March 7, 2014 at 7:14 am #146002
Sorry if this question has been posted before, but I wanted to bring it up now that the Oscars are over.
Would there be anything wrong with the Oscar voting results being released after an extended period of time? I’m thinking at least 25 or 30 years, or perhaps even 50 years. It would primarily be for the benefit of film historians, entertainment journalists and awards enthusiasts. After a long period of time, would the winners and losers really care if they learned that they had only barely won, or if they had lost badly? Would anyone really be harmed by learning the results so many years later?
By the way, I’ve always understood that the final results are not actually recorded by the accountants – they only memorize the winners. So can we assume that there are no secret documents which contain the voting results of years’ past? If anyone has more insight into this, please do share.
I know that this is not going to happen, but wouldn’t you look forward to the year 2048 if it meant learning how many votes separated Best Picture winner “Shakespeare in Love” from “Saving Private Ryan?”
March 7, 2014 at 7:39 am #146004
I’d be in full support of that.
I don’t see any problem with releasing the results 10 or 20 years after the fact.March 7, 2014 at 9:26 am #146005
I’d imagine the biggest problem the Academy would have with recording the votes is that it would increase the probability of a leak before the Oscars or shortly afterwards. But then again, with online voting, some of this information is already being recorded and is succeptible to the same security issues (it could be hacked and leaked). So as long as they are going to continue the current system where a large number of the votes could plausibly be tallied up beforehand by an insider or foreign party, there isn’t any greater security issue with holding onto the data. Their accountants just have to be really paranoid about security.March 7, 2014 at 9:34 am #146006
No. At the end of the day, it’s not that important.March 7, 2014 at 9:47 am #146007
No. It would change the results.
People who have friends or worked for studios or were part of films would be far more likely to vote for them rather than subject them to embarassment of a low total. It would have a major negative impact, even if delayed for years.March 7, 2014 at 9:59 am #146008
Yeah, it would only create more problems, especially in close races. So no, they should not.March 7, 2014 at 10:03 am #146009
I don’t think so. It would be kind of discouraging to see how low you are compared to another guy who you thought gave a “worse performance”. If they did, and if hypothetically, Leo DiCaprio was 5th place on every one, I would start to feel discouraged after a while of getting 5th place on the ballot in every year.March 7, 2014 at 10:07 am #146010
No. Imagine how heartbreaking it would be for someone to find out they came dead last?March 7, 2014 at 10:13 am #146011
I would love the results to be released and see no good reason that they shouldn’t be (Assuming they still exist) but not 10 or 20 years later.
For example it would be great if they released them all up until 1934 (80 years ago) and then each year thereafter released one more. Admittedly I’ll be dead before we find out that Viola was never in contention in 2011 or that Lupita won by a landslide but I’d certainly love to know the numbers for Judy beating Gloria and Bette,March 7, 2014 at 10:18 am #146012
Past records don’t exist. They are destroyed within a couple years of the count.March 7, 2014 at 10:36 am #146013
Past records don’t exist. They are destroyed within a couple years of the count.
If this is true, then there really is no point in releasing them at all. I’ve always been against this idea of releasing them, because the idea of being nominated is that it should be an honour, even if you don’t win. If they are released, there is an even greater importance on winning. If they start releasing them, they may as well just give out medals like the Olympics. I don’t care about the results, just keep destroying them after the ceremony.
Come participate in this year's Goldderby Rankings! http://www.goldderby.com/forum/movies/2017-goldderby-rankings/March 7, 2014 at 10:50 am #146014
I don’t believe for one minute that someone, somewhere hasn’t kept hold of them.March 7, 2014 at 11:07 am #146015
This is one place where the Academy has 100% credibility. They never see them. Their contract with PWC includes that they have responsibility for destroying them. I don’t believe for one minute that they exist.
The proof? Somehow, somewhere it would have leaked. It hasn’t.March 7, 2014 at 11:12 am #146016
Wasn’t the idea of limiting BP to 5-9 films three years ago because of AMPAS’s analysis of the past nominations ballots?March 7, 2014 at 1:34 pm #146017
Good catch – they said at the time that they had decided years earlier to do an initial test (with no names attached to the entries so no one outside PWC knew who got the votes), so they did for several years, then destroyed them at the normal time. (This came up as an issue then, and was explained).