Academy drastically changes best picture voting rules
According to a new post from Steve Pond over at The Wrap, instead of simply voting for their favorite film for best picture next year, Academy voters will rank all 10 nominees in order of preference. If a single film receives more than 50% of the #1 votes, it will be the winner. If there is no such film, the film receiving the fewest number of #1 votes will be eliminated and that film’s ballots will be redistributed to the film marked #2 on each ballot. This procedure will continue until one film has more than 50% of the votes.
It’s a procedure similar to that used during the nomination process and, according to Academy executive director Bruce Davis, it’s being instituted to ensure that the expanded nominee pool doesn’t allow for a film with only a small percentage of votes to win. With a membership of less than 6000, it’s conceivable a film with 600 votes could win the Oscar under the 1-vote system with ten nominees.
What does it all mean? I have no idea. It’s sure to stir up controversy among those who follow this kind of thing, but I don’t know if it’ll have a visible impact on the proceedings. I imagine it’ll mean more films spending more money on Oscar campaigns since a film could potentially win with fewer #1 votes yet lots of 2s and 3s and 4s, but that’s just speculation on my part.
Filed under: Awards
Wow, that’s kind of huge! First I’ve heard of it, too.
First impressions, it sounds like it will be a good thing, since unless there’s a slam-dunk #1 winner, the films will have to have broader support than in the past.
Smart, too. Broader support = more marketing dollars.
Well, there are so many people out there who haven’t yet accepted the ten choices, that this further specification won’t alter the general opinion. But I agree with Jenny here as there is at least some attempt at making the final choice a well-scrutinized one. Yes, the decision does indeed portend broader support and marketing dollars. It makes it seem like a well-orchestrated scheme. Ha!
I disagree Sam. I’m not a fan of the 10 picture rule, but this at least goes a long way toward ensuring a mediocrity doesn’t slip through with 11% of the vote.
I’d even go so far as to say I’m at peace with having 10 nominees. It was a crass attempt to resuscitate the broadcast, but now at least it does no harm and in the end more people will be excited about the nominees.
Craig, I don’t disagree with what you say and didn’t in my orginal comment. I merely stated that some will oppose any decision because they are against the whole idea in the first place. But what you say there is correct–with this system no mediocrity can slip in, and in that sense, whatever other undercurrents are afoot, the decision seems sound.
I’m no statistician but that sounds like a good solution to a potential problem. I still don’t care for the ten nominee thing, but at least this seems to ensure the winner is truly the winner by consensus and not accident.
Man, wouldn’t you love to be in on the vote counting each year at (I think) Price Waterhouse Coopers? I’m sure there must be some controversy there in the vote counting in years past that we’re not privy to. I wonder how they deal with hanging chads?
I still would like to know how it happened that with thousands of votes cast that Katherine Hepburn and Barbara Streisand got the exact same number of votes in 1968 to tie for the Best Actress prize?!? In the early days, the Academy rules stated that when one candidate came within THREE votes of the other a tie would be declared. In 1932, Wallace Beery (“The Champ”) came within one vote of Frederic March’s “Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde” performance, so a “tie” was declared. The modern rules were revised so that a “tie” would have to be an exact one.
Stop throwing number 1s and 2s at us, Craig. Some of it might stick!