Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    The Week

    Oscars 2012: Are the new Best Picture rules a failure?

    A retooled nominating system yielded nine contenders, including the divisive Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close but not the universally beloved Bridesmaids

    For the second time in three years, the Academy has tinkered (tailored soldiered spied) with the way it chooses Best Picture nominees. First, in 2009, it expanded the category to 10 contenders "to make room for well-liked, popular films like The Dark Knight," which tended to get snubbed in favor of divisive indie fare like The Reader. Problem: Though Toy Story 3 got a nod, sub-par movies like Winter's Bone also earned nominations, apparently needed to round-out the top 10. Rule revision number two: To avoid such category padding, this year's new rules prescribed that only those films ranked first by at least five percent of voters would make the cut — allowing for as few as five or as many as 10 nominees. An unexpected nine Best Picture contenders were announced Tuesday. In: Smaller, divisive movies that the Academy had hoped to weed out, like Tree of Life and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Out: Critically-praised crowd pleasers like Bridesmaids and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Is the new system a failure?

    Yes, the system is too preferential: When a voter's number one selection is the vote that matters most, "it's better to be loved by a small and passionate group instead of liked by a much larger group," says John Young at Entertainment Weekly. "Love-it-or-hate-it" films like Tree of Life and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close earned their nods because they had a committed contingent of supporters who adored them. Bridesmaids and Dragon Tattoo, on the other hand, were likely ranked second, third, or fourth on a slew of Oscar ballots. Not enough voters "flat-out loved" them to give them the minimum amount of number one votes.
    "Best Picture Oscars: So why are there nine nominees?"

    What an anticlimax: So instead of 10 nominees, these new rules give us nine, says Jen Chaney at The Washington Post. The Academy should've just stuck to the 10 rule so that films like Dragon Tattoo or Harry Potter could've join the other "worthy contenders." Because "if you’re going to create a bunch of drama around the number of nominees and then come up one shy of what has become the typical total, that just feels like a letdown."
    "Oscar nominations 2012: Did the best picture change make a difference?"

    This is a step backward: The results are certainly less populist than in recent years, says Spencer Kornhaber at The Atlantic. Of the nine contenders, only The Help is a bonafide hit. The average box office haul of the 2012 Best Picture nominees is $57 million, compared to $120 million in 2011 and $152 million in 2010. "In a way, it's a return to the final years of the five-picture nominations, which were seen as increasingly uncommercial." Whether that's because no film united critics and audiences this year — as Toy Story 3 or Inception did last year — or because of the rule change, it's a shift of direction. "If the Academy was elitist before, it appears it's now gone ultra-1-percent."
    "The Oscar Best Picture nominees: (Almost) no big commercial hits!"

    View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

    Other stories from this topic:

    Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

     

    8 comments

    • Robert  •  Baltimore, Maryland  •  4 mths ago
      Easy fix weighted votes a first place vote weighs more than a second... so a film every single person voted second would still get in without any first place votes... This isn't rocket science...
    • KEVIN  •  4 mths ago
      I agree with Doug S. It's all just plain silly. The Academy Awards are both political and elitist. I don't know if something is "art," but I know what I like. Sometimes I want "The King's Speech," sometimes I want "Kung Fu Hustle."
    • A Yahoo! User  •  4 mths ago
      "Smaller, divisive movies that the Academy had hoped to weed out."

      Why let idiots write? The academy was not looking to "weed out" what this writer prejudiciously calls "divisive" movies -- you mean "art films" (the magnificent "Tree of Life," a true work of art that was going to be nominated no matter what the dumbsh!t entertainment writers wrote) and substandard, cloying, sentimental crap (like "Extremely Loud ...," an awful populist film) -- it was looking to get popular films of quality into the mix.

      Generally, the best films aren't going to be hits. Because the best films are about more than what they are, they challenge viewers, they're about something. Since when was "Don Quixote" on the bestseller's list. Not everybody is looking for art, but the academy, in general, is.
      • Me 4 mths ago
        Which makes all the hoopla, pomp and circumstance pretty meaningless to anyone OUTSIDE of the industry, then, doesn't it? The article already mentions that many of these films have a "small but dedicated fan base". Is it worth the time, expense and trouble to broadcast it as if it was a major event for a few hard-core, indie-loving, art fans?

        Given the decline in ratings of the show over the years, I'd say it's becoming a lot less about "celebrating Hollywood" than it is about joining a small, exclusive and generally not very popular with the public club.

        There is a distinct quantitative measure for films. The "best" films, to a studio, ARE hits - money makers. Why do you think we're flooded with sequels and remakes? Because they sell and that money moves the industry.

        The indie "art" films are indulgences for the artists. That's not to say they don't have a place in the world. I just don't see an academy award as reflective of the kind of cache it used to have when those who won WERE generally popular films and the makers of such. Winning one can still get an actor or director a job, yes, but it doesn't guarantee box-office success (which, though you may disagree vehemently, is the standard by which studios judge films). The People's Choice Awards are more indicative of money-making potential (and therefore the potential to make the "best" films from a studio's point of view) than the Academy Awards. When "Transformers: The dark Side Of The Moon" is far more popular than "Tree of Life" (which I had never heard of until this article), then all of the pomp and circumstance of an Academy Award is pretty meaningless to most people unless you're a fan, and usually, the movies that win have a comparatively minuscule fan base.

        Let's be honest: Without the income from those "unartistic", popular, money-making films, Hollywood would have dried up and blown to dust by now. The general public doesn't go for highbrow artsy-fartsy films much, if at all, any more. Winning an academy award doesn't translate into dollars anymore, either. The Oscars are a self-indulgent nod to movies and fellow artists that almost no one outside of the industry or a tiny fan base really cares about. The Academy Awards can certainly go on, but let's not try to make it mean more to the average movie-goer than it has become.
      • anonymous 4 mths ago
        To Taylor Swift: "Why let idiots write?" I hear what you are saying and yet your first paragraph really leaves a lot to be desired.

        I just adore the people who live in glass houses and yet...

        Actually, I hope you don't stop, to tell you the truth. I'm really enjoying mocking the pretension.
    • Doug S  •  Annapolis, Maryland  •  4 mths ago
      Oh crap. It's all meaningless. Hollywood celebs voting to give awards to Hollywood celebs. I guess they have nothing better to do with all the spare time they have between making movies. The real question is, why do the rest of us care anyway?
      • A Yahoo! User 4 mths ago
        You cared enough to post.
      • Geoffrey 4 mths ago
        Very few of the voters are "celebs", Is a costume designer a "celeb"? Is a cinematographer? Not all voters are actors and only a handful of actors are "celebrities".
    • D P  •  4 mths ago
      " To avoid such category padding, this year's new rules prescribed that only those films ranked first by at least five percent of voters would make the cut... "
      Who the heck are "the voters"? It sounds as if they need to find people with better tastes in film.
    • Joey JoJo Shabadoo  •  Chicago, Illinois  •  4 mths ago
      The Oscars have been a failure for a long time. The whole Denzel/Halle mess was a good example of how the academy is looking to make political statements rather than choosing excellent films/performers.
      • anonymous 4 mths ago
        Ok, Joey...but as an avid Simpsons fan myself, it should be "Joey JoJo JR Shabadoo." I liked you at the beginning when I read your Yahoo tag...but then you just slumped into the "Jerkwater Berg" category...take that, you useless Simpsons fan. Halle definitely deserved her win, but I didn't see Denzel's movie myself so I cannot comment on that. However, there is a grain of truth in what you're saying: Nicole Kidman (love her or hate her...and I'm in the latter category) did deserve an Oscar for Moulin Rouge (love it or hate it, she really did do a stellar job and manned up through a broken rib and a blown out knee throughout her performance. She was let down, but oh well. What was nauseating was the very next year she wone the Best Actress Oscar for The Hours. I'm an avid reader and just couln't hang in there for more than a single chapter of the book. As far as the movie, I couln't even stay awake past ten minutes during several attempts. Nicole Kidman got the "pity" prize as far as I'm concerned...Tom had just dumped her and only just after did she miscarry their baby. She deserves respect for Moulin Rouge but The Hours was insufferable.
        I get what you're saying...the Academy often makes political statements, but to take Halle's performance (and a truly stellar performance it was!) and pass it off as some PC trophy instead of well-earned recognition is just not right.
        You're right...very right...but you are also VERY wrong.
    • Dave  •  4 mths ago
      All these flicks are crap. Box office numbers speak for themselves.
      • M 4 mths ago
        You are using what is known as "the Porno Defense:"
        If lots of people want to buy it/see it, that makes it good.
        Box office numbers speak for themselves, right?

        That makes McDonalds food better than an a gourmet meal at a small independent restaurant, since sales figures speak for themselves, right?
    • Robert  •  Fort Myers, Florida  •  4 mths ago
      Since when is Winter's Bone a sub par movie??
      Extremely well done and acted.