Naked Gold Man: Les Miz Slows Down, Oscar Speeds Up
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 11:10PM 
As surely as the weather cools and kids go back to school en masse, we begin to shift gears towards Phase One of Awards Season. That's the pre-nomination time frame when all the hype and guessing gives way to actual buzz (or not) and more educated guessing as the films arrive and are met with shrugs, boos, huzzahs, and precursor nominations . On nomination morning, Oscar gets the last word. Phase One happens to be my favorite part of awards season and today we learn that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has shortened my joy by two whole weeks!
I've had to adjust our side bar widget. That was a quick two weeks we lost! Nominations will now come early on January 10th. That's just 112ish days from now and every 24 hours will count. Which means that instead of the usual month between nominations and Hollywood's High Holy Night we'll have a painful six weeks of running on fumes with the narrower range of people and films to talk about. People are going to be so sick of the chosen few by Oscar night!
This early nomination news arrived on the heels of the news of a delay: Les Misérables has abandoned its December 14th release date and will try its luck with everything else come Christmas time. Voters won't have much time to see that particular movie -- or many others. This might mean that the precursors will be more influential than ever, essentially filling out voter ballots for them by narrowing their focus when they're losing it in a sea of screeners --all of which they're expected to watch over their holiday breaks. Since the studios simply refuse to give up their beloved December 18th-31st strategy -- the only one they have implicit trust in -- the best thing that could ever happen in Oscar world is two consecutive years of voters enjoying their family over the holidays instead and burning their screeners and only nominating films they'd seen earlier in the year.
Shut up -- I'm allowed to fantasize! It would just be seismic for the enjoyment of serious films all year round because the industry would have to rethink. But that's another topic and a broken record round these parts!
With so little time for the buzz to settle in December before voting I suspect we'll have a less volatile season than usual with fewer surprises on nomination morning and the studios will have more say in what gets nominated since they can control the dialogue better before people see the movies.
Important Dates to Know
Dec 1st Governors Awards
Dec 13th Golden Globe Nominations
Dec 17th Oscar Nomination Voting Begins
Jan 3rd Oscar Nomination Voting Ends and PGA Nominees Announced
Jan 8th DGA Nominees Announced
Jan 10th Oscar Nominations Announced
Jan 13th GOLDEN GLOBES NIGHT
Feb 4th Oscar Luncheon
Feb 8th Final Voting Begins
Feb 19th Final Voting Ends
Feb 24th OSCAR NIGHT
Which brings me to another question that's been needling me...
Fantine prays for God's forgiveness. And Oscar traction
You may recall that when they first announced the new voting strategy for Best Picture (the one in which the number of nominees would change each year depending on how many films muster up enough votes) we were told that they had run the numbers on the past several years of 5 nominees only and found that there would have been years with 5,6,7,8, and 9 nominees (but never 10 though the rules allow for it). But here's the catch that no one discussed at the time. The numbers were run on past ceremonies in which every voter was fully aware that only 5 films would be nominated. Many pundits and casual Oscar watchers were surprised last year -- i know I was -- to see 9 nominees in the inaugural year of the new rule. I just didn't see the support for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close but lately I've been wondering...
Does the knowledge that the rules are different fundamentally change the way Oscar members vote?
Think it over. If, in years past, your favorite film of the year was one which had zero traction, would you have thrown your vote to your second favorite instead since everyone agreed that one was a legit spoiler possibility for Best Picture? Now that members are fully aware that up to 10 films can be nominated if they can find enough ardent fans, it seems likely that a 5 wide Best Picture year is a thing of the past. Why would anyone abandon their favorites in this new more permissive climate?
Les Misérables, Oscar Trivia, Oscars (12), release dates
Reader Comments (18)
Oh, most definitely the awareness of these rules changes how they vote. If there's only 5, you kinda know which narrow group to nominate from, rather than wasting your vote. With the new rules, there is so much more opportunity to champion something on the outskirts.
Just watch, we are in for another 9-10 lineup this year.
That's a GREAT point. Definitely bodes well for stuff like The Master and Beasts of the Southern Wild and...maybe even Moonrise Kingdom? 5% shouldn't be a huge task when Moneyball, Tree of Life, etc. managed it.
We can probably expect at least 7 nominees each year. 8 or 9 more likely.
Hmm very interesting question at the end. That might actually be a factor now, but assuming it is, don't you think that's one of the benefits of the expanded best picture category?
Okay, going along with your thinking, if last year's nominees were set a maximum of 5, The Tree of Life would not finish in the top 9, because voters, thinking it has no shot at top 5, would leave it off entirely. I think you have a valid point, and I definitely think it's a virtue. Maybe not in the case of Extremely Loud, but think about the possibility of Amour or something outre like that getting nominated.
You are right about last point, the more passionate fans a film on the radar has, the bigger its chances will be -- and who doesn't wanna vote for all six to ten of their favorites of the year if they could?
Of course, you can't have fans if you're not see and this two week jump up will totally make those small December releases even more risky than ever. Which I guess is a good thing since there are SO many of them but now it's do or die for small distributors. Precursors and screeners will become more important than ever and gods help you if you're tiny AND opening on the very last day of the year.
You mean the Critics Choice Awards are not important? Whoa! :p
"I suspect we'll have a less volatile season than usual with fewer surprises on nomination morning" That's so incredibly depressing, not to mention how unbearable it is to have the crappy part of Oscar time (the period between nominations and show) extended.
I fail to see how giving voters less time to watch movies before voting solves anything, so it beg the questions: What do they think this solves?
I still think it's the movie to beat, even if released on Dec. 31st. Almost EVERY voter will screen this film, no matter what. It doesn't even have to be great to be the frontrunner, as long as it's not bad, kind of like Chicago in '02. Argo, The Master, Lincoln and Silver Linings will have its champions, but I don't think any of them will be able to build enough of a consensus to make it an even match. Again, I'm assuming Les Miz gets mostly wide-spread acclaim. There's no The Artist waiting in the wings to topple the Hugo giant this season.
"Does the knowledge that the rules are different fundamentally change the way Oscar members vote?"
It shouldn't - if you think a particular film is the best of the year, then you should vote for it, dammit! - but it probably does.
It does feel similar like what happened with Chicago. They'll screen for Golden Globe and BFCA nominations (surely a hefty haul from them), and it'll come out in late December.
Secondly, there will be no shortage of advertising, for your consideration campaigns, and TV interviews throughout November and December to buoy the inevitable onslaught that the movie itself will bring in.
Thirdly, other than Django Unchained (which is that even going to make the cut?), and the two family comedies (the godawful looking Parental Guidance and still unseen Guilt Trip), it's one of the few big options for the Christmas box office. I think things are still in good shape.
None of current frontrunners feel all that special. Beasts, Amour, and The Master will have champions but still seem problematic. We will certainly see closer to Argo's release date though.
I am still so disturbed by this rule change of opening up the Best Picture race. Not only does it dilute the prestige of the award, it smacks of blatant commercialism. The expansion was instituted to lure viewers to the Oscar telecast because of slipping ratings in recent years. More moves nommed supposedly means more interest in the Academy Awards. But I think it reeks. There simply are not more than five or six movies a year that deserve to be considered "best picture". In some years, that's even generous.
Mike in Canada, I think AMPAS thinks this will give audiences more time to see all the nominated movies and to get excited about the ceremony. I agree with you though- it probably raises more problems than it solves re: quality of the nominees.
Regarding whether there will be surprises, I go back and forth on whether there will be or not. Yes, there's less time to see everything and process so voters are drawing from a smaller pool, but Oscar voters also won't be able to see the PGA/DGA before nominating.
And who knows? If there's a heavy frontrunner when Les Mis or Django knock things out of the park in late December, maybe there'll be uncertainty as to the eventual BP winner.
Since the Oscar voters won't be able to see the PGA/DGA before nominating, maybe the lazy ones who wouldn't actually watch the eligible films will be forced to sit through them and form their own opinions. How refreshing.
The ten nominee rule was a mistake- Hollywood can barely produce five movie that are truly Oscar worthy- I can see it expanding it to a even six.
Jaragon--
I wouldn't have had a problem with the ten nominees if the Academy had embraced to the chance to think outside the box. But with the exception of the occasional curveball (like A Serious Man, although the Academy loves the Coens, so it's not like that was even a huge surprise), it's pretty clear that the extra slots have mostly benefited middlebrow stuff like War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, War Horse, and The Help. Not a single documentary or foreign film has come within shouting distance of a nomination.
For me, it's a thoroughly failed experiment. Time to let it go.
Sorry, I meant The Blind Side, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, War Horse, and The Help.
I have a question about your predictions (update).
I myself am an Oscarlogist and I have been predicting the Oscars for many years now. I have been following your predictions since 07.
You have often said that the MAKEUP category is one of the toughest for you to predict. Well when you now include The Hobbit (the winner in this category come next February) you surely show that this category is not for you. Question 1: Why do you think The Hobbit will not be nominated for makeup?
Question 2: TDKR not nominated for VFX? Seriously. Avengers, Hobbit and TDKR are LOCKS in this category. And we are talking pure logics here. Care to share your opinion of this decision?
Vortep -- i can't possibly see how anything unrevolutionary is LOCKED in the vfx field when the competition is always so tough.
as for my doubts about The Hobbit overall. I just keep going back to this thing that The Oscars are not the Emmys and even if they were I think Oscar is not going to want to repeat their "we're all in!" 2003 Middle Earth fanatacism. Under the umbrella of "it's ________ time". I can't see that this new trilogy (which reeks of commercial panic and creative rut from a distance (*3* more films?) will do it for them when there are so many new toys for them to play with.
Sure thing. I doubt the movie will be major payer in the top races, but when a movie is really impressive in a filed, the nominations is just impossible to reject. The Makeup of the Hobbit is literally best 'Makeup and Hairstyling.''
As for the VFX. I actually think there are locks in the field. Aways have been. There are going to be 5 nominees. Lets say that 8 movies realistically have a shot at the nomination.
Simple logic is that 5 of this 8 are going to make in to the final 5. And since we always have leaders, Hobbit (it has the power of Weta, and we do know what to expect from them: aka Trolls, giants, spiders, art environment and all kinds of creatures), Avengers (If Iron man can get two nominations, then the combo of all of this superheroes in this critically acclaimed and box office monster hit are sure thing) plus The Dark Knight Rises (the superiority of special effects in the industry plus top class VFX). The simple logic is that this three films are solid locks to be nominated based on logic and statistics.
PS: One thing I can promise you: The Hobbit will be nominated for makeup. Makeup is actually a strong category for me. I have gotten the category right for 3 years now.
Two years ago I 'locked' The Wolfman to be nominated even tough everyone was sure since the movie bombed all the way critically and box office it was going to be ignored.
I had the movie for nomination in my June predictions and it stayed there till the nominations next year. Hobbit will be nominated.