
Whatever the consensus around town, the Academy has really never turned its back on well-made commercial movies: It just doesn't have much of a feel or appreciation for warmed-over popcorn, meaning sequels and other material derived from non-literary sources like, you guessed it, those proliferating comic book adaptations.
That's why the sixth (or whatever it was) iteration of Batman, meaning "The Dark Knight," did not make it into last year's best picture list, not because the Academy was appalled by how much money the film made.
The only problem is that this is no longer the 1930s or the 1940s, when the Academy last fielded 10 or so best pic noms each year. Back then, they had an overabundance of what were called grown-up titles: everything from "It Happened One Night" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" to "You Can't Take it with You" and "Casablanca," the last movie, in 1943, to nab the Oscar away from nine other contenders. Nowadays, most Hollywood movies aren't really made for grown-ups.
The big question in 2010: Will we see more movies in contention like "The Reader," which practically no one saw but whose literary pedigree was unassailable, or more documentaries, like, say, "An Inconvenient Truth," which definitely fits the bill as serious fare. Or will the new more expansive Academy relax its criteria and put the "Transformers" and "Star Treks" into their hat?
And pray tell, when will those 5,000-odd Academy members find the time to watch all those, now doubled in number, screeners that hit their mailboxes the week before Christmas?
"OK, it's certainly going to create more heat, and yes, more headaches. It's also going to be, or seem like, a much longer award-season and we're all going to have to think outside the box," another awards consultant said. "But my imagination is already running wild as to what we can do with this."
This sure is a shock. No warning. My guess is that this is more about getting people to watch the oscars. So many more would have tuned in if TDK and Wall E had also been nominated last year. HW does nothing unless it is about ratings and money.
Lets face it most movies that people see are not nominated for an oscar. Why should they watch. They have no interest. I dont think it is a horrible idea. The five best movies are nominated along with several other good movies that the paying public actually went to see. Everybody wins. Certainly if oscar ratings go up the change will be permanent.
Posts: 1636 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: April 01, 2002
Originally posted by seanflynn: Once again! The guilty must prove their innocence!
I will refrain from making comparisons to the Nazi judicial system.
You're always reshaping the argument to suit your side of the story. I liken these spineless Academy members to children who tell their teachers they wanted to complete their homework but they didn't and now they are complaining about the F grade they received. Again it has nothing to do with justice no matter how many legal references you try to make, Sean. It's more akin to job performance and they simply didn't produce results or actions to counter their complaints. These Academy complainers are little more day laborers or contractors who don't do they work they were paid to do. Show me the completed work and I'll pay them with my respect.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LonePirate,
FYC: "Up" for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director
You're always reshaping the argument to suit your side of the story.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, an example please.
I've mentioned in posts in this thread that there are valid reasons to like this; pointed out some good things that might happen; and otherwise indicated our shared belief that some change (but not this) was needed. How does that conform to your charge that I reshape the argument to suit my side?
Ok, I have been thinking about this all day. My primary thought continues to be "Holy overreaction, Batman!" (I assume that is because The Dark Knight is mentioned in almost every article about this announcement. LOL.)
Second thought is: What a gift to Pixar!
Anyway, I remember there being quite a long thread here last year about the nominating process. I think a lot of us were saying we had some issues with the preferential voting system. I was definitely interested in seeing if anything would change if the Academy switched to something like a weighted ballot.
I would be feeling much better about *that* change than this one. I mean, the idea that change is good purely for the sake of change is kind of silly. I believe numerous people in this thread have listed potential consequences for this that would not constitute good change.
I am very shocked that this was not debated amongst the membership of the Academy.
One question that now needs to be addressed is: Does this in essence render the Foreign and Animated film categories "Runner Up" types of categories? I mean, even if you win in those categories, does it mean anything if you can't get nominated in a category of TEN Best Picture nominees? I'd say this about Documentary as well.
And, BTW, what happens if the likes of "Up" still isn't a Best Picture nominee? Which has to still be a distinct possibility. I mean, we aren't changing the voting process. We still have the Animated Film category, right?
It seems a bit ludicrous that the biggest award of the night could now be won with around 13% of the vote.
Overall, I just feel like this is a flashy cosmetic change, and not one that would actually solve the problem. The system itself isn't changed, right? Have we heard anything about the voting system being changed? I fear that as long as the same voters are voting the same way, we are just going to get a category of around 3 deserving films and 7 filler nominees. Are we just taking the top 10 films ranked #1 on people's ballots? Is that really going to open up the category to a bunch of new types of films?
I don't know. Maybe. There are definitely some positive aspects. One, already mentioned, is that finally a deserving Pixar film may be able to get nominated and not relegated to the Animation ghetto. (Which will now look even more like a ghetto.) Another is that perhaps some foreign or documentary films might have more of a chance. Another might be that more quality films may get released earlier in the year.
Well, I guess it will be an interesting experiment. Of course, we will have far better of an idea of the consequences of this change after the nominations come out.
Edited to add: Interesting that the Hollywood Reporter thinks that more films would be *more* likely to open later in the year. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. I would hope that with so many slots there wouldn't be as much need to be seen in a few weeks in the winter.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
Time and Newsweek print critics' ten best lists, they don't nominate films (most critics list 10 films, a majority rank them in order).
The NBR these days idiotically names a best film, then goes on to list 10 other films on a ten best list.
The Golden Globes lists 18-20 films since they have an animated and foreign language category. Sometimes more - didn't they have 7 or 8 films in drama a couple years ago to add a couple Weinstein films to the list?
AFI lists ten, but doesn't name a winner or rank them.
If you look at entertainment industry awards from inside the industry - Grammys, Tonys, Emmys, CMA, or foreign groups - Cesars, BAFTAs, Goyas et al - 5 is pretty much the standard number in a best category. It's not law, but it seems to be a number that reflects a minimum of quality and also, since a plurality, not a majority is needed to win, a number that means that by a fluke something that a small minority prefers would be the winner.
Originally posted by LadyHathor25: Ok, I have been thinking about this all day. My primary thought continues to be "Holy overreaction, Batman!" (I assume that is because The Dark Knight is mentioned in almost every article about this announcement. LOL.)
Second thought is: What a gift to Pixar!
<snipped for conciseness>
Well said, Lady Hathor! I agree with and respect almost everything you said.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LonePirate,
FYC: "Up" for Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director
I was definitely interested in seeing if anything would change if the Academy switched to something like a weighted ballot.
They have a weighted ballot for nominating. That (to some an extent a consensus here) is that at least in best picture is part of the problem,
To have a weighted (preferential) ballot in the final voting has all sort of issues. It does mean that a more consensus choice could win, but it could also lead to nonsense, as follows:
(This is the same argument used in political science debates about using this in elections).
Say if you really, really want Shakespeare in Love to win best picture. You think Saving Private Ryan is good, and a worthy winner, but you also know it is the main rival.
What happens is that some voters, knowing this, could vote Ryan 5th, not second, knowing that voting it 2nd could hurt Shakespeare's chances of winning.
A lot of voters would be fair or non-aggressive and list their preferences 1st to 5th.
But something like this - let's say Brokeback Mountain had won by 2 votes rather than lost by the handful that it probably did. What if all those people who really hated the idea of BM voted for it 5th? Might not their strong feelings have cost it whatever chance it had?
With 5 nominees, you get a better chance of having closer to a consensus choice. With 10, you get into unchartered territory, with all a lot weirdness really possible.
Sorry.
