The Hot Blog

They need to treat the nominees as a top 10 list and not "nominees." Then, structure the broadcast around the top 10 like American Idol and gradually count down the vote tabs from #10 to #1 throughout the program to create suspense.

That is an interesting and slightly creepy idea... hmmm....

I don't think the studios (or even the filmmakers) would like that transparency of "best" to "worst" rankings in the top 10. The current all or nothing approach leaves the non-winners in an ok position, but being ranked last or 2nd to last would potentially hurt some. That being said, entertainment-wise I think Mutiny's idea is excellent. I've actually stopped watching the Oscars for the most part since 2005ish. I still catch a few minutes, maybe best picture, but for the most part I find the show to be a real bore, and I'm a movie geek.

mutiny: You've nailed it! After all, the reward is the nomination, so anyone who gets butt hurt for being the first one "voted off" should suck it up and deal.

Brilliant. Now THAT would get ratings.

I'm just waiting for the Vote [Insert Film Here] #2 FYC ads.

mutiny- that is fucking brilliant. It'll never happen, but nicely done.

This whole voting thing reminds me of how college football rankings are decided for some reason. Namely, it's confusing and diluted to me. But my point is, college football is unanimously the most screwed up ranking system known to man and is a constant sore spot for everyone involved. Unless they get seeded #1.

Can you get Kim Morgan to do the math and host the countdown Idol-esque show please?

50% +1 is indeed a mess, but I wouldn't want to use 33&1/3 as the measuring stick, 40%+1 might be better, or in the vein of the 1/6+1 rule to get a nomination, how about 5/11+1 to win (instead of 50%+1). I guess 33&1/3% isn't too bad of a metric in a 10 nom year, but I think it would be a bad metric in years where there are two films that suck up all the attention. What if both Fellowship and Beautiful Mind crossed the 33 1/3 mark during the second round? do you go with which one has a few more votes? But both crossing 40% or 45.45% during the same round would be damn near impossible.

I think, in this year, this system could benefit "Up" and "The Hurt Locker" if they're nominated. Up is beloved, but not enough where a lot of people might vote it number 1. Still, I could see most sticking it high up on their list, unless we see a torrent of quality films in the next few months...

It also (unintentionally perhaps) benefits even smaller films than before. Films that have made less than $20 million often don't have enough votes, because face it, Academy members may not have taken the time to watch. But with ten nominees and a list formula, a small amount of rabid support is more likely to win now....

Looking back at this decade under this formula, one would think "Crash" would have never one over Brokeback because it was so polarizing...it wouldnt have been at the botom of so many lists. I could also see another "Lord of the Rings" film having beaten "A Beautiful Mind" or "Chicago" (the former being more likely)....and "The Insider" perhaps beating "American Beauty."

Also just throwing this out there....but this will make MCN's top tens chart more interesting this year...

I think the idea of increasing the nominations to ten is problematic at best (idiotic at worst). The fact that they have only now moved to adjust the voting procedure bears this out.

Going to ten dilutes the distinction of what "Best" means. As David says, adjusting the "Best" voting "fades from logic".

Also (and forgive me if I have said this here before), we all know that the films that are also been nominated for Best Director will be deemed as more authentic candidates. Going to ten will make it two tiered: those with, those without.

There has only been three times when a Best Picture won without the director being even nominated (Wings, 1927, Grand Hotel, 1931 and Driving Miss Daisy, 1989).

I hope that this decision is short-lived and the Academy gets back to five. And more importantly, I hope they keep their eye on voting for Outstanding Achievements and not concern themselves with TV ratings. I know it brings in revenue, but if they go in that direction now, in a couple of years the whole show will be little different from The People's Choice.

To hell with public taste. We in the public arena already have our voting ballot; it's called the box office.

The thought of an AMERICAN IDOL Oscar show is nauseating. No offense, mutiny.

I agree Pope, and the public has spoken and Transformers 2 is the best film of the year.

You're right, Martin: I walked myself into that one!

Public be damned.

"Looking back at this decade under this formula, one would think 'Crash' would have never won over Brokeback because it was so polarizing...it wouldnt have been at the botom of so many lists."

But Brokeback was just as disputed at the time, and maybe even moreso at that moment. It's only been over the course of time since it won that Crash's reputation has completely disintegrated (due in no small part to the dedicated and unwaivering scorn of its haters year after year) while Brokeback Mountain's has slowly ascended.

Fuzzy math time!

Let's assume a #1 vote distribution similar to what David suggested: 18-16-14-12-10-8-7-6-5-4.

The 10th place movie gets dropped pretty quickly. But then a movie's vote can go up at most 4% -- so nobody can hit 33%, much less 50%. More likely, no one goes up by more than 1%.

So the new distribution might be 19-17-15-13-10-8-7-6-5. Fine, drop another movie. But that's only another 5% to split among eight remaining contenders. Still no one can get near 33%. And so on.

Now, if the threshold is 50.1%, and with the #1 vote distribution given above, it seems that quite often, if not most of the time, you'd only get a winner once you're down to the final two contenders (i.e. Round 9). It's a straight-up vote between the two survivors, only the two survivors might not be the two highest #1 vote-getters (though the two #1 vote-getters would be the favourites). Maybe with a dominant movie like a Return of the King, you'd get a winner earlier (first ballot even), but this might be rare.

The 33.4% threshold would likely be a head-to-head-to-head vote between the last three, or maybe four, standing. Again, these may or may not be the original top three.

A simpler runoff-type system that has the advantage/disadvantage of putting more emphasis on first-place votes would be:
- count the first place votes; keep the top 3 (or some other number)
- on each ballot, whichever of the 3 remaining is the highest gets the vote.
The winner would then be guaranteed at least 33% of the final vote. You could even announce the final three midway through the show, though this would annoy some people.

(Note all the "maybe"s and "likely"s because for all I know, my assumptions about the vote distribution might be way off.)

Stop.

Here's an ever better idea: a calculus professor from MIT can take the stage on Oscar night in front of an overhead projector and do all of the wonderful MATH some of the posters here have been demonstrating for a good ten to fifteen minutes before the Academy unanimously realizes what a profoundly stupid decision it was to double the number of Best Picture nominees.

Hey, Christian, there's this thing you can do when you're reading something and you realize you don't care for it: You can stop reading it and move onto something else.

Haha, props to Wells for linking to The Hot Blog.

I have a solution:

They can/SHOULD just nominate TYSON 10 times and be done with it, because it's the greatest fucking shit ever made. Even if it's part of a worthless genre: documentaries. But if they're gonna nominate some Charlie Tuna cartoon like UP for the highest honor, then Iron Mike and James Motherfucking Toback need to sweep this ceremony and go up there banging two chicks at once and tearing up gambling receipts.

TYSON WILL WIN BEST PICTURE. Or it should. Best movie of '09.

I'm re-posting this, but:

mutinyco's idea is egregiously stupid.

Because, really, who wouldn't love the intrinsic humiliation of being #10? Or even #2?

The number one thing the Oscars can do to improve themselves is stop worrying how to make more people watch them. It stinks of desperation. I don't need the Oscars (at all) but if it went back to being a quiet lunch with no speeches reported over radio, I'd be flipping fine with that rather than turning it into a Price is Right game.

I made some modest proposals to fix the Oscars a while back -- Increase The Big 8 categories (Pic, Dir, Screenplay (x2) and Acting (x4)) to Eight to broaden the pool in toto, state that the BP noms will be broken up 50-50 between Jan-Jun release period films and July-Dec, up the # of cities to play in for qualifying (and include Film Fest Runs) to reduce the insular, coastal end-of-year spasm -- as a spitballing think piece. They're not great ideas. But they're not dumb horserace horseshit like an idiotic "countdown."

A countdown would make for a good show, and a nightmare within the world of Hollywood egos. Nobody would ever want to risk coming in 10th place (or 9th, or 8th...)

Tyson is a pretty good movie, but it won't even get nominated for Best Doc at the Oscars (too much a 'celebration' of a disliked person, The Hangover or no The Hangover).

TYSON BEST DOCUMENTARY EVER MADE, Best Picture at The Oscars, TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.

TYSON POWER. Awesomest dude in the history of the world except Jeremy Piven.

"But Brokeback was just as disputed at the time, and maybe even moreso at that moment. It's only been over the course of time since it won that Crash's reputation has completely disintegrated (due in no small part to the dedicated and unwaivering scorn of its haters year after year) while Brokeback Mountain's has slowly ascended."

"Crash," IMO, was always more polarizing. You had people who really loved it, of course, but more people who just despised it. In the way these rankings would work, there would have been a ton of #10 ratings for "Crash," (or #5 ratings at the time) and I just don't see Brokeback falling behind, say, "Capote" as often. Though we'll never know...

Figures that Lex would consider "awesome" a convicted rapist who was first arrested at 12, has a longer rap sheet than Dillinger, and was too stupid to know that signing with Don King was a bobsled to the poorhouse. Way to pick your role models!

Cadavra, watch the goddamn movie; Half that stuff is BULLSHIT and he's an AWESOME dude. I believe his word on everything in the movie, and the GREATEST PART EVER (other than when he unloads on that hapless white douche who talks shit-- I watched that part SEVEN TIMES in a row)...

Is when TYSON (aka GOD) explains that some people simply DO NOT GET what it's like to HAVE to be either on top in life or at absolute ROCK BOTTOM. FUCK YES. When he explains about how there's no MIDDLE GROUND and he has to be "extreme" at all times, that's what I feel at every second, and if I'm not feeling great and winning at shit, I want to be AS MISERABLE AS POSSIBLE and make everyone else feel that way too. GREAT MOVIE.

That's right: LexG. The White Mike Tyson.

Yes, it's half bullshit! Because a guy who would tell an opponent he'd eat his children, and bite the ear off another, is clearly incapable of rape. Of which he was found guilty. I feel total empathy for the loss of his child, but the facts remain.

Christian, did you see the movie?

Because on this one I agree with Lex (sort of). It's a portrait of a troubled man-child who doesn't know how to be honest with himself. And Toback doesn't press him on any of the big issues, but he also gives him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

It really is a good film.

And yes, there are blatantly obvious reasons why Lex likes it so much.

TOBACK POWER, that dude should do a documentary about ME.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: