Re: Oscar noms

For those that are interested, here's an analysis by Nate Silver on how the Best Picture voting works (and/or doesn't).

Re: Oscar noms

Totally random: wiki says Ordinary People "...is the last Best Picture winner without a Film Editing nomination..."

'Best editing' is even more a popularity contest than 'best picture.'

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

As much as I loved The Social Network and like The King's Speech, I'm secretly hoping that, by some miracle, True Grit will run away with it.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

beldar wrote:

Totally random: wiki says Ordinary People "...is the last Best Picture winner without a Film Editing nomination..."

'Best editing' is even more a popularity contest than 'best picture.'

Doesn't that factoid suggest that editors are thoughtful people who nominate great movies with great editing? It seems like the best picture of the year SHOULD have Oscar-contending editing, right?

Am I looking at that backwards?

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Oscar noms

31yrs struck me as being a really long time. It just seems like you get a 'best editing' nom automatically thrown in with 'best picture', and that bugs me a little. It devalues the prestige of the award.

The next year On Golden Pond got an editing nom. Why? That movie occasionally cuts from one scene to another, that's about it.

Last edited by beldar (2011-01-27 22:32:59)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

Except there's no correlation between the two categories: editors nominate editors, whereas all Academy voters nominate Best Picture, regardless of whether they know jack about editing or not.   There's no secret society within the Academy that makes adjustments to the overall outcome.

Usually you see the mechanics of the process when things conspicuously DON'T get nominated for something, a la Prince of Tides getting Best Pic/Best Actor/Best Actress noms because the Academy overall liked the movie and the actors' branch thought the performances were worthy, and yet didn't get a Best Director nom because the directors' branch apparently didn't think of Barbra Streisand as being one of the club.   

There are so many factors that it'd take a Nate Silver to crunch the numbers and see if there's any particular reason behind the editor/Best Pic factoid.   I'll bet it's a combination of factors rather than just one, or maybe even just a lengthy run of concidence that will end next year.   But it's definitely not because somebody in the back room is "deciding" it, tho.

Re: Oscar noms

Or it could just be a testament to how integral editing is to the overall process, which is really fucking integral. As for something like On Golden Pond, good editing is as much about knowing when not to cut as much as knowing when to. Perhaps the editors of that year were just recognizing that fact.

Re: Oscar noms

When it comes to narrative editing, it's also knowing which elements of which takes to use as to craft an actor's performance as well.  Just because the director yells, "Print!" after a take, in no way is that to be set in stone.  Throwing shots out of sync, even using elements of a take that are before an actor even knows the camera is rolling, are things editors use to define the scene.

I come from a documentary background, and one trick I would always do is start rolling before an On The Fly interview, but still act as if I was setting something up with the camera (turning the tally light off was integral for this).  The subject would usually tune me out until I started asking questions, and sometimes you could get some very expressive looks out of them.

Editors are problem solvers.  If you see a film with no major problems, chances are the Editor is responsible for fixing a few of them.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

Trey wrote:

Except there's no correlation between the two categories: editors nominate editors, whereas all Academy voters nominate Best Picture, regardless of whether they know jack about editing or not.   ...

But it's definitely not because somebody in the back room is "deciding" it, tho.

I understand that part. I'm just saying that for whatever reason, the lists of noms often don't represent the best work. It's nothing new of course, awards are always like that.

No 'best picture' nom for The Dark Knght?
Fahrenheit 9/11 gets the palme d'or?

Terrible.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

Or - since movies lately have tended to have more than one editor, more editors have been getting nominations, and being nominated is the primary way you become an Academy member in the first place.   

So as the percentage of editors within the overall Academy membership grows, relative to other specialties (actor/director membership wouldn't be subject to the multi-nomination effect) their edit-aware votes may be skewing the Best Picture noms toward the better-edited films...

I'm totally spitballing the above, might not actually be true at all.  Just saying that there can be plenty of non-intuitive explanations for things.   

Seriously, either Nate Silver or the Freakonomics guy could probably get a whole book out of finding the hidden oddities of how Oscars get awarded.  Problem is, there's very little data to crunch - the Academy never reveals the actual vote numbers.   So we'll never know if Shakespeare in Love beat Private Ryan by one vote, or a thousand.

Re: Oscar noms

DoctorSubmarine wrote:

*Cue post from someone about how none of it matters because the Oscars are irrelevant and the Academy is out of touch and also Nolan got snubbed for Best Director so fuck those guys*

That would be me. Alfred Hitchcock nor Stanley Kubrick ever won Best Director. That is all you need to know about the legitimacy and relevancy of the Academy Awards.

Re: Oscar noms

Trey wrote:

Seriously, either Nate Silver or the Freakonomics guy could probably get a whole book out of finding the hidden oddities of how Oscars get awarded.  Problem is, there's very little data to crunch - the Academy never reveals the actual vote numbers.   So we'll never know if Shakespeare in Love beat Private Ryan by one vote, or a thousand.

When it comes to the Emmy, the local newspaper TV reviewer had a theory that voting was usually for the PREVIOUS season. Thus, new actors and shows had to wait an extra year before being rewarded while old ones always got an extra award a year after they'd started going downhill. It usually held true smile

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

Invid wrote:

When it comes to the Emmy, the local newspaper TV reviewer had a theory that voting was usually for the PREVIOUS season.

There are those who believe the Oscar often works the same way.  The theory is winners sometimes win not for the thing they're nominated for that year, but because the voters realized in retrospect that they shoulda won for that other thing a few years ago.   

Or because the nominee gets nominated a lot but never seems to win, so it's just time to give them a damn Oscar already.

Al Pacino might be a good example - six Oscar nominations without a win, finally on the 7th turn he wins... for Scent Of A Woman?   Was that really Pacino's most Oscar-worthy performance?   Compared to Serpico or Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon?  Really?   

I think that was a "just give him one fer pete's sake" win. smile

Re: Oscar noms

Most people seemed to agree that Scorsese's THE DEPARTED win was really more of a lifetime achievement award, too.

Likewise it's pretty commonly accepted that RETURN OF THE KING's Best Picture Oscar was really being awarded for the entire series, but they didn't want to give it to the same series three years in a row so they just let the last stand for all.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

40

Re: Oscar noms

Trey wrote:

Al Pacino might be a good example - six Oscar nominations without a win, finally on the 7th turn he wins... for Scent Of A Woman?   Was that really Pacino's most Oscar-worthy performance?   Compared to Serpico or Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon?  Really?   

I think that was a "just give him one fer pete's sake" win. smile

Or, for that matter, Jerry Goldsmith. Eight nominations for best score, including Planet of the Apes, Patton, Chinatown and The Wind and the Lion, yet he finally wins for The Omen.

Then, another eight noms, including Star Trek: the Motion Picture, Under Fire, Basic Instinct and Poltergeist, without another win.

Re: Oscar noms

DorkmanScott wrote:

Most people seemed to agree that Scorsese's THE DEPARTED win was really more of a lifetime achievement award, too.

Likewise it's pretty commonly accepted that RETURN OF THE KING's Best Picture Oscar was really being awarded for the entire series, but they didn't want to give it to the same series three years in a row so they just let the last stand for all.


And this is the only reason why I'm ok with Kevin James repeatedly getting snubbed for his stuff.  Even though Grown Ups and Paul Blart: Mall Cop didn't yield any noms, I know that in 5 years or so they'll give him the oscar for something like Dirt Fucker:  The Fucker Who Fucks Dirt even though it wont be his most remembered performance.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Oscar noms

Astroninja Studios wrote:

I'm ok with Kevin James repeatedly getting snubbed ... they'll give him the oscar for something like Dirt Fucker:  The Fucker Who Fucks Dirt even though it wont be his most remembered performance.

Comedy gets no respect. Chaplin didn't win an Oscar until he sank to doing hardcore porn near the end. I mean, "Best Actor" AND "Best Director" for Rumble Seat Sluts? Come on.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Oscar noms

Fornicatin' Flappers was really good though.

Thumbs up Thumbs down