Home Forums Movies What do you think of sliding scale of Best Picture nominees?

What do you think of sliding scale of Best Picture nominees?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
14
replies
670
views
14
users
1
1
1
  • Paul Sheehan
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188811

    So much for all the chatter that the Oscars would return to a slate of just five films for Best Picture. On Tuesday, the academy board of governors endorsed the current system of between five and 10 nominees as determined by a preferential ballot.

    This variable number of nominees has been in place since 2012 and followed two years of a guaranteed 10 contenders. Under the sliding scale, there were three years of nine nominees and then eight in the running last year. 

    Do you like not knowing how many Best Picture nominees there will be until the announcement is made? 

    Perhaps you prefer that the number be fixed at 10 as it was in 2010 and 2011 and had been first in 1933 and then between 1936 and 1943.

    Maybe you wish the academy had reverted back to five nominees, as had been the case between 1929 and 1931 and then again between 1944 and 2008.

    Then again, you might like to have an even dozen films in the running as there were in 1934 and 1935.

    Sound off below. 

    Reply
    ETPhoneHome
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 3rd, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188813

    I like this system, though I know I’m in the minority on this one. It adds a bit of excitement to the race when it comes time for the nominees to be announced. I’d be fine if they went back to a straight ten or straight five, but I think this system is designed to ensure that all the nominees earn their spot, with no accusations of ‘filler nominees’.

    ReplyCopy URL
    CAROL-CHANNING
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 30th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188814

    I definitely like this system.  I’m happy it’s staying put.

    ReplyCopy URL
    FilmGuy619
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 13th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188815

    I don’t hate this decision. But I think the category should be fixed at 10. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    SamEckmann
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Jan 17th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188816

    I personally think it should be fixed at ten. Or at least fixed at something. The sliding number of nominees, and the voting rules that accompany it, allow voters to effectively “vote against” films.  Everything is more clear cut when the number is fixed. Nine nominees? weird. Especially since we all can consistently name worthy films the Academy leaves out which could take the last slot. Nearly every entertainment publication/website unveils a year end “Top 10” list. Why shouldn’t the Oscars?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Guest2014
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188817

    IF the Oscars continue to pander to the arthouse circuit, the ones seen only at film festivals and not much else, as Whiplash, Birdman and Boyhood, you’re going to keep getting 10% declines in total and demo ratings.  The awards have to be a balance between the arthouse and the mainstream, but only if the mainstream hits are appreciated by fans and critics alike.  The three lowest-rated Oscars are the ones who had the least # of people see the movies (Hurt Locker, 2009, The Artist, 2011 and Birdman).  


    Adapt or die, Brad Pitt’s Billy Beane said in Moneyball.  Time for AMPAS to heed his words. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188818

    They need to make it back to an even 10. It would be more beneficial for indies and blockbusters and add more variety to the slate. Last year’s slate was so boring besides Whiplash and Grand Budapest. Another group of feel good bio pics, war, and Boyhood and Birdman but if you threw in some darker films like Foxcatcher, Gone Girl, or Nightcrawler it would have at least looked like a year in film rather than the same old same old. I think 2010’s slate of nominees is the perfect example of how 10 nominees work. It had a variety of genres and a movie for everyone and you could ask many different kinds of people what their favorite movie of 2010 was an more than likely one of those movies fit the bill. But you know what, I’m just happy it was changed back to 5. Just boring after boring slates of nominees would come from that 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Patrick
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 18th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188819

    I agree with Kyle. I like a solid 10, not a sliding scale.

    ReplyCopy URL
    24Emmy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188820

    IF the Oscars continue to pander to the arthouse circuit, the ones seen only at film festivals and not much else, as Whiplash, Birdman and Boyhood, you’re going to keep getting 10% declines in total and demo ratings.  The awards have to be a balance between the arthouse and the mainstream, but only if the mainstream hits are appreciated by fans and critics alike.  The three lowest-rated Oscars are the ones who had the least # of people see the movies (Hurt Locker, 2009, The Artist, 2011 and Birdman).

     

    Yet you were rooting against Skyfall . . .

     

    I’m fine with the current system. It adds the suspense of how many films.

    ReplyCopy URL
    M
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188821

    I prefer a solid slate of five nominees.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188822

    I see what they are getting at by saying that different years have different numbers of worthy films, but the current system does not really have anything to do with that.  It is instead just based on how many votes other films from the same year got.  For example, a weak year should theoretically yield only a few nominees, but what might more likely happen is a lack of consensus that results in votes being spread thin and many nominees.

    All of the other categories have five nominees and I am a big subscriber of less-is-more, so I will always support five.  More than that and we end up with anomolies like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Selma scoring just one other nomination.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Malick
    Member
    Joined:
    Dec 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188823

    Positives:
    – Passion votes helped secure a nomination for The Tree of Life (a miracle of sorts)
    – Passion votes helped secure a nomination for Selma (for whatever ridiculous reason the academy at large did not like the film, and I do believe it would’ve missed had the voting system been different) 
    Negatives:
    – Under the current system genre films really struggle to make it into the picture line-up (Harry Potter DH P.2, Looper, Skyfall, Snowpiercer and Nightcrawler, among others)

    ReplyCopy URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188824

    I like the 5 – 10 scale. It is what is the fairest. 

    In years where this has been in place, there hasn’t been ten films with enough voters. It’s always been either 8 or 9.
    For the 2013 Oscars, I think it was a great line-up of nine. All were deserving of their nomination, and imagine what film would have been forced into the line up. Something good like Blue Jasmine, or something a bit more mediocre like August: Osage County? Forcing it to ten leads to a risk of films that aren’t that great getting in, just because the numbers need to be made up.

    Genre films would tend to struggle to get into a fixed ten place system. Yes, District 9 got in, but I doubt anything like Nightcrawler, Skyfall, Looper etc. would have made it into the line-up in a forced ten line-up.

    And is it fair for a film to get in just to fill a gap, rather than enough voters being actually passionate about it, and voting for it. 

    Alternatively, with a forced five line-up, look at all the GREAT films which wouldn’t have gotten in to the Best Picture line-up, but completely deserve their place, and have enough support from voters to get them in. Would some people’s films of the year (Up, Inception, Django Unchained, Her, Philomena, Selma, Whiplash) have made it into a five strong line-up. Probably not. But they would all be deserving of getting in, so why not endorse a system which allows for those films to get in based on merit, rather than on making up the numbers.

    In years where there are only 5 good enough films, odds are only those 5 will likely get in, the same with ten worthy nominees. It is the fairest system. Nothing is unfairly missed off because of the small line-up, nor is anything forced in to make up the numbers.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Evergreen
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 20th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188825

    I am absolutely fine with the sliding system.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #188826

    It’s about time. It’s all very politik anyways. Let’s make room for the more, powerless….

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
Reply To: What do you think of sliding scale of Best Picture nominees?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Hunter-ish - Oct 20, 2017
Movies
OnTheAisle - Oct 20, 2017
Movies