Another reason I'm not in favor of the new Academy rules for Best Picture voting...

...and it's similar to my previous issues, which will be documented in an article very soon (Clayton has the piece, it'll go up whenever he deems it appropriate). Here's Steve Pond at The Wrap breaking down the fact that a lot of voters won't have their ballots mean much for Best Picture:

A significant number of Best Picture ballots could end up essentially discarded as the result of the new Best Picture rules instituted by the Academy last week, TheWrap has discovered.

The Academy conceded that an increased number of ballots will no longer influence the slate of Best Picture nominees, but said its figures put the potential number of those ballots at less than 10 percent.

On the other hand, a simulation done by TheWrap (using critics' Top 10 lists rather than real Oscar ballots) shows the number of "unused" ballots topping 25 percent under the new rules.

The good news is that the new system brings some needed unpredictability to the Best Picture race, and guarantees that every nominee has a significant level of voter support.

But the new rules could very well change Oscar campaigning, hurt consensus movies that would have fared well in the past, and essentially take the decision out of the hands of hundreds of Academy members in the Oscars' marquee category.

This impact has not been publicly discussed since the Board of Governors agreed on the new rules on June 14. But the Academy's outgoing executive director Bruce Davis, who proposed the system after consultation with the AMPAS accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers, admitted to TheWrap that more voters "have lost their chance to influence the nominations slate" under the new rules, adding, "we're accepting that as one of the givens of the new system."

He also told TheWrap via email, "It's not as though those voters have been disenfranchised. They had a fair chance to help choose a nominee, but not enough other voters shared their admiration for their top-line film. Their situation is similar to that of a voter who endorses the least successful, most outlying candidate in a political primary.

"He voted his heart the first time around and lost, but he'll have another chance in the next round of voting to indicate which of the more mainstream candidates he most prefers."

Exact figures are impossible to come by, since PwC doesn't share them with the public. But under the old system, according to simulations conducted by TheWrap, the Best Picture count could last for 10 rounds or more, and eventually almost every ballot would be used. The new system ends after a single round of counting and redistribution, before many ballots can come into play.

In addition, while voters are asked to list up to 10 films in order of preference, the new system will place enormous weight on a voter's first choice, and make all but the first two or three choices meaningless in the vast majority of cases.

(An aside: I support the change to a variable slate of five to 10 nominees, and think the new rule is a smart one that corrects a flaw in the decision to move to 10 nominations.

But it comes with significant ramifications, and they need to be grasped and discussed.)

To understand how the changes will impact the process, you need to understand the existing process.

First, though, here are some of the things I found when I took 156 critics' Top 10 ballots for 2010, as compiled by Movie City News, and tallied them using both the old Best-Picture system and the new one:

THE GAP

Using the old system, my 2010 simulation took 11 rounds to produce 10 Best Picture nominees. At the end of those 11 rounds, only 10 ballots (six percent of the total) had been discarded, because those critics opted entirely for films that ended up out of the running.

The new system, though, uses just one round of counting and redistribution to come up with the nominees. Using that system, a full 43 ballots, representing almost 28 percent of the total vote, ended up having no impact on the slate of nominees.

Critics who voted for "The King's Speech" or "The Social Network" helped their top choices get nominated. Ones who went for "Biutiful" or "Shutter Island" had their ballots redistributed to help out another pick. But the ballots of critics whose top picks were "True Grit," "Blue Valentine," "The Kids Are All Right" and 17 other films were left sitting on the table.

Because they voted for the 21 films that fell into the gap between one and five percent of the vote -- which is to say, because they voted for films that narrowly missed being nominated -- they were unable to influence the outcome the way they would have under the old process, when those films would eventually have been eliminated and the ballots redistributed to help each voter's other selections.

I did the same kind of simulation with MCN's 2009 critics' lists, and the results were similar: the number of unused ballots went from well under 10 percent to more than 25 percent.

(Certainly, you can't draw direct comparisons between tallying 156 critics lists and 5,000 Oscar ballots; the critics, for one thing, are more likely to champion obscure films than Academy members, which might well lead to higher levels of unused ballots. And Davis insisted that Academy figures place their number of unused ballots at less than 10 percent under the new system. But my demonstration makes it clear that stopping after one round will increase the number of Academy voters whose ballots don't affect the results, and Davis did not dispute that finding.)

MOVIN' ON UP? NOT ANYMORE

When I tallied the ballots under the new system, "Toy Story 3" squeaked in as the eighth and final nominee, with 6.6 percent of the total.

But when I counted those same ballots using the old system, both "The Ghost Writer" and "Dogtooth" leap-frogged "Toy Story" in the later rounds of voting, landing nominations courtesy of redistributed votes from other films as they were eliminated.

Under the new count, the redistributed votes that helped those films move up and secure nominations would never have come into play.

THE PRIME NUMBER

In the old system, a ballot could be redistributed several times, with its vote progressively going from the movie listed first to the one listed second, third, fourth or even lower.

Under the new rules, though, the chances for those lower choices to come into play are reduced dramatically. In my 2010 simulation, fewer than half the ballots were redistributed at all -- and on the ones that were, the majority simply had their vote moved from the critic's first choice to his or her second.

A voter's first choice has always been the most important choice; now, in many cases, it's the only choice that matters. For studios and Oscar campaigners, this means that it's no longer a productive strategy to urge voters to list you among their top few choices. If you want to survive that first round and land a nomination, you need to be the first choice.

The Academy is aware of these ramifications, and I'm sure the governors took it into account in what was by all accounts a lengthy discussion before adopting the new rule. I also suspect that PwC had figures to show that stopping after one round wouldn't dramatically alter the results most years, other than creating a higher bar for Best Picture nominees to reach.

But when one of the privileges of Academy membership is the ability to influence the slate of movies that will come to represent the year's best, a move that could dramatically shrink the number of those able to do just that is a move that ought to receive some scrutiny.

*

And now, a more detailed description of the Oscar voting process, both before and after the new rules:

In the Best Picture category until now, as in most other categories, completed nominating ballots are put in stacks, based on the film ranked first on each ballot. A number is generated to determine the minimum number of votes required to assure a nomination, and any film that tops that number immediately becomes a nominee.

Films that get significantly more votes than they need for the nomination trigger the co-called "surplus rule," and the ballots for those films are redistributed to give a portion of the vote to the films listed second on each one of those ballots.

Once the surplus redistribution has taken place, the film with the smallest stack of votes is eliminated, and each of its ballots is redistributed into the pile of the film listed second on that ballot. (If that film has already been either nominated or eliminated, the vote goes to the third-place choice, or the highest-ranked choice still in the running.)

The system proceeds round after round, with the least-popular film or films eliminated in each subsequent round, until it comes up with the desired number of nominees. To arrive at 10 nominees will likely take at least half-a-dozen rounds, and often many more than that.

The new system, though, does away with those rounds of redistribution, and arrives at the slate of nominees through what Davis told TheWrap is a three-step, one-round process:

1. As in the old system, all the Best-Picture ballots are put in piles based on each voter's first choice. Based on the number of ballots received, PwC will determine the number required to guarantee a nomination in the initial count by dividing the number of ballots cast by 11 (the number of available nominations plus one), and then adding one.

In assigning this number, PwC will assume that 10 nominations are up for grabs, even though the final number may well be lower. For instance: If 5,000 of the Academy's near-6,000 members cast ballots in the Best Picture category, the magic number will be 455.

In that situation, a film with 455 votes or more is automatically a nominee.

2. Any film with 20 percent more votes than it needs triggers the surplus rule, in which the unneeded portion of each vote will go to the second-place film on that ballot, or the highest-ranked film that's still in the running.

If, for instance, you need 455 votes to be nominated but you get twice that many, 910, each of your votes will count 50 percent for you and 50 percent for the voter's next choice. If you get a third more votes than you need, that third will go to your second choice.

Note: Contrary to a recent explanation in the Hollywood Reporter, this redistribution does not take place with the ballots of all films that receive more than 5 percent of the vote. It only takes place with films getting 20 percent more than they need to guarantee a nomination. (That means you need to get just under 11 percent of the first-place votes, or 546 votes in our example, to trigger the surplus rule.)

3. Once the surplus redistribution has been made, the films that have less than 1 percent of the total -- meaning, in our hypothetical case of 5,000 ballots, all of those with fewer than 50 first-place votes -- also have their ballots redistributed. On each of those ballots, the first-place film is crossed off and the vote goes to the film listed second, or to the top-ranked film that is still in the running.

And then the vote stops.

fter this single round of redistribution, the accountants will total up all the votes. Any film that now has at least five percent of the vote -- in our example, any film with 250 votes -- becomes a Best-Picture nominee.

A PwC study of the last decade of Oscar voting says that the result will be between five and 10 nominees.

-Joey's Two Cents: I'll have more to say about this, but it just strikes me as plain unfair...thoughts?

Curious what the new way of voting for Best Picture will be like?

Of course you are, and The Hollywood Reporter explains it as best they can:

With the "new twist" it is introducing into the best picture Oscar race, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will also adopt a slightly modified nominating procedure to decide the nominees in its top category.

The Academy's board of governors voted Tuesday night to adopt a new rule: having opened the best picture race to 10 nominees two years ago, the Academy is now adopting a stricter standard that will result in anywhere from five to 10 nominees when nominations are announced on Jan. 24.

To secure a nomination, a picture will have collect at least five percent of the first-place votes cast.

That, in turn, affects the nominating process. For the past two years, each Academy member filled out a form, listing their ten best films, in order of preference from one to 10.

This time around, in the case of the best picture ballot, each member will be given a ballot with 5 open slots, which they will be asked to fill in with five movies, again ranked by preference.

As Bruce Davis, the outgoing executive director of the Academy explained: "What we're doing here is analyzing the first-place support."

The vote count, which will be conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, is actually a modified version of the preferential voting system that the Academy already employs.

Here's how it will work in the case of the best picture category.

• First, all the ballots are separated into separate stacks according to which film is listed as a first choice.
• Second, any movies that reach the five percent threshold are automatic nominees. Their stacks are then redistributed to their second or third choices according to a mathmatical formula. Their second or third choices count as partial votes when added to the remaining stacks.
• Third, at the opposite ends of the spectrum, those movies that have received less than one percent of the vote also see their stacks redistributed to their second if still available, or third choice if still available, etc.

At that point, the redistribution stops. The movies that have reached the five percent mark all become nominees.

According to Davis, the accountants, using the vote counts from past years, have worked through various scenarios, and the count results in 5 to ten nominees.

On most ballots, the number one movie carries the real wight, although second and third choices could well come into play. Fourth and fifth choices will play a much more minimal role in the selection process.

"We think this is going to be enjoyable, and maybe more in line with what we hoped to accomplish when we went to ten nominees," Davis said.

The accountants reviewed past votes, going back to see what would have happened using this new approach in the years when only five nominees were chosen. And Davis observed, "It really jumped out at us that while there were films that enjoyed wide support, it was clear there were years where there was not substantial support for ten pictures. So why be obligated to list ten, if the members clearly indicated they preferred 8 pictures? It maintains the honor of being a best-picture nominee."

If the new system had been in effect from 2001 to 2008 (before the expansion to a slate of 10), there would have been years that yielded five, six, seven, eight and nine nominees, the Academy reported.

Interestingly, after PricewaterhouseCoopers did its historical research, it did not tell the Academy's execs which year would have yeilded what number, and it did not identify any films, just identifying them as picture one, picture two, etc. Finally, when it comes time to vote for the best picture Oscar, voters will again rank their favorites among the nominees in order of preference.

-Joey's Two Cents: This does clear up a question or two, but I still disagree with the decision...thoughts?

The Academy changes the rules for Best Picture again!

We'll have more on this later, but for now I'll let the press release speak for itself:

Academy Builds Surprise Into Best Picture Rules

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.

-Joey's Two Cents: For now, I'll just say this...I'm not a fan. Thoughts?

Are we closer to an Oscar category for Stunt Coordinators?

Possibly, according to The Hollywood Reporter:

In a continuation of a twenty-year quest, stunt coordinators are once again asking the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to create an Oscar category for their work. Their proposal will come up for consideration at a meeting of the Academy’s Board of Governors on Tuesday.

“I’m baffled as to what it is that we’re lacking (in the Academy’s eyes),” said a visibly frustrated Jack Gill in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. Gill has been leading the effort to obtain Academy recognition for the past two decades. Not surprisingly, the campaign is understood to have widespread support among stunt coordinators. In addition, some years ago, Gill obtained petition signatures from a range of Hollywood luminaries.

However, it’s an uphill battle. The Academy is known to be concerned about the length of the Awards show broadcast. The coordinators propose to have their Oscar be granted in a ceremony prior to the show, but are hoping for a clip of that ceremony, and a stunt sequence from the winning movie, to be shown as part of the broadcast.

Even that may run too long for the Academy’s taste, although a stunt clip would no doubt be a crowd-pleaser. Also, Academy governors from other branches might be uncomfortable setting a precedent for granting Oscars at an earlier ceremony, since they may be afraid that their branch could get yanked from the live show in future years.

Interestingly stunt coordinators can become members of the Academy, but in the At-Large branch (which also includes casting directors). Only 19 are, however, and at most two are admitted per year. At-Large members have all the privileges of branch membership, an Academy spokesperson told THR, except for representation on the Board.

One stunt performer (not coordinator) has actually won an award from the Academy, Yakima Canutt, who spent time on-screen jumping from horse to horse and falling off of wagons. However, his 1966 statue was an honorary award – "for achievements as a stunt man and for developing safety devices to protect stunt men everywhere" – rather than an award in a specified category.

Stunt coordinators are the professionals who design the complex stunts seen in movies and TV shows – car chases, fight scenes, fiery explosions, underwater work, high dives and more. The stunts are then executed by stunt performers (stuntmen and -women), or occasionally by principal performers, if they’re particularly macho and the coordinator and production insurance company approve.

Gill argues that coordinators’ work is both artistic, in that it expresses a character’s personality, and technical, in that it involves intricate design and placement of performers, vehicles, objects and, often, cameras.

The coordinators, who are typically former stunt performers, are often second unit directors as well, since stunt work is usually shot by second units. That dual role means that stunt coordinators are frequently members of the DGA and SAG and/or AFTRA. The performers unions cover stunt performers and coordinators, whereas the DGA covers second unit directors.

SAG has not taken an official position on the stunt coordinators’ request. However, the SAG Awards include two awards for Stunt Ensemble, which honor the stunt performers and coordinators in a movie and a television series respectively. In addition, the Primetime Emmys have an award for Stunt Coordination itself. It’s given at the Creative Arts ceremony, which precedes the main primetime ceremony, typically by a week or so.

Speaking on his own behalf, Conrad Palmisano, chair of the guild’s Stunt and Safety Committee, said “Undeniably, we deserve the award . . I really don’t know why the reluctance.”

In a separate development, SAG will be hosting an evening with stuntman Hal Needham Wednesday. The event, which is for members and guests only, will include a discussion of Needham’s new book, “Stuntman!”

-Joey's Two Cents: I'm all for it...thoughts?

Here are some key dates for the 84th Academy Awards!

Behold:


Thursday, December 1, 2011: Official Screen Credits forms due
Tuesday, December 27, 2011: Nominations ballots mailed
Friday, January 13, 2012: Nominations polls close 5 p.m. PT
Tuesday, January 24, 2012: Nominations announced 5:30 a.m. PT,
Samuel Goldwyn Theater
Wednesday, February 1, 2012: Final ballots mailed
Monday, February 6, 2012: Nominees Luncheon
Saturday, February 11, 2012: Scientific and Technical Awards presentation
Tuesday, February 21, 2012: Final polls close 5 p.m. PT
Sunday, February 26, 2012: 84th Academy Awards presentation

-Joey's Two Cents: Well now we know...thoughts?

Colin Firth won award for Best Actor 2011

The British star, Colin Firth, managed to beat Jeff Bridges and Jesse Eisenberg in the prestigious Hollywood, the Academy Awards. Through his role as King George VI in 'The King's Speech', Firth successfully won the award for best actor.

As reported by the Guardian, Monday, February 28, 2011, Colin Firth since the beginning of the bookies favorite to win an Oscar. Previously, through the same movie, Colin Firth also has won awards at the BAFTA and Golden Globe.

In 'The King's Speech', Colin Firth plays as King George VI who stutter. George VI finally started to be able to communicate well ahead of the second world war.

Last year, 50-year-old actor was also nominated for an Oscar for his role as Tom Ford in the movie 'A Single Man'. But then, he has not won an Oscar.

Now fate has changed. Colin Firth emerged as the winner. He is rid of its competitors such as Jeff Bridges (True Grit), Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), James Franco (127 Hours), and Javier Bardem (Biutiful).