The Oscars are moving towards online voting?

Deadline says yes:

Oscar's move to online voting is off and running.

The Academy confirms that a very impressive 83% of the membership had returned cards requesting their email address by the deadline date of June 30, but an Academy spokesperson assured me "it's an ongoing process" so if you were one of the stragglers, get that email to the membership department.

This is a first step in a very methodical and careful move to online voting for the Academy just as most other guilds and voting orgs have already done. And it is also a first step toward potentially moving the Oscar telecast up earlier in the season to the end of January or beginning of February. An expedited voting process would certainly help make that difficult prospect easier to pull off.

The Acad sent out the request to members in May and considering the advanced age of some AMPAS voters the response is encouraging. Common wisdom is that older voters might be the most resistant to change but officials are happy with the way potential online voting is being embraced so far.

As I wrote recently there was also some concern about A-listers not providing their direct emails which is a problem because the Academy does not want to put an electronic ballot in the hands of Brad Pitt or Barbra Streisand's assistants (even though it's no secret that there are some assistants who have been known to help their boss by filling the snail mail ballots out anyway). Academy President Tom Sherak tells me confidently that even that part of the process is now "going fairly well" too.

Sherak says the Academy hopes to have a firm that can conduct online voting in place by this month and they are actively involved now in the selection procedure for that. "We're getting closer" is how Sherak puts it but he emphasized to me that online voting for Oscars will not be ready for next year's 84th Academy Awards. He says they are taking a very methodical approach and after securing a firm will begin testing by putting some kind of vote online while still using paper ballots (which will be the only ones that count in the test case) to see how the online method is initially received. Then they will probably test it again leading to its first official use , perhaps in the selection of Governors for the Board next May.

"It will not be implemented until we're sure it works, but all of this preparation is necessary so we can move it methodically into a proper voting cycle for the Oscars," he says. Sherak adds they are aware that even though they want to move this process online some members don't have emails. The Academy will be providing an alternative for those concerned voters (likely the old standby paper ballot) just as the guilds do now.

"We will give all our members an opportunity to be part of something they have always been a part of," Sherak says meaning no one among the approximate 6,000 voting members are about to be disenfranchised by new technology creeping into the notoriously slow-to-change Academy.

Of course many of those members already have experience voting online in their various Guild contests since most Acad voters are also likely Guild voters. The bigger problem here I think for the Academy is that unlike all of those contests, Oscar, being the highest profile awards show of them all may provide an irresisible target for hackers - and the Academy knows it. A key reason they are being to careful about diving into online voting is the danger of having its air-tight voting system compromised. After all Wikileaks proves no one, even the most closed doors of the U.S. government are immune to a cyber violation of its top secrets.

One Oscar voter who is also a consultant for some high profile Academy campaigns says "it's not a bad idea to go online but what kid with a computer is not gonna want to play around and try to fuck up the Oscars. It's also tough jolting an old institution which doesn't embrace change that easily."

AMPAS Board member and Foreign Language Film committee head, producer Mark Johnson told me, "certainly the biggest problem could be the hackers. If they can get into the government and the banks, what about the Academy?"

One wag who also is a top distribution guy mused , "just imagine an Oscar hungry mogul calling one of their Chinese friends to hack into the system to check how voting is going on one of their movies". He was being facetious of course, but the potential for hacking is there.

There's no question the Oscars are unique but in their 83 year history no one has ever managed to get the actual vote totals. The integrity of the balloting run by Price Waterhouse Coopers is beyond reproach. It would be a great temptation and triumph for some enterprising internet thief to try and crack it and a major black eye for the Academy if that ever happened. Sherak told me the credibility of the Academy's voting system is everything so this is not an organization taking the natural move into online voting lightly.

Neither it appears is that other Academy that will be in the news this week , The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences which announces its primetime Emmy nominations on Thursday. Although part of their nominating process is done largely online with listings of various show and individual entries available on a protected website, the actual voting is still done using a number two pencil and a computer ballot that must be mailed in to the TV Acad's accounting firm. In fact according the Acad's veteran senior VP awards, John Leverance those accountants, Ernst and Young are not urging them to make the move online too quickly.

"What they've told us is , the current state of Web security is insufficient to guarantee a hack-free system. We've seen how successful hackers have been just in the past few weeks in having their way with CBS, PBS, the CIA. It's been a real horror story. The sorry state of online security has certainly been borne out by recent news events," says Leverance adding that any sort of meaningful move to online voting might be premature because "cold reality would seem to preclude taking that step".

Leverance says ATAS would love to make the move just for convenience. "It would make for a much more efficient way of doing things. But when you have a razor-thin margin separating first place vote-getters form second place vote-getters, it's difficult to justify risking the integrity of the awards with a system that doesn't seem quite ready. Given the current state of the technology, we're inclined to stick with our antiquated system for the time being," even as the exec does acknowledge that their practice of the last few years in putting the entry ballots on the website in tandem with mailing of the actual hand-written computer ballots has proven to be relatively glitch-free. So has the 'For Your Consideration' service ATAS offers to members on the web. "We're able to post episodes of series for video-on-demand viewing , for example. That technology has greatly improved now , to the point where any technical issues generally are directly related to the bitrate people have on their home computer. We're providing a stream that works pretty well on any modern computer, " he says.

And with final balloting for Emmys, ATAS is different than AMPAS in the sense only a relative few Academy members vote in each category, including programs like Comedy or Drama series, since DVD screeners are sent to voters who volunteer to judge no more than two or three categories with ballots sent along with them to be returned by a certain date. The Emmys have an advantage of having more time between nominations and awards too, generally two months. The Oscars have only a month at best. Moving to online voting could give them some precious extra time , essential if the show is to move earlier in the season.

Unlike these two high profile Academys , most other voting orgs are online including the Guilds. Gregg Mitchell at the Writers Guild confirmed to me that they have been conducting online voting for their main movie awards, original and adapted screenplay, for several years with no problems (their TV categories are judged differently by smaller groups reading scripts). Of course these are writers who are used to sitting in front of a computer all day. If a member requests a paper ballot though the Guild provides one.

The Screen Actors Guild, which yesterday opened the submissions process for this year's contest, operates the same way and has been allowing online voting for its nearly 100,000 members for the past six years.

It's a challenge for a union with so many members, particularly thesps who may not be sophisticated in the ways of the internet. SAG President Ken Howard told me " voting with a computer can be difficult enough but so can paper ballots. I know a lot of actors who don't even have mailboxes."

Some controversy erupted last season when the Guild decided to eliminate automatic mailing of a paper ballot unless a member responded to a postcard that said paper ballots would only be sent to those who requested them by a certain date. This caused confusion for members who were not paying close attention and to some publicists and awards consultants who became concerned that hundreds, maybe thousands, of voters might be disenfranchised because they didn't know they had to respond in order to get a paper ballot . One consultant told me she thinks only about 65% of the guild's members are even online at all and directed some of those "to internet cafes" when it was clear they missed the deadline for obtaining the paper ballot. The Guild doesn't produce figures or reveal percentages of paper vs online voting results but SAG awards publicist Rosalind Jarrett said they repeatedly informed members online, in press releases, in their monthly magazine and through mailings and are confident the word got out. The guild also put on extra staff whose sole job was to answer phone inquiries about the balloting rules and downloading contending movies online. The postcard that was sent included a pin needed for online voting and a "Movie Code" needed for the downloads.

Jarrett admits the latter did involve " a learning curve" for the Guild as many members who couldn't figure out how to vote online really couldn't dicipher how to get movies downloaded on to their computer and last year was the first time some studios decided to try it. To overcome this handicap some distribs decided to also send physical DVD copies of their films (Eventual winner The King's Speech was one of those) although a mailing of that size can cost up to $300,000 vs the cost-effective but frustrating downloading procedure. Jarrett says the downloading idea was the studios , not SAGs but the guild is happy to encourage and assist in any way their nominees can be seen -- the big screen, DVD screeners, downloading or any other way they can.

Regarding online balloting Jarrett says, "every year it gets better and better with fewer questions. We encourage our members to vote online," and she adds it is a very secure process, conducted by a company also involved in Government elections, because to do it requires information only a member will know. One reason the guild originally embraced the online model was to save money on postage and what Jarrett describes as "three tons of paper" that were used for the long involved ballots listing hundreds of contenders who entered the SAG contest. She also says by voting online it gives voters more time to see films and TV shows as ballots don't have to be due until the Friday before the Sunday telecast. And as for complaints , she adds that no major objections were voiced at a meeting after last year's awards which the guild holds annually to solicit feedback from publicists and others with a horse in the race. SAG plans no major changes to its process this year and will continue finding ways to keep their membership informed, Jarrett says.

One very involved and prominent SAG member I talked to who is also a voting member of the Academy's actor's branch said she thinks the Acad's move to online balloting is a good idea because it will be simpler. As for SAG with its longer ballot she had a different opinion. "I called for a paper ballot last year because the whole thing looked confusing to me since you're supposed to keep the postcard they send and use a pin number and I wasn't sure how to do it. I think a lot of people thought they were gonna get a ballot and they didn't understand the card, but I don't know if you can blame anybody for that. Actors like to read for roles, they don't like to read their mail."

Hopefully for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences the move into online voting will be a smooth one but in the fast changing 'wild wild west' of the internet nothing is as easy as it looks on paper.

-Joey's Two Cents: I think it might preclude some older voters from getting involved, but overall it doesn't bother me...thoughts?

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 invites 178 new members!

Behold the press release:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is extending invitations to join the organization to 178 artists and executives who have distinguished themselves by their contributions to theatrical motion pictures. Those who accept the invitation will be the only additions in 2011 to the Academy’s roster of members.

“These individuals are among the best filmmakers working in the industry today,” said Academy President Tom Sherak. “Their talent and creativity have entertained moviegoers around the world, and I welcome each of them to our ranks.”

The Academy’s membership policies would have allowed a maximum of 211 new members in 2011, but as in other recent years, several branch committees endorsed fewer candidates than were proposed to them. Voting membership in the organization has now held steady at just under 6,000 members since 2003.

In an unprecedented gesture, the list of new members includes documentary filmmaker Tim Hetherington, who was killed in action in Libya in April. Hetherington had been a 2010 nominee for his film “Restrepo,” but died prior to the Academy’s spring meetings to select new members. The Documentary Branch proposed that Hetherington’s name be included among the year’s invitees. The governors agreed.

The 2011 invitees are:

Actors

Russell Brand – “Arthur,” “Get Him to the Greek”

Gerard Butler – “The Ugly Truth,” “300”

Vincent Cassel – “Black Swan,” “Eastern Promises”

Robbie Coltrane – “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1,” “Mona Lisa”

Bradley Cooper – “Limitless,” “The Hangover”

John Corbett – “Sex and the City 2,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”

Rosemarie DeWitt – “The Company Men,” “Rachel Getting Married”

Peter Dinklage – “Find Me Guilty,” “The Station Agent”

David Duchovny – “Things We Lost in the Fire,” “The X-Files”

Jesse Eisenberg – “The Social Network,” “The Squid and the Whale”

Jennifer Garner – “Arthur,” “Juno”

John Hawkes – “Winter’s Bone,” “The Perfect Storm”

Thomas Jane – “The Mist,” “The Thin Red Line”

Nastassja Kinski – “An American Rhapsody,” “Tess”

Beyonce Knowles – “Dreamgirls,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember”

Mila Kunis – “Black Swan,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”

Jennifer Lawrence – “Winter’s Bone,” “The Burning Plain”

Tea Leoni – “Ghost Town,” “Spanglish”

Anthony Mackie – “The Hurt Locker,” “Million Dollar Baby”

Lesley Manville – “Another Year,” “Topsy-Turvy”

Rooney Mara – “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” “The Social Network”

Dominic Monaghan – “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

Connie Nielsen – “Brothers,” “Gladiator”

Ellen Page – “Inception,” “Juno”

Wes Studi – “Avatar,” “The Last of the Mohicans”

Mia Wasikowska – “Jane Eyre,” “The Kids Are All Right”

Jacki Weaver – “Animal Kingdom,” “Cosi”

Animators

Geefwee Boedoe – “Let’s Pollute,” “Monsters, Inc.”

Alessandro Carloni – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Over the Hedge”

Sylvain Chomet – “The Illusionist,” “The Triplets of Belleville”

Jakob Hjort Jensen – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Flushed Away”

Biljana Labovic – “The Cow Who Wanted to Be a Hamburger,” “Idiots and Angels”

Tomm Moore – “The Secret of Kells,” “Backwards Boy”

Teddy Newton – “Day & Night,” “Ratatouille”

Bob Peterson – “Up,” “Finding Nemo” (also invited to the Writers Branch)

Javier Recio Gracia – “The Lady and the Reaper,” “The Missing Lynx”

Andrew Ruhemann – “The Lost Thing,” “City Paradise”

Kristof Serrand – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas”

Shaun Tan – “The Lost Thing,” “Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!”

Simon Wells – “Mars Needs Moms,” “The Prince of Egypt”

Art Directors

Anahid Nazarian – “The Virgin Suicides,” “The Godfather, Part III”

Lauren E. Polizzi – “Cowboys & Aliens,” “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”

At-Large

George Aguilar

Barry Bernardi

Christopher Dodd

Ted Gagliano

James L. Honore

Dawn Hudson

Beverly Pasterczyk

Randall Poster

Ric Robertson

David Schnuelle

Randy Spendlove

Beverly Joanna Wood

Casting Directors

Nina Gold – “The King’s Speech,” “Jane Eyre”

Jina Jay – “The Reader,” “Layer Cake”

Lora Kennedy – “The Town,” “Syriana”

Cinematographers

Frank Byers – “Illegal Tender,” “Boxing Helena”

Patrick Cady – “Lottery Ticket,” “Broken Bridges”

Danny Cohen – “The King’s Speech,” “Pirate Radio”

Lukas Ettlin – “The Lincoln Lawyer,” “Middle Men”

Steven Fierberg – “Love & Other Drugs,” “Secretary”

Barry Markowitz – “Crazy Heart,” “Sling Blade”

Charles Minsky – “Valentine’s Day,” “Pretty Woman”

Lawrence Sher – “The Hangover,” “Garden State”

Eric Steelberg – “Up in the Air,” “(500) Days of Summer”

Costume Designers

Odile Dicks-Mireaux – “An Education,” “The Constant Gardener”

Sarah Edwards – “Salt,” “Michael Clayton”

Danny Glicker – “Up in the Air,” “Milk”

Directors

Gregg Araki – “Kaboom,” “Nowhere”

Susanne Bier – “In a Better World,” “After the Wedding”

Neil Burger – “Limitless,” “The Illusionist”

Lisa Cholodenko – “The Kids Are All Right,” “Laurel Canyon” (also invited to the Writers Branch)

Debra Granik – “Winter’s Bone,” “Down to the Bone” (also invited to the Writers Branch)

Tom Hooper – “The King’s Speech,” “The Damned United”

John Cameron Mitchell – “Rabbit Hole,” “Shortbus”

Yojiro Takita – “Departures,” “Himitsu”

Documentary

Jon Alpert – “China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province,” “Lock-up: The Prisoners of Rikers Island”

Amir Bar-Lev – “The Tillman Story,” “Fighter”

Lesley Chilcott – “Waiting for ‘Superman’,” “It Might Get Loud”

Carl Deal – “Capitalism: A Love Story,” “Trouble the Water”

Charles Ferguson – “Inside Job,” “No End in Sight”

Tim Hetherington – “Restrepo” (posthumous)

Sebastian Junger – “Restrepo”

Thomas Lennon – “The Warriors of Qiugang,” “The Blood of Yingzhou District”

Diane Weyermann – “Waiting for ‘Superman’,” “Food, Inc.”

Ruby Yang – “The Blood of Yingzhou District,” “The Warriors of Qiugang”

Executives

William J. Damaschke

Richard M. Fay

Donna Langley

Leslie Moonves

Vanessa L. Morrison

Bill Pohlad

Rich Ross

Jeff Small

Thomas Tull

Film Editors

Tariq Anwar – “The King’s Speech,” “American Beauty”

Naomi Geraghty – “Limitless,” “Reservation Road”

Jon Harris – “127 Hours,” “Layer Cake”

Darren Holmes – “How to Train Your Dragon,” “The Iron Giant”

Pamela Martin – “The Fighter,” “Little Miss Sunshine”

Joel Negron – “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” “The Karate Kid”

Terilyn A. Shropshire – “Jumping the Broom,” “Eve’s Bayou”

Angus Wall – “The Social Network,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

Andrew Weisblum – “The Black Swan,” “The Wrestler”

Live Action Short Films

Luke Matheny – “God of Love,” “Earano”

Makeup Artists and Hairstylists

Judy Chin – “Black Swan,” “Requiem for a Dream”

Kathrine Gordon – “3:10 to Yuma,” “Ocean’s Eleven”

Trefor Proud – “W.,” “Topsy-Turvy”

Cindy Jane Williams – “Burlesque,” “Hancock”

Wesley Wofford – “Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son,” “A Beautiful Mind”

Music

Terence Blanchard – “Inside Man,” “Malcolm X”

Fernand Bos – “Crazy Heart,” “Cold Mountain”

Graeme Revell – “Darfur Now,” “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”

Producers

Iain Canning – “Oranges and Sunshine,” “The King’s Speech”

Cean Chaffin – “The Social Network,” “Fight Club”

Kevin Feige – “Thor,” “Iron Man”

Gary Goetzman – “Where the Wild Things Are,” “Mamma Mia!”

Sisse Graum Jorgensen – “In a Better World,” “After the Wedding”

Jeffrey Levy-Hinte – “The Kids Are All Right,” “Laurel Canyon”

Todd Lieberman – “The Fighter,” “The Proposal”

Robert Lorenz – “Letters from Iwo Jima,” “Mystic River”

Celine Rattray – “The Kids Are All Right,” “Grace Is Gone”

Emile Sherman – “The King’s Speech,” “Candy”

Emma Thomas – “Inception,” “The Dark Knight”

Gareth Unwin – “The King’s Speech,” “Exam”

Production Designers

Howard Cummings – “I Love You, Beth Cooper,” “John Grisham’s The Rainmaker”

Therese DePrez – “Black Swan,” “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”

Guy Hendrix Dyas – “Inception,” “The Brothers Grimm”

Jess Gonchor – “True Grit,” “Capote”

Jane Musky – “Something Borrowed,” “Finding Forrester”

Eve Stewart – “The King’s Speech,” “Topsy-Turvy”

Public Relations

Susan Ciccone

Alissa Grayson

Jeffrey Hall

Jill Ann Jones

Mark Markline

Carmelo Pirrone

Ira Rubenstein

David Schneiderman

Loren Schwartz

Lance Volland

Set Decorators

Judy Farr – “The King’s Speech,” “Death at a Funeral”

Gene Serdena – “The Fighter,” “House of Sand and Fog”

Sound

Andrew DeCristofaro – “Hall Pass,” “Crazy Heart”

Joe Dorn – “The Wolfman,” “Spider-Man 3”

Marc Fishman – “Bridesmaids,” “Crash”

Lora Hirschberg – “Inception,” “The Dark Knight”

Chris Jargo – “Robin Hood,” “American Gangster”

John Midgley – “The King’s Speech,” “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace”

Ed Novick – “Inception,” “The Dark Knight”

Hammond Peek – “King Kong,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”

Brian Vessa – “Nemesis,” “Lambada”

Mark Weingarten – “The Social Network,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

Visual Effects

Tim Alexander – “Rango,” “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”

Rob Bredow – “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” “The Polar Express”

Tim Burke – “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1,” “Gladiator”

Peter Chesney – “No Country for Old Men,” “Men in Black”

Paul Franklin – “Inception,” “The Dark Knight”

Kevin Tod Haug – “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” “Quantum of Solace”

Florian Kainz – “Mission: Impossible III,” “The Perfect Storm”

Marshall Krasser – “Iron Man 2,” “Titanic”

Sean Phillips – “Alice in Wonderland,” “The Polar Express”

Peter G. Travers – “Watchmen,” “The Matrix Reloaded”

Brian Van't Hul – “Coraline,” “I, Robot”

Mark H. Weingartner – “Sex and the City 2,” “Inception”

Writers

Stuart Blumberg – “The Kids Are All Right,” “Keeping the Faith”

Lisa Cholodenko – “The Kids Are All Right,” “Laurel Canyon” (also invited to the Directors Branch)

Debra Granik – “Winter’s Bone,” “Down to the Bone” (also invited to the Directors Branch)

Karen McCullah Lutz – “The Ugly Truth,” “Legally Blonde”

Aline Brosh McKenna – “27 Dresses,” “The Devil Wears Prada”

Bob Peterson – “Up,” “Finding Nemo” (also invited to the Short Films and Feature Animation Branch)

David Rabe – “The Firm,” “Casualties of War”

Anne Rosellini – “Winter’s Bone”

David Seidler – “The King’s Speech,” “The King & I”

Scott Silver – “The Fighter,” “8 Mile”

Kirsten Smith – “The Ugly Truth,” “Legally Blonde”

Aaron Sorkin – “The Social Network,” “A Few Good Men”

Daniel Waters – “Batman Returns,” “Heathers”

Additionally, the Academy invited John Coffey, Risa Gertner and Robert C. Rosenthal to Associate membership. Associate members are not represented on the Board and do not have Academy Awards® voting privileges.

Individuals invited to join multiple branches must select one branch upon accepting membership. New members will be welcomed into the Academy at an invitation-only reception in September.

-Joey's Two Cents: Congrats to the new members!

Oscar goes electronic?

Deadline has the story:

The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences just confirmed to me that it sent out a letter Thursday to all members that electronic voting for Oscars will be implemented "as early as this year, and will certainly by in effect by next year. ... At some point, once the system is up and running, mailed ballots will be eliminated." The letter from AMPAS director of membership Kimberly Roush asked members for a personal email address that goes directly to them and not to an assistant or agent or manager or other intermediary. This is the first step towards the Academy moving up the Oscars to January so it won't be the last awards show televised. Of course, other awards shows could move even earlier.

-Joey's Two Cents: It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I could be wrong...thoughts?