中級 美國腔 6180 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
This year a grand technicolor film about showbiz is a favorite for best picture at the Oscars.
Yes, it was well regarded amongst critics and audiences around the country.
But is La La Land hands down the best film of the year?
Is it good enough to beat out films like Moonlight that are widely considered more daring and
unique?
History says yes.
Because the oscar voting process favors mediocrity.
Back in 2009 the the Academy switched from a straight popular vote to instant runoff
voting or preferential voting.
The Academy wanted to better insure that the film with the broadest support won.
But the other side of that coin is that bold, polarizing films get pushed to the side.
At its most basic level, instant runoff voting involves ranking a number of choices rather
than choosing just one.
Then the choice with the fewest votes is removed.
And then those who voted for that candidate have their votes counted according to their
second-favorite candidate.
Then the candidate that now has the fewest votes is removed, and so on.
It goes all the way until a candidate has 50% + 1 of the vote.
This applies to both the nominations process (although that does get a little weedy) and
the process of selecting a best picture winner.
So, how would instant runoff voting ultimately play out in a real scenario?
Let’s look at 2011 where the King’s Speech beat out: 127 hours, The Fighter, Black Swan,
Winter's Bone, True Grit, Inception, The Social Network, and The Kids are Alright.
All these films were probably 1st place picks on a lot of ballots and dead last on others.
It’s very possible that the passionate fan bases of each of these films all had the King’s
speech ranked 2nd or 3rd.
When their 1st place vote wasn’t enough to stay in the game their 2nd place votes
were counted and re-added to the mix, ultimately allowing The King’s Speech to come from
behind.
Because the King’s Speech had the broadest support rather than the most passionate support,
it took home the prize.
The new voting system seems to favor a certain type of film.
Todd: We’ve had instant runoff voting for 6 years and fully half of those films have
been movies about the movies.
And I’d count the King’s Speech as being sort of adjacent to that.
Think Birdman, Argo, The Artist.
The Academy is made of 6,687 film industry professionals who probably enjoy movies about themselves.
They might not rank a film about showbiz as number 1 but many might place it 2nd or third
which is precisely where it's most dangerous.
In 2005 before instant runoff voting was instituted, Crash, won best picture.
It’s a film people either despise or love.
I think we really want those movies that inspire extreme reactions one way or another.
Sometimes the movie wins that you hate and sometimes the movie wins that you love.
I’d rather see that than the movie that everyone was kind of okay with.
In fact, Crash beat out a film that might have easily have won in today's instant runoff
system: A period film about entertainment (the radio industry) directed by Hollywood
royalty, George Clooney: Goodnight, and Good Luck.
    您必須登入才有此功能
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

奧斯卡的投票機制其實有利那些打安全牌的電影 (The Oscars' voting process awards safe movies)

6180 分類 收藏
韓澐 發佈於 2017 年 8 月 10 日

影片學習單字重點

loading

影片討論

載入中…
  1. 1. 單字查詢佳句收藏

    選取單字或佳句,可即時查詢字典及收藏!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔