Who will get the Honorary Oscars this year...

...via Deadline:

Tuesday night is a big one for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They hold their annual election for president (expect current prexy Tom Sherak to be easily re-elected for his third and final one-year term) and they will choose the 2011 recipients of the Governors Awards, which will be some combination of Honorary Oscars, The Irving G. Thalberg Award and/or the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

At that meeting, Sherak could also tell the board who is going to produce the 84th Annual Academy Awards among the other things that may come up, including proposals to further regulate Oscar-season campaigning and parties (a move inspired by and initiated in part because of my Jan. 7 Deadline article on the issue, I am told by an Academy insider involved with the new proposals).

Even though recipients of last year's 2nd Annual Governors Awards, (Jean-Luc Godard, Eli Wallach, Kevin Brownlow and Thalberg winner Francis Ford Coppola) weren't announced until the last week in August a year ago, Sherak told me he is determined to get this done at the early August meeting this year in order to give Governors Awards producer Phil Robinson more time to put all the logistics of the event together; the ceremony is set for Saturday Nov. 12 and is not televised.

This all leads to the annual game of who will and who should get these prized awards, which were created in 2009 as their own separate show so more of them could be handed out and there would be more time to celebrate the careers of the recipients than during the time-crunched Oscar show. In the recent past, before the creation of the event, the Academy's board had been limiting presentation of the Honorary awards to one per show. The Jean Hersholt Award to Jerry Lewis was the last given, on the (81st) Oscar telecast. Since then, they have handed out the maximum of four of these honors at each Governors Awards dinner. Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman, cinematographer Gordon Willis and Thalberg winner John Calley received the inaugural awards.

In terms of who will win them this year, it's anybody's guess as each of the 43 Governors of every branch has an opportunity to put a name in contention if they wish and a simple majority is generally all that's required to make someone a winner. It's clear the Academy likes diversity, repping all corners of the motion picture arts and sciences, and it seems like they have been favoring people who are still active. Wallach may have been 95 when he finally got his Honorary Oscar last year, but he is also still working.

For years, every time the board set about voting for these honors some subtle (and not-so-subtle) lobbying would take place. Veteran stars like Glenn Ford and Richard Widmark were often mentioned but never got the call despite annual letters and pleas on their behalf. Doris Day's name always comes up in speculation about Honorary Oscars, but it's never happened and the reclusive 87-year-old star hasn't made a film since 1968. Director Jules Dassin had his supporters at one time on the board but went to his grave without getting the big honor. On the other hand, a large profile piece on producer Dino De Laurentiis that was (coincidentally?) placed in the L.A. Times on the morning of the selections in 2000 certainly couldn't have hurt his chances when he was voted the Thalberg later that day.

Should the Academy to decide to award the Thalberg, given strictly for excellence in producing, for a third year in row, names usually bandied about include Alan Ladd Jr and Brian Grazer. Scott Rudin certainly could qualify, but does he have enough supporters? Jerry Bruckheimer's output is probably too "popcorn" to join the join the elite list. As a way of honoring the eight-film Harry Potter they might think about David Heyman, who brought the most successful film series in movie history to fruition -- a true producing feat since there were multiple directors. And isn't it about time a woman was considered? No woman has ever won the Thalberg. Even though there is no precedent for voting these things posthumously, certainly the late Laura Ziskin might qualify. It doesn't hurt that she also produced two Academy Awards telecasts (she would also be a good candidate for the Hersholt for her very public work fighting cancer in recent years). Lauren Shuler Donner's films have made over $3 billion, nothing to sniff at. Kathleen Kennedy might be a consideration too since she has termed off the Board and is eligible this year. Current Board members and Officers do not qualify for Honorary Awards as long as they are serving.

For the actor slot (if there is one this year), un-Oscared names often mentioned are Max Von Sydow, Albert Finney and the incredibly never-even-once nominated quartet of Jeanne Moreau, Maureen O'Hara, Donald Sutherland and Christopher Lee. For my money, 83-year-old James Garner is completely deserving and well-liked even though he was only Oscar-nominated once in his long career (for 1985's Murphy's Romance). The 81-year-old Christopher Plummer, who received his first acting nomination for The Last Station just two years ago, is another name sometimes mentioned, but he has a shot to actually take Best Supporting Actor this year for Beginners so he's an unlikely choice here. In the dawn of the new Hudson era, I can think of no more appropiate and deserving recipient than 81-year-old Gena Rowlands, not only a greatly admired talent but someone who represents the true spirit of gutsy, independent filmmaking by way of the collaborations with her late husband John Cassavetes (Dawn Hudson's former Film Independent even had a special Spirit Award in the Cassavetes name). An Oscar for her would also be a tip of the hat to him. Previously, she has been Oscar nominated only twice and both times for Cassavetes films: Gloria and A Woman Under the Influence.

Director choices might include six-time nominee Peter Weir or three-time directing nominee James Ivory among others who have always been bridesmaids in the competition.

The last Honorary Oscar to a screenwriter was in 2000 to Ernest Lehman. The board might seriously consider the prolific 79-year-old Jean-Claude Carriere, whose numerous collaborations with Luis Bunuel alone would qualify him not to mention movies like The Return Of Martin Guerre, The Tin Drum, Cyrano De Bergerac, Taking Off, Borsalino, Viva Maria and many others. In fact, he has an astounding 136 writing credits listed on IMDb and three previous Oscar nominations shared with Bunuel on The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie andThat Obscure Object of Desire and with Philip Kaufman on The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Carriere actually did win a statuette near the beginning of his career in 1962 as co-producer (under the name J.C. Carriere) of a live-action short, Heureux Anniversaire, which he also wrote and directed.

Of course, being an Oscar winner already does not disqualify you from winning an Honorary Award. Sophia Loren got one in 1990 despite already having won Best Actress 29 years earlier for Two Women, as did 1963 Best Actor winner Sidney Poitier 10 years ago. Laurence Olivier received one in 1978 despite having won Best Actor forHamlet 30 years earlier. A very controversial Honorary Oscar was given to director Elia Kazan in 1998 even though he previously already had won two directing statuettes for Gentlemen's Agreement and On The Waterfront. Usually, though, the Honorarys are given to make up for egregious oversights as in the case of Cary Grant, Deborah Kerr, Kirk Douglas, Art director Robert Boyle, composers Alex North and Ennio Morricone, cinematographer Willis and on and on. Perhaps it is time to give one to a sound designer? Kevin O'Connell has had 20 nominations and not a single win (except as a governor of the Sound branch, he is disqualified this year).

Not everyone is thrilled when they get the call. Seven-time loser Peter O'Toole had to be talked into coming to get his in 2002 because he thought it meant he wouldn't have a chance to win one in the future ("Since I am still in the game, I would rather try to win one on my own," he said before finally agreeing to show up). Of course, that isn't always the case: O'Toole received his eighth nomination four years later for Venus (though not a win), and both Henry Fonda and Paul Newman won competitive Best Actor Oscars the year after the Academy jumped the gun and gave them Honorary Awards.

Despite the speculation of "who should" or "who shouldn't," the Academy's board is always capable of surprising us. All Sherak would tell me is "there are a lot of interesting names" coming up so far for the board vote Tuesday. When I asked for one example, he said he would tell me but he'd have to kill me.

OK, we'll just have to wait and see. Any suggestions to help the board in their quest?

-Joey's Two Cents: I have no clue who I'd pick, what about you?

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?

Keep the ACCA votes coming!

With voting coming to an end very shortly, the time is now to get your final say in what the best of 2001 was. You the Awards Circuit reader has always been an interesting voter in the Awards Circuit Community Awards, so keep that trend going! Go here to vote and let your voice be heard. Feel free to use this as a last minute For Your Consideration thread...and once again, happy voting!

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?