September 29, 2015 at 8:26 am #195065
We see this from time to time in other artistic fields–no final award is given to one of the shortlisted/nominated works. For instance, it happened with the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2012. Obviously the rules are/would be different for a jury/board (as in the Pulitzer decision) than it would be for a massive amount of voters.
With that in mind, are there situations we can think of where Academy voters should not declare an Oscar winner? Should voters have a “no winner” option on their ballots? Should there be rules in place–as there are (kind of) with the Animated Feature race–that require a certain threshold of votes to be met in order for a winner to be announced? Why allow ties–if a clear winner can’t be determined because of a tie why not deem it “no decision” and forego a winner?
Perhaps the easier question is: are there specific past races that you believe no award should have been given provided the 5 nominees voters were asked to choose from?September 29, 2015 at 8:49 am #195067
No, because then Oscar voters would be dicks.September 29, 2015 at 10:55 am #195068
When they had 2 or three nominees for Best Song I think this would have been appropriate (“Man or Muppet”? Ok whatever), but by and large I think the requirement that there be a baseline of eligible entries usually leads to one being of significant merit to be a deserved winner.September 29, 2015 at 11:01 am #195069
Well, original song is the first category that comes to mind…
2011, “Man or Muppet” or “Real in Rio”? Errr….September 29, 2015 at 11:18 am #195071
If you are referring to the ceremony held in 2008 honoring 2007 then yes either the Coens or Jason Reitman or Paul Thomas Anderson are more than acceptable. If you refer to the next year, non nominee Christopher Nolan should have won or Gus Van Sant or even Ron Howard. (That is a tough play to adapt.)September 29, 2015 at 12:08 pm #195072
When you personally hate all the nominees and literally force the voters to ignore the category? Otherwise never.September 29, 2015 at 2:08 pm #195073
Industry would never allow that. That would mean less money.September 29, 2015 at 2:21 pm #195074
but by and large I think the requirement that there be a baseline of eligible entries usually leads to one being of significant merit to be a deserved winner.
yeah, but like, did anyone REALLY deserve to win Best Director in 2008?
On about the year Boyle won? Then Fincher should have won (well, would have got my vote for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and Danny Boyle was a deserved winner too!
On about the year before, when the Coen’s won? Jason Reitman would have had my vote.
Either way, both years did have deserving nominees.