|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 18:37:04 GMT
Sure, but this system is pretty much designed for him to be nominated, since Actors adore him. First major, nominatable performance he gives, I imagine he's probably getting nodded, if the system remains the same. It's an embarrassing stain that this organisation wants rid of. Then again, they are now at the point where they are willing to ignore their own countrywomen who are Oscar frontrunners ( Mulligan and to a lesser extent Colman), so who the fuck knows how things will go. It seems they are genuinely just picking what they they like most now. If they genuinely picked who they liked the most that would mean all members would vote for the nominees. That's not the case though. It's just a jury of 7-12 people. If the general membership keep voting almost exactly in lockstep with American awards bodies, then it can be easily argued that they aren't actually voting for what they like. Or even neccesarily watching many of the films they are voting for.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 9, 2021 18:37:12 GMT
Very bad news for Mulligan and Colman... Didn't see that happening. They made the long list. The actual nominees were chosen by 12 people. This means very little in terms of their Oscar chances.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Mar 9, 2021 18:38:16 GMT
Awards consensus is artificial, it is made by hype and narrative. God bless jury vote over membership vote. If AMPAS took the same route, it would be so much fun.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 18:39:46 GMT
Which is how it should be. But that's not what it is. 7-12 jury members voted for the nominees. Not the BAFTA as a whole. Most guilds do the exact same thing (although I don't have the numbers on how many comprises each jury). Frankly, it's how it honestly should be done because we can verify that it's likelier that the jury will have seen more films and be able to gauge a proper consensus of quality. You can argue ulterior motives and such (as people are doing with the reactionary response to the overwhelming amount of POC being recognized), but honestly, I think you'll see a lot less groupthink with a system like this.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Mar 9, 2021 18:40:33 GMT
If they genuinely picked who they liked the most that would mean all members would vote for the nominees. That's not the case though. It's just a jury of 7-12 people. If the general membership keep voting almost exactly in lockstep with American awards bodies, then it can be easily argued that they aren't actually voting for what they like. Or even neccesarily watching many of the films they are voting for. It's impossible to know the minds of each BAFTA member... You could make the case for the jury members, maybe they're picking the nominees because of the backlash they got. I'm not going to make a determination either way. You guys are saying that BAFTA should pick who they want to pick, doesn't that mean every member should vote? I don't know that just seems logical to me than 7-12 people picking. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Mar 9, 2021 18:41:53 GMT
BAFTA also once had the smart idea of letting the branches vote on the single awards (directors on Directing, screenwriters on Screenplay) but of course they took that away as well. Hopefully they have come back to their senses and do their own thing instead of being sheep.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Mar 9, 2021 18:42:11 GMT
But that's not what it is. 7-12 jury members voted for the nominees. Not the BAFTA as a whole. Most guilds do the exact same thing (although I don't have the numbers on how many comprises each jury). Frankly, it's how it honestly should be done because we can verify that it's likelier that the jury will have seen more films and be able to gauge a proper consensus of quality. You can argue ulterior motives and such (as people are doing with the reactionary response to the overwhelming amount of POC being recognized), but honestly, I think you'll see a lot less groupthink with a system like this. I think groupthink is more likely to be present when you have such a small number of people picking the nominees.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 18:42:49 GMT
If the general membership keep voting almost exactly in lockstep with American awards bodies, then it can be easily argued that they aren't actually voting for what they like. Or even neccesarily watching many of the films they are voting for. It's impossible to know the minds of each BAFTA member... You could make the case for the jury members, maybe they're picking the nominees because of the backlash they got. I'm not going to make a determination either way. You guys are saying that BAFTA should pick who they want to pick, doesn't that mean every member should vote? I don't know that just seems logical to me than 7-12 people picking. Just my opinion. It's easier to believe 7-12 people saw every longlisted film and performance and voted on it as opposed to several thousand people doing the same thing. We know there are people who vote without seeing all the nominated works in contention; this way at least ensures that voters might have to get out of their comfort zone and watch an extra movie or two.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 18:44:15 GMT
If the general membership keep voting almost exactly in lockstep with American awards bodies, then it can be easily argued that they aren't actually voting for what they like. Or even neccesarily watching many of the films they are voting for. It's impossible to know the minds of each BAFTA member... You could make the case for the jury members, maybe they're picking the nominees because of the backlash they got. I'm not going to make a determination either way. You guys are saying that BAFTA should pick who they want to pick, doesn't that mean every member should vote? I don't know that just seems logical to me than 7-12 people picking. Just my opinion. I dunno...as long as you have verified experts in their field doing the nominating in a Jury, I don't see what the problem is. Isn't this how most Festival Awards are decided. No one disputes the prestige, value or legitimacy of Awards from Cannes, Berlin or Venice because they were decided on by a jury of 7-12 experts in their profession.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 18:44:49 GMT
Most guilds do the exact same thing (although I don't have the numbers on how many comprises each jury). Frankly, it's how it honestly should be done because we can verify that it's likelier that the jury will have seen more films and be able to gauge a proper consensus of quality. You can argue ulterior motives and such (as people are doing with the reactionary response to the overwhelming amount of POC being recognized), but honestly, I think you'll see a lot less groupthink with a system like this. I think groupthink is more likely to be present when you have such a small number of people picking the nominees. I think this set of nominees proved that to not be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 9, 2021 18:51:38 GMT
Yeah, I’m not really buying any of the arguments on how a jury vote of 7-12 people is a better option.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,943
|
Post by Good God on Mar 9, 2021 18:55:11 GMT
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding (and maybe even deliberate misrepresentation) of how the BAFTA nominations work now. 1. The BAFTA juries are comprised of just 7-12 carefully handpicked people, not all of who are even BAFTA members. This is very different to the SAG awards, whose nominating committees comprise of 2500 randomly picked people, all of who are SAG-AFTRA members. Needless to say, that makes the BAFTA juries a far less representative sample than the SAG committees (if you understand how statistics and data sampling work, anyway) 2. Because the handpicked jury is not really representative of the larger BAFTA membership in any way, shape, or form, this also means that we should begin taking BAFTA nominations with a grain of salt as far as Oscar contention goes. Because, by definition, a less representative voting process will mean that the nominees are less reflective of the actual tastes of the British film industry. Mulligan missed BAFTA? In any prior year, that might as well have been a death knell for her Oscar chances. But this year, with this process? She's still in firm contention. 3. This doesn't necessarily extend to BAFTA winners, however, which is still voted upon by the entire membership. If somebody actually wins a BAFTA award, it is definitely a sign of strong overall support from the British Academy, which should indicate strength in the Oscar race. But perhaps not as much as before. 4. On a positive note, with the wacky (if non-transparent) nominating process they now have and the new 6th nominee slot, BAFTAs could help shake things up a bit with unexpected nominations and more exposure to contenders that may not have gotten the same kind of attention with the prior system. I mean, in what other year would Wunmi Mosaku and Niamh Algar be in as much awards conversation as they are now? Some light reading:
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Mar 9, 2021 18:56:00 GMT
I think groupthink is more likely to be present when you have such a small number of people picking the nominees. I think this set of nominees proved that to not be the case. Ok that still doesn't mean that their picks are representative of the BAFTA membership as a whole... And you don't know maybe their groupthink was to push back against the backlash they got last year.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 18:56:08 GMT
Yeah, I’m not really buying any of the arguments on how a jury vote of 7-12 people is a better option. Because it's worked for major film festivals for 70+ years. Most people here tend to claim major festivals choose better winners than other industry awards. Well, here you have industry awards now going closer to the Festival model (but only in part). Plus, it's only the nominations that are partially being decided by that system. The whole membership still decides who is worthy of winning.
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Mar 9, 2021 18:57:50 GMT
Can someone confirm for me how this jury works?
Is it like SAG where around 1,200 SAG members vote for the nominees and then the whole body votes for the winners?
Or is it like the Grammys blue ribbon panel that can overrule the regular nomination process with their own choices?
Correct me if I’m wrong on any of that
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 9, 2021 18:58:51 GMT
Yeah, I’m not really buying any of the arguments on how a jury vote of 7-12 people is a better option. Because it's worked for major film festivals for 70+ years. Most people here tend to claim festivals choose better winners than industry awards. Well, here you have industry awards now going closer to the Festival model (but only in part). Plus, it's only the nominations that are partially being decided by that system. The whole membership still decides who is worthy of winning. I guess I’m with festivals and industry awards being very separate models. And sure, the entire membership gets to vote on who wins, but had no say if they feel their options are worthy nominees.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Mar 9, 2021 19:00:28 GMT
I'm very surprised by the backlash to these nominations. For years we complained that all awards shows picked the same nominees and winners and now that was a better system?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 9, 2021 19:00:33 GMT
Yeah, I’m not really buying any of the arguments on how a jury vote of 7-12 people is a better option. Because it's worked for major film festivals for 70+ years. Most people here tend to claim festivals choose better winners than industry awards. Well, here you have industry awards now going closer to the Festival model (but only in part). Plus, it's only the nominations that are partially being decided by that system. The whole membership still decides who is worthy of winning. But don't you think there's a difference between a film festival and an academy with hundreds upon hundreds of members? They're quite different things. One is supposed to represent the preferences of a particular handful of folks, the other is meant to represent the picks of a huge membership. I would've loved to see BAFTA completely flip their current system if they're willing to take chances. Why not get rid of the membership altogether and assemble a special jury made up of professionals from each category every year? That'd be a major change of pace but I'd be cool with that tbh. This year is a bit of a mish-mash with two systems working simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 9, 2021 19:02:43 GMT
Yeah, I’m not really buying any of the arguments on how a jury vote of 7-12 people is a better option. This is where I'm at. All of the major contenders still made the long list so this isn't indicative of anything other than 7-12 people picking their favorites. You could have a group of 7 people with strange taste that doesn't represent BAFTA as a whole. That's why the nominees don't feel as important. It's more impressive that they made the long list. 7-12 people is way too small to vote on something like this.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 9, 2021 19:03:42 GMT
I'm very surprised by the backlash to these nominations. For years we complained that all awards shows picked the same nominees and winners and now that was a better system? Yes. "Boring" doesn't mean bad. "Different" doesn't mean good. The Academy is adding tons of new members to add different voices. That's a better process than limiting the voting body to 12 people.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Mar 9, 2021 19:04:47 GMT
It also establishes that Chadwick Boseman and Daniel Kuluuya are even more front runners. And that Actress and Supporting Actress are even more in flux. First the Globes, now BAFTA. I don't think we can make any assumptions about the acting nominees. The actual nominees were chosen by 12 people so they won't translate to Oscar voting. I think we can assume that Chadwick Boseman and Daniel Kuluuya have continued their momentum. So far they have not lost a nod or a win with the televised pre cursors.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,943
|
Post by Good God on Mar 9, 2021 19:04:55 GMT
There is a difference between an International Film Festival and a British Academy. If the British Academy isn't voting for the British Academy awards, why even have British Academy awards? Just have a London International Film Awards instead.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Mar 9, 2021 19:06:54 GMT
It's impossible to know the minds of each BAFTA member... You could make the case for the jury members, maybe they're picking the nominees because of the backlash they got. I'm not going to make a determination either way. You guys are saying that BAFTA should pick who they want to pick, doesn't that mean every member should vote? I don't know that just seems logical to me than 7-12 people picking. Just my opinion. I dunno...as long as you have verified experts in their field doing the nominating in a Jury, I don't see what the problem is. Isn't this how most Festival Awards are decided. No one disputes the prestige, value or legitimacy of Awards from Cannes, Berlin or Venice because they were decided on by a jury of 7-12 experts in their profession. Those jury awards don't decide the options for a larger group... They just pick the winners, that's it. BAFTA has a large membership, and it doesn't feel right for just a few people to decide from which options the rest of the membership can pick from.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 19:09:57 GMT
Because it's worked for major film festivals for 70+ years. Most people here tend to claim festivals choose better winners than industry awards. Well, here you have industry awards now going closer to the Festival model (but only in part). Plus, it's only the nominations that are partially being decided by that system. The whole membership still decides who is worthy of winning. But don't you think there's a difference between a film festival and an academy with hundreds upon hundreds of members? They're quite different things. One is supposed to represent the preferences of a particular handful of folks, the other is meant to represent the picks of a huge membership. I would've loved to see BAFTA completely flip their current system if they're willing to take chances. Why not get rid of the membership altogether and assemble a special jury made up of professionals from each category every year? That'd be a major change of pace but I'd be cool with that tbh. This year is a bit of a mish-mash with two systems working simultaneously. Ideally, they would have a system where the individual branches do all the nominations (similar to AMPAS), but I'm guessing they are going to work their way up to that. BAFTA was becoming an international embarrassment with the way their membership was voting, and last year was obviously the straw that broke the camel's back. They needed to take drastic action and they did.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,943
|
Post by Good God on Mar 9, 2021 19:10:20 GMT
This is where I'm at. All of the major contenders still made the long list so this isn't indicative of anything other than 7-12 people picking their favorites. You could have a group of 7 people with strange taste that doesn't represent BAFTA as a whole. That's why the nominees don't feel as important. It's more impressive that they made the long list. 7-12 people is way too small to vote on something like this. 7-12 would have been fine, in my opinion, provided: 1. Those 7-12 members were randomly selected from the BAFTA membership 2. Those 7-12 members were made to watch all movies that made the longlists Now that you're handpicking members, not all of who are even BAFTA members, I'm struggling to understand how these are BAFTA nominations anymore.
|
|