Oscar nominations: final predictions, rants, musings

The nominations for 2011 come out tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, 2012.

Any last-minute predictions, rants, or thoughts? I'm actually mildly interested this year, due to a few films that broke the usual mold, or at least tried.

I'm pulling for "The Artist" to win many of the top awards. I also was fascinated by "The Tree of Life," but I don't see it getting much Oscar love. I would still like Terrence Malick to score a Best Director nod. I can't stop thinking about this movie (in a good way).

Back to The Artist, I wonder if they haven't screwed over Berenice Bejo by trying to "cram a square peg in a round hole." She's the female lead in the film, but they are pushing her heavily in the supporting category. I hope she's included, but it could backfire on her, if she doesn't get enough votes in either category (if people split on where to put her).

I wonder how many Best Picture nominations there will be? I predict eight. (It will be between 5-10.)

As far as snubs or surprises ... I'm sure there will be a few. It happens every year.

---

You have a good point. If there are any big-ticket movies that get snubbed for a Best Picture nod, and they nominated less than ten, the Academy will take a lot of flack for it.

As far as I understand, it's a "mathematical decision" as to how many nominations there will be. (Yeah, right.) Supposedly, it's based purely on percentages of the votes. So, even if a film gets enough votes for a nomination, if they haven't received the required "percentage" of Academy votes, they won't get on the list.

This seriously sounds like a recipe for disaster and will spawn a lot of bad feelings and bitter movie-lovers.

I wish they would just go back to five and quite "picking" at it. They've already taken away the impact of their biggest award by making it less challenging to get on the list.

---

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 08:14 AM

I don't mind the shouting with five nominees. Yes, worthy movies are left off the list. That's because there are only five slots, and usually there are more (subjectively) than five "outstanding" films in a year.

So I don't mind it when The Dark Night or Dreamgirls or Glory or Bullets Over Broadway or other outstanding films that receive multiple nominations, but fail to register in the top category, piss people off. It's part of the drama and the love/hate relationship people have with the illusive Oscar. That's all part of the "show."

But when you increase it to ten, you're lessening that drama. You've made it easier by doubling the odds. It also doesn't guarantee any sort of variety will be implemented. They can still ignore the comedies, documentaries, foreign and independent films. It just means there are ten choices. I have no idea why they thought it would improve the creative diversity of the voting.

---

I usually catch up a bit with rentals once the nominations come out, too. Sometimes, I've been surprised by films I had no initial interest in seeing, but after scoring a few key nominations, I checked them out, only to discover I really enjoyed them.

So it's a good thing. I'll be hitting up RedBox several times in the days/weeks ahead.

---

I thought I understood how the Best Picture percentages worked out, but can someone correct me if I'm mistaken...

Each movie must receive a certain percentage of the votes in order to be nominated for Best Picture. So, for example, if there are 1000 votes to be had, then each movie would have to receive 100 votes to score a nom. If 10 movies each received exactly 100 votes then there would be 10 nominees. Since this is pretty unlikely we will probably see more like 7 or 8 nominees.

Am I understanding this correctly?

---

Like Besty, I'm predicting eight nominations for Best Picture. I think THE ARTIST, THE HELP, and THE DESCENDANTS are locks--beyond that, I think it's up in the air. I think BRIDESMAIDS will be nominated, but I wouldn't call it a lock.

Best Actor: Clooney, DiCaprio, Dujardin, Pitt (for MONEYBALL), Wilson. Wild card: Fassbender or Gosling.
Best Actress: Close, Davis, Streep, Swinton, Williams. Wild card: Mara or Wiig.
Best Supporting Actor: Branagh, Brooks, Hill, Hoffman, Plummer. Wild card: Von Sydow.
Best Supporting Actress: Bejo, Chastain (for THE HELP), McCarthy, Spencer, Woodley. Wild card: McTeer.
Best Director: Fincher, Hazanavicius, Payne, Scorsese, Taylor. Wild card: Malick or Miller.
Best Original Screenplay: The Artist, Bridesmaids, Drive, Midnight in Paris, Young Adult. Wild card: 50/50.
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Help, The Ides of March, Moneyball. Wild card: A Dangerous Method.

These are all completely unscientific, of course. Just my gut feelings.

---

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 10:15 AM

Theron and especially Oswalt deserve nominations for YOUNG ADULT, but I personally don't see it happening. That said, I think Oswalt has the better chance, as the Supporting category isn't as crowded as Actress.

I think it will get a screenplay nomination and that's it.

---

Then why on earth did you get that "El Diablo" Tramp Stamp???

Honestly, with the exception of JENNIFER'S BODY, I enjoy Cody's work. The first two seasons of UNITED STATES OF TARA were great (the third season sort of went off the rails), and YOUNG ADULT is really fantastic.

---

It's mostly for "Juno," which was the "Garden State" of that year, except it was multiply recognized by the Academy. I threw up 17 times.

---

Also, whenever I hear her interviewed, I also throw up 17 times. Each time it reinforces every notion I've ever had about her being a total phony.

That said, I'm always hoping to have my mind changed, and "Young Adult" is no exceptoin!

---

I didn't think "Tree of Life" was any more confusing or pretentious than "2001." Actually, I would put it on a successful par creatively with 2001. I think it's a modern-day "classic" and will be seen as such (whether popular or not), decades from now. I still don't see it getting much Oscar love.

As far as percentages and figuring out Best Picture nominations, it's actually way more convoluted than that. Your explanation works for the first "round" of tallying. Yes, they do multiple rounds, each time eliminating films that are automatically in by hitting a certain percentage number (say it's 250, I don't know). If they hit the magic number, they're in. They are also eliminated from the rest of the tallying. Then they do a percentage based on the rest of the films eligible. Once they hit the magic percentage number, they are shaved off the list (automatically in), and the process starts up again.

It's pretty messed up, if you ask me. I don't know why they don't just pick the top vote-getters and fill the category. But there it is.

---

Here's the explanation of how the new Best Pic nomination process works. Hang onto your hats, kids. Based on what this says, if you vote for a really "fringe" film that most people don't want or haven't heard of, your first place choice is actually CROSSED OFF the list and doesn't count. They look at your second-place choice instead. The same is true if you vote for the most popular choices for Best Pic. Once they hit their magic number (and who knows what pile they start counting first), they will no longer count your top choice (since that movie has already made the nomination list), and they will look at your second choice instead.

So very bizarre, but here it is:


1. As in the old system, all the Best-Picture ballots are put in piles based on each voter's first choice. Based on the number of ballots received, PwC will determine the number required to guarantee a nomination in the initial count by dividing the number of ballots cast by 11 (the number of available nominations plus one), and then adding one.

In assigning this number, PwC will assume that 10 nominations are up for grabs, even though the final number may well be lower. For instance: If 5,000 of the Academy's near-6,000 members cast ballots in the Best Picture category, the magic number will be 455.

In that situation, a film with 455 votes or more is automatically a nominee.

2. Any film with 20 percent more votes than it needs triggers the surplus rule, in which the unneeded portion of each vote will go to the second-place film on that ballot, or the highest-ranked film that's still in the running.

If, for instance, you need 455 votes to be nominated but you get twice that many, 910, each of your votes will count 50 percent for you and 50 percent for the voter's next choice. If you get a third more votes than you need, that third will go to your second choice.

Note: Contrary to a recent explanation in the Hollywood Reporter, this redistribution does not take place with the ballots of all films that receive more than 5 percent of the vote. It only takes place with films getting 20 percent more than they need to guarantee a nomination. (That means you need to get just under 11 percent of the first-place votes, or 546 votes in our example, to trigger the surplus rule.)

3. Once the surplus redistribution has been made, the films that have less than 1 percent of the total -- meaning, in our hypothetical case of 5,000 ballots, all of those with fewer than 50 first-place votes -- also have their ballots redistributed. On each of those ballots, the first-place film is crossed off and the vote goes to the film listed second, or to the top-ranked film that is still in the running.

And then the vote stops. After this single round of redistribution, the accountants will total up all the votes. Any film that now has at least five percent of the vote -- in our example, any film with 250 votes -- becomes a Best-Picture nominee.

A PwC study of the last decade of Oscar voting says that the result will be between five and 10 nominees.
LINK

---