Alright, you know the drill. Rifle off your need-to-knows and Anne and I will address as many as possible. Make ’em good.
What non-Oscar contending films are you looking forward to this winter?
Off-topic: Kris, are planning a recent comments addition the side at all?
Understand that I’m not as in control of design here as I have been in the past. If it comes, you’ll see it and I’ll mention it. Working on a number of things at the moment. It’ll be a process.
Since I don’t see a thread for questions for Oscar Talk, here goes:
Can you clear up this discrepancy?
There is no rule that states that Five Percent of first place votes is a cut off for eligibility. Rather, the rule states a film requires five percent of the total vote to be eligible for the BP nomination.
No where in the official rules does it mention first place votes. Additionally, the Rules for nominations suggest there is no special tabulation of Best Picture nominees, all nominees are done by preferential ballot, as they have always been tabulated.
BP Rule: [www.oscars.org]
“2. The pictures receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Best Picture award. There may not be more than ten nor fewer than five nominations; however, no picture shall be nominated that receives less than five percent of the total votes cast.”
“5. In the nominations voting, the marking and tabulation of all ballots shall be according to the preferential or weighted average system. Votes for achievements in motion pictures not on the Reminder List will not be counted in the nominations balloting. Tabulation of final ballots shall be according to the plurality system. No “write-in” votes shall be counted on the final ballot.
6. Not more than five nominations shall be made for each award, except for the Best Picture award, which shall have not more than ten nor fewer than five nominations.”
Original Press Release announcing rule change:
“After much analysis by Academy officials, it was determined that 5 percent of first place votes should be the minimum in order to receive a nomination, resulting in a slate of anywhere from 5 to 10 movies.”
If the official rules don’t consider first place to be a qualifier then it is not a qualifier, despite what a press release says, can someone please contact the academy and clear up what’s going on with the rule change?
I passed your question off to Steve Pond, Adam. Here’s his reply:
It’s not really a discrepancy. The confusion comes because the official rules have never really spelled out the process.
When they say “the tabulation shall be according to the preferential system,” that leaves an enormous amount unsaid. And they don’t want to go into detail, because it’s too confusing (and almost impossible to explain in print, as I have learned on a great many occasions).
The fact is, the preferential system doesn’t count “the total vote,” as your reader understands that to be. It only counts number one votes in the initial round of counting. In later rounds (which are very limited under the new system), it will in some cases move down to the #2, 3, 4 or 5 choice. But it’s still just one vote, for one movie, per ballot.
So the “total vote” they’ll count to determine what reaches the 5% threshold is, under the rules of the preferential system, made up largely of number one votes. And it’ll never take into account all the films listed on any voters’ ballot.
When the new rule was passed I had a detailed conversation with Bruce Davis about how they were going to implement the count and the 5% rule. At the time Bruce was the keeper of all AMPAS knowledge about the system, and here’s what he said:
1) Ballots are counted according to what’s in the #1 spot. Anything that would have qualified under the old system (i.e., anything with more than 1/11th of those first-place votes) automatically gets a nomination.
2) If any of those first-count nominees have 20% more votes than they need, the “surplus rule” kicks in and those ballots’ #2 choices will be given a fractional value and added to the appropriate piles.
3) One round of redistribution now takes place. Any movie with less than 1% of the total #1 votes is eliminated, and its ballots are redistributed into the piles of its voters’ second choices. If those second choices have also been eliminated, or if they’ve already secured a nomination under step 1, then the accountants will keep moving down the ballots until they find the highest-ranked movie still in the running. That movie then gets the vote. Each ballot ends up casting a single vote for a single movie.
4) After this single round of redistribution, the count stops. At this point, anything with more than 5% of the vote is a nominee. Anything with less than 5% isn’t.
Does that clear it up? Of course it doesn’t. But I tried…
Ed Douglas predicted that Pixar would no longer get Best Picture nominations with the new sliding scale system, and said he didn’t anticipate any pundits would beg to differ with him on that. Obviously, we can’t predict how long this system lasts. And Cars 2 is a no-go. But, if we had it for say two or three more years, and Pixar had a high point, would they have a shot at a nom?
It seems plausible to me, because of the numbers AMPAS issued on past nominees over years pre-10. And the declaration included the prediction that nobody would differ, but earlier Peter Knect tried to imagine the nominees with a sliding scale and did predict WALL-E and Nemo made it in their respective years. What do you guys think?
to be fair, they released a terrible movie this year, so they won’t get a nomination in 2012…I can certainly see the movie that takes us into the human mind getting a nomination, if Inception was able to
If either of you have seen Martha Marcy May Marlene:
Does Hawkes look like a candidate for Supporting Actor? Or will the closeness of Winter’s Bone nullify him?
Actually, from viewing the trailer, his performance seems much more authentic here than his role in Winter’s Bone…while I was happy to see him get nominated last year in against-the-odds style, I wasn’t really happy with any of the supporting actor candidates last year (even Christian Bale, whose character’s story arc seemed rushed)
Hi Kris and Anne – this is the first time I’ve asked a question (here that is not the first time ever), hopefully it makes sense.
With regards to Anne’s recent blog post about the box office performance of Warrior and Drive and general box office statistics.
How much does box office affect voters? Are there any incidents where great BO have boosted a film or where poor BO has effectively destroyed a films chances? Most importantly which of this years potential nominees, based on unseen and festival buzz, has the most to benefit/lose from it’s performance in cinemas?
Between Drive or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,
which one do you think it’s more likely to get a boost later in the race in order to at least keep one unfriendly genre movie around? (last year was Black Swan and Inception, before that was Avatar and District 9, and since we’re still stuck with 5+ nominees…).
When did campaigning and “playing nice” become the road to winning the Oscar? I thought it was about the performance in a movie. It seems like that is secondary now. I would like to see George Clooney win for his performance rather than how many people he talked to at a party.
Thomas, I don’t have any special insights like Anne and Kris do, but Tom O’Neill mentioned Grace Kelly versus “A Star is Born” and how AMPAS is always about who liikes who. So, it might pre-date formal campaigning, as we think about it.
It’s nice to imagine that it used to be about the work and the work alone, but I assure you that’s never been the case.
From looking at films coming this year I wonder what films do you look forward to, suprise films or ones that have the predigre before they are releaed.
With today’s announcement of Michelle Williams to receive the Hollywood Actress Award and some of its past recipients being made up of actresses that went on to be nominated for an Oscar the same year (and Marion C. winning), do you guys think this will be the first of many award related honors bestowed upon Williams?
2009 is exception to the rule:
Robert De Niro (Everybody’s Fine) and Hilary Swank (Amelia) took top honors, but then their awards potential that year crashed and burned. No pun intended.
Yeah, I said “some of its past recipients” ;)
Kris, This questions pertains to a long-existing question and occasional argument that occurs on the podcast and that in the area of category placement or category fraud.
With the release of this new “Extremely Loud, and Incredibly Close” trailer, according to Anne’s thought process (The Tree of Life and/or True Grit) is Thomas Horn a supporting actor in her mind? And if he is, why? Hunter McCracken apparently isn’t the lead because Brad Pitt is present (and he’s a movie star), and the same goes for Hailee Steinfeld?
Is a supporting actor/actress based on their standing in Hollywood or based on their particular performance in the film? In “Extremely Loud” Oskar Schell is certainly the lead, but since it’s his debut performance and in order to sell the film, they don’t put him first. I know it’s the Hollywood advertising machine, but that’s where you and Anne seem to disagree?
Can you clarify?
The supporting acting categories are as wide open and confusing as I’ve ever seen them, especially supporting actor, where nearly every serious contender could end up being the sole representative for their film. Who do you see making a serious run for the win in each category?
What has been the general reaction in the Oscar blogosphere to the Extremely Loud/Incredibly Close trailer? The trailer gave me the same feeling as Hugo’s did (that’s not a good one). Bad voice-over work can kill a trailer, but can a bad trailer hinder a film’s pre-release momentum?
Stephen Daldry is 3/3 so far when it comes to Oscars nods as Best Director…and 2 of them (Billy Eliot, The Reader) came without an accompanying DGA nod. If he can steer The Reader into the Academy’s gate and score an overdue win for Kate Winslet, he can do the same for this film and overdue star Max von Sydow
Wisconsinkel, I’m a huge Daldry fan, so I’m hoping for the best, but the trailer seems oddly emotionally detached for a Daldry film. I wouldn’t be surprised if he or von Sydow make their way into the conversation, but for some reason I just have a bad feeling. I hope I’m wrong though
Hi Kris. I’d like to know your opinions on Rooney Mara’s chances of winning for Best Actress. At first I would have rated them as slim, maybe because somebody else recently played that role well. However, having seen the trailer for the movie I’m starting to think she ticks the right boxes 1) Young 2) Hot 3) Physical transformation 4) Sympathetic character 5) In a good movie …….. oh, and she 6) A multi-faceted excellent performance!!
WIth so many critical acclaimed and star turned actor and actresses performances, which ones will you think the critics will go for in the end of the year?
Any Oscar chances for Margaret?
Since Oscar is not and never was about one particular work do you think that Academy might establish more special categories kind of honorary for big stars,box office success,independent spirit or something like that and let the best performance Oscar go to the performance not an overdue actor?
Could Rooney Mara be moved to supporting for TGWDT?
Best actor seems stacked. Any chance Oldman could fall out for Fassbender or Gosling?
Not related to this season, but do either you or Anne know how a film can be eligible for both Oscars and Emmys? “GasLand” Josh Fox recently won an Emmy for Outstanding Directing for Nonfiction Programming in the same year he was nominated for an Oscar for the same project. Several years ago the South African film “Yesterday” was nominated for a foreign language film Oscar as well as a made for TV movie Emmy. Just a curious quirk that I thought y’all might be able to explain. No biggie.
Do you guys think that an iffy trailer can effect AMPAS voters? For example, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close just dropped. I think the trailer is absolutely fine. But most people here think it’s trash (whatever). Do most AMPAS voters look for trailers, or do they just see what they see at screenings and on screeners? In other words, a great trailer could get the attention of a voter (just as it could get the attention of any of us) … but do you think that bad trailers deter votes? Thanks :)
What happened to Waco? I thought Adrien Brody might muscle in for that role, but I haven’t heard a thing about the project.
now that the trailer is out, thoughts and/or speculation on Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close? Daldry hasn’t missed yet.
I hadn’t heard of Gary Oldman’s The Contender controversy until you mentioned it earlier in the week. Could you talk about how/if it has affected his career and reputation and if voters know about/still remember what happened? Will it at all affect his nomination or possible win this year?
When it comes to performances, Kris and Anne, do you prefer a quiet, nuanced/subtle performance (ala Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton) or a loud, in-your face, Oscar-bait performance (ala Daniel Day-Lewis, Heath Ledger)? Which do you think contributes to a better legacy for the Oscars and their telecast?
Not really a film related question, but this one goes out to Anne. You’ve used the phrase “played like gangbusters” a number of times to describe a film. What exactly does that me? Who or what is a gangbuster and how do they play? I’ll chalk this up to my ignorance and age for being unfamiliar with the term but it always makes me laugh when you say it.
Can any of the young guys like Michael Fassbender or Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Ryan Gosling still make it into the lead race? It’s hard to believe it’s so set in stone already with Clooney, DiCaprio, Dujardin, Pitt and Oldman.
A purely hypothetical question to both you and Anne: which Oscar category would you have liked to see yourself nominated in the most? enutivie
Reading the article today on Emily Watson and her lead role in Oranges and Sunshine, first have either of you had the opportunity to see it, and whether you have or haven’t, what do you think her chances are for a third nomination in a year where the Best Actress category seems to be very open?
Maybe irrelevant if you guys haven’t wanted to see the film, but I really enjoyed Red State, and in particular the performances. Every review has singled out the performances even if they didn’t love the movie, so I’m wondering if you think Parks, Goodman, or Leo could get in supporting if there is a real push. We know Kevin Smith is pushing for the actors, and we know he has shown the film to academy members who have apparently liked it (the only one that we know that is true of is Affleck, simply because he hired half the cast).
If Smith decides to actually send out screeners, and word of mouth spreads, do you think Parks could get into supporting? (since obviously he’s not getting close in lead)
How do both of you feel about Melissa McCarthy’s Oscar chances for “Bridesmaids?”
as one of the biggest “Gilmore Girls” fans: No way. But I wouldn’t exclude a Golden Globe nod.
hey kris is there no love for ‘sarah’s key’ ? and kristin scott thomas gets lost again i guess.
Kris: Will ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ feature 5, 6, 7 or 8 Academy Award winners/nominees?
No post on “War Horse” and “Tintin” being moved up in release dates?