Comments on: Academy Changes To ‘Best Picture’ Vote Count Favors Popularity Not Quality

By: Eliza

Eliza — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:36:43 +0000

You can't complain about the voting change–it had to be done. In the worst world, the vote could split almost evenly, and something could win with 11%. If that film is on the bottom of everyone else's list, and one of the others with 10% is everyone's #2, then the latter clearly deserves to win. And voting is a literally a popularity contest, so it's not really anything new. 'Tis the nature of the beast.

By: SK

SK — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:22:00 +0000

If it was just counting 1st place votes, it is possible for each of the 10 nominees to get 10% of votes. And who knows, but a winner could have won the Oscar with less than 20% of the votes if the voting was distributed.

The change makes sense, where the films with few first place votes will be eliminated 1 by one with 2nd and 3rd place votes coming into play as voting proceeds.

I don't think this will help films like TDK or Wall-E because they likely would have just broken into the nominee field anyway with probably much fewer 1st place votes (meaning they'd get eliminated from contention sooner). So if a bunch of people, die-hard fans of Star Trek vote it #1, but more neutral, critical voters vote it #9,#10, it's total count would likely not be anywhere near good enough.

And hopefully, the actors, producers, writer, etc who vote make an effort to see most the acclaimed movies of the year. I mean, after all, they are voting for colleagues so it would make sense that they've seen the films anyway. Who knows, maybe of the 5800 voters, only half vote for the foreign film category if they've seen it and the others obstain.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:10:29 +0000

the oscars have become cheap. i like star trek. not for best picture . i like up. thats why their is a fucking best animated category. whats gonna win that this year? monsters v aliens? fuck this. between this, Scorsese getting treated like a common asshole, and david fincher directing failure to launch 2…fuck the business

By: Univarn

Univarn — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:31:55 +0000

I actually like this change, being a math person it makes sense to me as the best quality film would most likely have the highest overall votes, but maybe not the most #1 due to peoples personal opinions. I think this new math system will lower the number of flash in a bottle winners who get a big following but aren't necessarily the best film that year.

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:14:53 +0000

The single most important tweak the academy should do is simple; make it mandatory for voters to watch at least 90% of the films before voting. These voters usually watch about 20 to 30% percent. And this is completely and utterly unacceptable. How can you pick your favorites, if you don't even know what they are?

And what film fan wouldn't give up an arm and a leg to be a member? It is a complete disgrace that they don't watch most of these amazing films.

If the voters don't have the time to watch the films, if they don't meet the minimum requirements, then they must refrain from voting for that year.

No voting out of ignorance allowed.

I think this simple rule will immediately cut out most of the bull crap nominated.

And here's the thing, the voters don't have to drive 4 hours to some child molester's basement to catch "Che". They get screeners months and months in advance. No excuses. These screeners are sitting right there. Just put it in and watch it for goodness sake. This very simple responsibility is the most important. It should be mandatory.

Okay, rant over.