|
The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Academy
Beverly Hills, CA — The governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted on Tuesday (6/14) to add a new twist to the 2011 Best Picture competition, and a new element of surprise to its annual nominations announcement. The Board voted to institute a system that will now produce anywhere between five and 10 nominees in the category. That number won’t be announced until the Best Picture nominees themselves are revealed at the January nominations announcement.
“With the help of PricewaterhouseCoopers, we’ve been looking not just at what happened over the past two years, but at what would have happened if we had been selecting 10 nominees for the past 10 years,” explained Academy President Tom Sherak, who noted that it was retiring Academy executive director Bruce Davis who recommended the change first to Sherak and incoming CEO Dawn Hudson and then to the governors. During the period studied, the average percentage of first place votes received by the top vote-getting movie was 20.5. After much analysis by Academy officials, it was determined that 5% of first place votes should be the minimum in order to receive a nomination, resulting in a slate of anywhere from five to 10 movies. “In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies,” said Davis. “A Best Picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit. If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.” If this system had been in effect from 2001 to 2008 (before the expansion to a slate of 10), there would have been years that yielded 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 nominees. The final round of voting for Best Picture will continue to employ the preferential system, regardless of the number of nominees, to ensure that the winning picture has the endorsement of more than half of the voters. Other rules changes approved by the Board include: In the animated feature film category, the need for the Board to vote to “activate” the category each year was eliminated, though a minimum number of eligible releases – eight – is still required for a competitive category. Additionally, the short films and feature animation branch recommended, and the Board approved refinements to the number of possible nominees in the Animated Feature category. In any year in which eight to 12 animated features are released, either two or three of them may be nominated. When 13 to 15 films are released, a maximum of four may be nominated, and when 16 or more animated features are released, a maximum of five may be nominated. In the visual effects category, the “bakeoff” at which the nominees are determined will expand from seven to 10 contenders. The increase in the number of participants is related to a change made last year in which the number of films nominated in the visual effects category was increased from three to five. Previously, the Board approved changes to the documentary feature and documentary short category rules that now put those categories’ eligibility periods in line with the calendar year and thus with most other awards categories. The change means that for the 84th Awards cycle only, the eligibility period is more than 12 months; it is from September 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011. Other modifications of the 84th Academy Awards rules include normal date changes and minor “housekeeping” changes. Rules are reviewed annually by individual branch and category committees. The Awards Rules Committee then reviews all proposed changes before presenting its recommendations to the Academy’s Board of Governors for approval. The 84th Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater. Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2011 will be presented on Sunday, February 26, 2012, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
I read about this today and really like the idea.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
10 is too many, this is a much better system. For the 2010 awards all the movies were pretty good, but for 2009 it seemed like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
:up:
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Yeah, I'm open to this. Flexibility....
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Works for me. Oh, and this thread had 4 replies with 5 views, so I felt guilty if I didn't respond.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
This could become a very good statistic to use to quickly determine if a year was a "good" movie year. If there were 10 nominees it was a very good year, if there were only 5 the year was lean on quality.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Are you sure you want to base your idea of a "good movie year" on what Academy members generally like? ;)
I'm skeptical about this -- I think stuff like The Blind Side will still make it in because that kind of thing probably has wider support from the voters with more popular tastes, whereas it could hurt the artsy stuff that has a smaller, yet more passionate, group of fans. In other words, there are more people who like Ron Howard movies than there are people who like David Lynch movies, even in the Academy when taken as a whole. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
5 maybe 6 maybe 7 maybe 8 maybe 9 maybe 10? Awesome idea.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by MoviePage
(Post 10818500)
Are you sure you want to base your idea of a "good movie year" on what Academy members generally like? ;)
I could also see it being politicized by studios anxious to push more product for awards to make sure all ten valuable spots get filled. Let's face it, going out with 5 or 6 after a few years of 8, 9, 10 will look bad, and be seen as a waste of potential proffits for a few films that could have filled those spots. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 10818487)
This could become a very good statistic to use to quickly determine if a year was a "good" movie year. If there were 10 nominees it was a very good year, if there were only 5 the year was lean on quality.
I'd rather they just go back to 5. We already know which films have a serious shot based on the Directing nominees. Although I suppose the average joe doesn't, which is what counts. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Fuck nominations... just pick one to present the award to at the show and be done with it. Nominations are marketing tools for the losers anyway.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
(Post 10818520)
5 maybe 6 maybe 7 maybe 8 maybe 9 maybe 10? Awesome idea.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
They all sound like reasonable changes to me. Nice to see that they are actively reviewing and modifying their criteria.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
I h ave to admit reading the title I was filled with a bit of dread but I think the rule change makes a hell of a lot of sense. Have a small field if there are a small group of strong contenders, and have a wide-open field when necessary.
:up: |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Count me as another who likes the idea. At least it'll add some real intrigue as to who gets a nom. Last year's 10 nominees had a few that didn't really need to be in there, so this scenario is much more interesting.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by bootsy
(Post 10818672)
Sound like Lebron.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by bootsy
(Post 10818672)
Sound like Lebron.
Originally Posted by devilshalo
(Post 10818666)
Fuck nominations... just pick one to present the award to at the show and be done with it. Nominations are marketing tools for the losers anyway.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Goat3001
(Post 10819527)
But then how would you know who to invite to the award show?
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Giles
(Post 10819481)
-ohbfrank- please stop
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by devilshalo
(Post 10819593)
Base it on vote count. Besides... this would only be for the Best Picture award.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by bootsy
(Post 10819633)
please make me. Have some fun and stop being a square/nerd.:thmbsdwn:
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by bootsy
(Post 10819633)
please make me. Have some fun and stop being a square/nerd.:thmbsdwn:
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Sounds like a decent enough idea :up:
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by devilshalo
(Post 10818666)
Fuck nominations... just pick one to present the award to at the show and be done with it. Nominations are marketing tools for the losers anyway.
Also, the nominations for many of the Oscar categories are only made by members of the Academy that work in that particular field. So only directors nominate Best Director, only actors nominate the Best Actor categories, etc. After the nominations are announced, the final votes for the awards are open to the entire Academy. So it's a form of checks-and-balances, where people are nominated by their pears but win via votes from all members. http://www.oscars.org/awards/academy...ut/voting.html So, why nominations can be great marketing tools for a film, it's not the main reason they exist. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Why? The time for him to host was, oh, about 25 years ago when he was funny.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Because the Oscar committee is made up of elderly people who are out of touch with 21st century audiences.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
This is how the voting is occurring this year, per a summary from Awards Daily:
If a film gets 455 (or so, magic number time) it is automatically a nominee. But any film that gets over 20% of the total vote triggers the surplus rule. Then you move to round two. At that point, films need around 50 or 60 number one votes to make it to the second round. After that, you want your movie to have more number 1s plus maybe number 2s and 3s. These films have done well with a combo of Globe/Guild nominations. The Artist (Everything) The Descendants (DGA, GG, PGA, SAG, WGA) The Help (GG, PGA, SAG, WGA) Moneyball (GG, PGA, WGA, SAG for Pitt/Hill) Hugo (ACE, DGA, GG, PGA, WGA). The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (ACE, GG, DGA, PGA, WGA) Midnight in Paris (DGA, GG, PGA, SAG, WGA) The Ides of March, Drive, War Horse, Tree of Life, Bridesmaids, and Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy are out. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
My prediction for Best Picture in alphabetical order - six titles (subject to change prior to the announcement):
Artist, The Descendents, The Help, The Hugo Midnight in Paris Tree of Life, The |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Wow, this may be the first year where I didn't care for a single Best Picture nomination, unless Dragon Tattoo somehow gets a nom.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by RichC2
(Post 11083128)
Wow, this may be the first year where I didn't care for a single Best Picture nomination, unless Dragon Tattoo somehow gets a nom.
Last year was a solid group, but my favorite top 5 of recent year was '07 with No Country, There Will Be Blood, and Michael Clayton leading the way. I loved all 3 of those films, which made up for the fact that Juno got in. Atonement was a reasonable selection. Zodiac should have definitely replaced Juno. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
I hope that Kevin James doesn't get left out because the vote gets split between The Dilemma and Zookeeper.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by RichC2
(Post 11083128)
Wow, this may be the first year where I didn't care for a single Best Picture nomination, unless Dragon Tattoo somehow gets a nom.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema
(Post 11083171)
It's not a flashy group this time. Sort of reminds me of the 2008 class: Slumdog, The Reader, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk. That was an extremely underwhelming and weak group.
Last year was a solid group, but my favorite top 5 of recent year was '07 with No Country, There Will Be Blood, and Michael Clayton leading the way. I loved all 3 of those films, which made up for the fact that Juno got in. Atonement was a reasonable selection. Zodiac should have definitely replaced Juno. This year is just kind of boring to me. Last year it was what? The King's Speech, The Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, 127 Hours, The Fighter, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter's Bone... I actually liked all of those save for maybe Toy Story 3, but even that was mildly entertaining. The Artist was okay to me but didn't draw me in like it seemed to other people, The Descendants is the first Alexander Payne movie I didn't care for, The Help got on my nerves but was mostly watchable, Moneyball was well made but forgettable and insubstantial, and both Midnight in Paris and Hugo had their moments with obvious inspiration but didn't hold my interest for their entirety. Loved Girl w/ the Dragon Tattoo and Drive, Ides was kind of like Moneyball - good but forgettable, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was a bore, haven't made it to War Horse yet. Tree of Life had a decent vibe to it, but when it ended I just felt nothing, it was suitably diverting but that was about it. |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
If the Academy wants to be hip then it'll nominate Drive. I have to agree about the nominations prediction, it's not so much that it's been a bad year, it's actually been pretty good, it's just that the films they will nominate will range from mediocre to bad. Though I did love The Artist so if one of them has to sweep I hope it's that one.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
I'm personally a bit sick of all the Oscar buzz for Bridesmaids of all things. Not only was it a by the numbers romantic comedy, but it was completely misrepresented in advertising.
|
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Artist, The
Descendents, The Help, The Hugo Midnight in Paris Tree of Life, The Moneyball Drive Then two of the below (I hope not) War Horse Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy TGWTDT |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
I know there was a more recent thread about Oscar Rule Changes, but I couldn't find it. Anyways, it looks like some big new rules are coming to force diversity on the field. This should go over well in Middle America. :rolleyes:
Forced Diversity for Oscar Seekers https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/imag...andards640.jpgAMPAS (i.e., The People’s Wokester Central Committee) has announced new representation and inclusion standards for all would-be seekers of a Best Picture Oscar starting in 2024. This is not a drill or a put-on. The standards were emailed to everyone earlier this afternoon. AMPAS Quote: “For the 94th Oscars (2022) and 95th Oscars (2023), submitting a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form will be required for Best Picture consideration, however meeting inclusion thresholds will not be required for eligibility in the Best Picture category until the 96th Oscars (2024).” Hypothetical 2024 situation: Imagine that it’s September 2022, and that Manchester By The Sea or Call Me By My Name, to name two examples of recent racist or exclusionary cinema, had never before been made. They are about to go into production sometime in late ’22 or early ’23, with Kenneth Lonergan and Luca Guadagnino directing respectively. After skimming the new standards, ask yourself how they would affect the making of Lonergan and Guadagnino’s films, given their producers’ hope to market themselves by becoming Best Picture contenders. Reader request: Then is then and now is now, but someone should really count how many previous Best Picture winners (1929 to 2019) would be eligible with these new rules. Less than 10%? Roughly 20%? https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-c...8.38.27-PM.png AMPAS Verbatim: “For the 96th Oscars (2024), a film must meet TWO out of FOUR of the following standards to be deemed eligible: STANDARD A: ON-SCREEN REPRESENTATION, THEMES AND NARRATIVES To achieve Standard A, the film must meet ONE of the following criteria: A1. Lead or significant supporting actors At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. • Asian • Hispanic/Latinx • Black/African American • Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native • Middle Eastern/North African • Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander • Other underrepresented race or ethnicity A2. General ensemble cast At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups: • Women • Racial or ethnic group • LGBTQ+ • People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing A3. Main storyline/subject matter The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s). • Women • Racial or ethnic group • LGBTQ+ • People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing STANDARD B: CREATIVE LEADERSHIP AND PROJECT TEAM To achieve Standard B, the film must meet ONE of the criteria below: B1. Creative leadership and department heads At least two of the following creative leadership positions and department heads—Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer—are from the following underrepresented groups: • Women • Racial or ethnic group • LGBTQ+ • People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing At least one of those positions must belong to the following underrepresented racial or ethnic group: • Asian • Hispanic/Latinx • Black/African American • Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native • Middle Eastern/North African • Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander • Other underrepresented race or ethnicity B2. Other key roles At least six other crew/team and technical positions (excluding Production Assistants) are from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. These positions include but are not limited to First AD, Gaffer, Script Supervisor, etc. B3. Overall crew composition At least 30% of the film’s crew is from the following underrepresented groups: • Women • Racial or ethnic group • LGBTQ+ • People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.” https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-c...8.38.58-PM.png |
re: The Oscar Rule Changes - Discussion Thread
Personally, while I am a fan of diversity, I don't think awards should be given or nominated based on anything other than artistic merit. Would Lord of the Rings films qualify for nominations here with these criteria? Would Almost Famous? Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Boyhood? Wolf of Wall Street?
It's concerning to me. If we choose to celebrate diversity (i.e. Moonlight over La La Land), that's great. If we eventually celebrate Moonlight by excluding La La Land from competition, that's different. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.