Terminological Accuracy in the Academy Awards

[tealin]

I hereby petition the Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences to change the official title of awards handed out, when applicable, from 'Best' to 'Most.' This would more accurately reflect the guidelines by which winners are selected.

For example:

Best Special Effects: Master & Commander
Most Special Effects: Return of the King

Best Animated Feature: Persepolis
Most Animated Feature: Ratatouille

Best Costume Design: Sweeney Todd
Most Costume Design: Elizabeth: the Golden Age

I don't know if this would work for Most Director unless the award traditionally went to the director whose fingerprints were deepest in his film, or if you could have a 'Most Picture,' though it would be interesting to see how running time correlates with award probability (it certainly worked for Titanic). I'd look it up only I'm supposed to be unpacking. I will, however, look up this year's in an attempt to predict the winner ... using Science!
Atonement: 118 min
Juno: 96 min
Michael Clayton: 119 min
No Country For Old Men: 122 min
There Will Be Blood: 158 min
According to my scientific process, There Will Be Blood should claim a surprise victory over the front-runner No Country, unless you go by perceived running time wherein the latter seemed to last for a good four hours.*
UPDATE: Well, the bookies had it. So much for science.

*I dislike it more every day. So far the biggest thing it's got going for it is that it wasn't The Cooler.

Comments

Re: A festival of parentheses

[sullivander.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I see your point about the three movies being counted as one — I guess I've done it enough myself that I just think of it as The Lord of the Rings, not the Fellowship, etc. I'd counter the CG crew from Master and Commander with the CG armies from Return of the King — similarly, I didn't realize many of them were CG until I saw the "Making of" bits. On the other hand, I'll have to take your word for the screen/DVD difference, though I'm willing to concede the point.



The whole thing's somewhat moot, anyway, isn't it? Didn't Weta do the effects for both movies?



— Andrew

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

I thought they did, too, but I seem to remember finding it hard to find a mention of them on the credits. It seems to have been done by about twelve different studios.