--- When the best picture is named at next year’s Academy Awards, the honor might not go to the film that receives the most votes.
In a major move that could transform Oscar campaigning, and one that the Academy has not talked about until now, voting for the slate of 10 best picture nominees has been changed dramatically.
Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference -- and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.
As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.
It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).
“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap. “You could really get a fragmentation to the point where a picture with 18 or 20 percent of the vote could win, and the board didn’t want that to happen.”
Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.
Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter’s ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.
But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.
If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven…
Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent.
The process is designed to discern a true consensus and uncover, in Davis’ words, “the picture that has the most support from the entire membership.”
But to show that broad support, in most years the best picture winner will need to not only be ranked number one on lots of ballots, but also to be picked number two, three and four.
The rule has the potential to rewrite the strategic rules for Oscar campaigning. In the past, studios and consultants simply fought tooth and nail for those number one votes -- which were, of course, the only votes Academy members could cast. Now it’ll be absolutely crucial to make sure your film is also in the top five on as many ballots as possible.
Maybe that’ll lead to more ads from broad-appeal films that might otherwise have seemed to be out of the running. Or maybe it’ll lead to more negative campaigning: after all, a good chunk of the voters don’t have to like your film the most, as long as you give them reasons to like it better than most of the other contenders.
Academy voters, by the way, don’t know about this yet. “I know people have been wondering about it, and even worrying about it,” says Davis. “At some point we’ll do a mailing, probably in the fall membership quarterly, to make it clear what’s coming up.”
Posts: 4233 | Location: SE Pennsylvania | Registered: May 27, 2005
--- When the best picture is named at next year’s Academy Awards, the honor might not go to the film that receives the most votes.
In a major move that could transform Oscar campaigning, and one that the Academy has not talked about until now, voting for the slate of 10 best picture nominees has been changed dramatically.
Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference -- and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.
As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.
It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).
“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap. “You could really get a fragmentation to the point where a picture with 18 or 20 percent of the vote could win, and the board didn’t want that to happen.”
Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.
Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter’s ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.
But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.
If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven…
Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent.
The process is designed to discern a true consensus and uncover, in Davis’ words, “the picture that has the most support from the entire membership.”
But to show that broad support, in most years the best picture winner will need to not only be ranked number one on lots of ballots, but also to be picked number two, three and four.
The rule has the potential to rewrite the strategic rules for Oscar campaigning. In the past, studios and consultants simply fought tooth and nail for those number one votes -- which were, of course, the only votes Academy members could cast. Now it’ll be absolutely crucial to make sure your film is also in the top five on as many ballots as possible.
Maybe that’ll lead to more ads from broad-appeal films that might otherwise have seemed to be out of the running. Or maybe it’ll lead to more negative campaigning: after all, a good chunk of the voters don’t have to like your film the most, as long as you give them reasons to like it better than most of the other contenders.
Academy voters, by the way, don’t know about this yet. “I know people have been wondering about it, and even worrying about it,” says Davis. “At some point we’ll do a mailing, probably in the fall membership quarterly, to make it clear what’s coming up.”
First, it means that a "consensus" choice, i.e. one that is less daring but a lot of people like, will win over more daring, passionately felt for films.
Second, for a certain percentage of voters, this will mean getting cute. For some, if they really, really like one film that is a strong candidate to win, and realize that one other film - maybe their second or third favorite of the year - is the alternative, they will list it 10th so as to hurt it. Not all, or even most, voters will do this. But for some professionally or personally invested in the choice, it means that they will vote for worst picture strategically rather than by merit.
Third, look for a lot more splits between director and picture.
Let's say there is Barack Obama, John McCain, then a LaRouche candidate, a Communist, a Natural Law Party Candidate, a Prohibition candidate and so on.
Most Obama supporters would rank McCain last, most McCain supporters Obama last.
This is Political Science 101.
In solving the problem of having a potential polarizing winner getting 15% support but many people not liking it at all (far less likely when there are 5 contenders - my guess is most winners have won with far more than 25% of the votes), they now have opened up an entirely different can of worms.
What you are also going to start hearing is different sides in the best picture race claiming that marketeers for their competitors are pushing last place votes, hoping their is a backlash.
--- When the best picture is named at next year’s Academy Awards, the honor might not go to the film that receives the most votes.
In a major move that could transform Oscar campaigning, and one that the Academy has not talked about until now, voting for the slate of 10 best picture nominees has been changed dramatically.
Instead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference -- and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.
As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.
It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).
“There are certain mathematical dangers with more nominees,” says the Academy’s executive director, Bruce Davis, who revealed the new rule exclusively to TheWrap. “You could really get a fragmentation to the point where a picture with 18 or 20 percent of the vote could win, and the board didn’t want that to happen.”
Voters will be asked to rank the 10 best picture nominees in order of preference, one through 10. Davis says that the category will be listed on a special section of the Oscar ballot, detachable from the rest so that a separate team of PricewaterhouseCoopers staffers can undertake the more complicated tabulation process.
Initially, PwC will separate the ballots into 10 stacks, based on the top choice on each voter’s ballot. If one nominee has more than 50 percent of the vote (unlikely, but conceivable some years), we have a winner.
But if no film has a majority, then the film ranked first on the fewest number of ballots will be eliminated. Its ballots will then be redistributed into the remaining piles, based on whichever film is ranked second on those ballots.
If those second-place votes are enough to push one of the other nominees over the 50 percent threshold, the count ends. If not, the smallest of the nine remaining piles is likewise redistributed. Then the smallest of the eight piles, then the smallest of the seven…
Eventually, one film will wind up with more than 50 percent.
The process is designed to discern a true consensus and uncover, in Davis’ words, “the picture that has the most support from the entire membership.”
But to show that broad support, in most years the best picture winner will need to not only be ranked number one on lots of ballots, but also to be picked number two, three and four.
The rule has the potential to rewrite the strategic rules for Oscar campaigning. In the past, studios and consultants simply fought tooth and nail for those number one votes -- which were, of course, the only votes Academy members could cast. Now it’ll be absolutely crucial to make sure your film is also in the top five on as many ballots as possible.
Maybe that’ll lead to more ads from broad-appeal films that might otherwise have seemed to be out of the running. Or maybe it’ll lead to more negative campaigning: after all, a good chunk of the voters don’t have to like your film the most, as long as you give them reasons to like it better than most of the other contenders.
Academy voters, by the way, don’t know about this yet. “I know people have been wondering about it, and even worrying about it,” says Davis. “At some point we’ll do a mailing, probably in the fall membership quarterly, to make it clear what’s coming up.”
"The Hangover" for BP! Hahahahahahahahabarf...
It'll make the top 10, so get your barf bag ready.
Posts: 3790 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
So, basically they are now using the preferential ballot to determine both the nominees AND the winner?
Don't we all think that same preferential ballot is part of the source of the problems with the nominees in this category? So, now we are going to use it to get bland nominees and bland winners, too?
How is this a good idea? This sounds awful to me. I think it is going to produce bland winners.
LOL, seanflynn, you think an animated film is going to be nominated for Best Picture? If something like Up got nominated, I *could* actually see it winning. But I still have trouble believing that will happen. (Due to the aforementioned preferential ballot in the nominating process.) And hey, if WALL-E had been nominated and won last year, I wouldn't have complained at all.
All they needed to do was end preferential for best picture. Unlike acting, directing, writing, wild-card/obscure films rarely make the best picture contest. Had they ended it for best picture/2008, there is a far better chance that Dark Knight would have been nominated rather than The Reader or Frost/Nixon.
Just thinking out loud, but wouldn't a preferential ballot make a lot more sense if instead of eliminating the film with the most No. 10s, they eliminated the film with the fewest No. 1s? Then you really get rid of the one that the fewest people think is the best film, and isn't that the film with the least reason to win?
The alternative way is to assign 10 points to first place, 1 to last and so on, and count the points.
It's hard to project this to previous year's races with 5 nominees. I think SM was strong enough, and the other four nominees far more divided, that it would have one.
Another thing it is going to do is benefit films that stand alone against a group on nominees that are very similar. Let's say last year Dark Knight was up against the four films nominated + Doubt, Rev Rd, The Wrestler and The Visitor. Maybe SM had enough support - but what if there was a close division among the other 8 films, but Dark Knight got a lot of 2s and 3s? It might have benefitted from the luck of the draw of the competition.
It is astonishing to me that this preferential ballot seems to produce decent nominees in most of the other categories, yet it produces such mediocre nominees in Best Picture.
And I sincerely want to know why no one at AMPAS has thought of this. Really, that point system you mentioned would probably produce a different set of nominees. 10 points for first place, 9 points for 2nd, etc. This seems a much simpler way to gauge both popularity AND depth of support.
I actually think - especially with 10 nominees - that giving some sort of credit to movies that come on second or third makes sense. It makes it so the winner has some sort of broad appeal among the voters rather than just a slightly larger group among the small groups of divided preferences.
It's the cutting out at the bottom that doesn't make any sense. Whether I place a movie No. 9 or No. 10 shouldn't make any difference - neither is anywhere close to No. 1. If, say, all of the 10 nominated films are in my favorite 20 of the year, we could still be dealing with a situation where me ranking something No. 20 of the year instead of No. 19 could make a difference in the result. Now consider if I am trying to make distinctions between two or three movies I strongly dislike. How does that make sense to consider?
In case anyone doubts that these kind of small questions can make a difference in the results, they certainly can. A professional organization to which I belong uses a preferential voting system that is either like the Academy's or very similar. There was a small error in the way votes were tabulated in a recent election, with, if remember correctly, the candidate with the smallest number of first-place votes being eliminated rather than the candidate with the most last-place votes. When the error was discovered and the votes retabulated, there was a different result in the election.
If the year ends with an overwhelmingly popular/critical choice emerging as the BP frontrunner, I don't think that things will change too much with this rule change. But if the field is contested, then it's going to lead to strategic voting of placing the frontrunners at the bottom of the ranking instead of the top, and then a consensus choice forms with people's middle votes. So if the nominated five plus "The Dark Knight", "Gran Torino", "WALL-E", "Doubt", and "The Wrestler" made it in a top 10 for 2008, I don't see a "Return of the King" situation happening where the majority could all agree on something. Enough anti-votes (for either strategy or deserved placement) would be cast "TDK", "WALL-E", "The Reader", "Slumdog Millionaire", etc, for something like "Milk" to win, which is respectable enough and prestige enough, but still not the height of what could have been chosen instead. If they are genuinely worried about this theoretical 10.1% BP winner, then this preferential method is a fair way to gather a consensus vote of what a large group of the Academy admired in a given year. It just has the likely consequences of producing a less-than-exciting BP choice if the field ends up that way this year.
Congratulations, Primetime Emmy Winners!
Comedy Series: 30 ROCK Drama Series: MAD MEN Lead Actor in a Comedy Series: Alec Baldwin, 30 ROCK Lead Actress in a Comedy Series: Toni Collette, UNITED STATES OF TARA Lead Actor in a Drama Series: Bryan Cranston, BREAKING BAD Lead Actress in a Drama Series: Glenn Close, DAMAGES Guest Actress in a Comedy Series: Tina Fey, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Guest Actress in a Drama Series: Ellen Burstyn, LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT
Posts: 24725 | Location: North Carolina, USA | Registered: April 11, 2005
