中級 4692 ジャンル 保存
動画の字幕をクリックしてすぐ単語の意味を調べられます!
単語帳読み込み中…
字幕の修正報告
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.
コツ:単語をクリックしてすぐ意味を調べられます!

読み込み中…

The Oscars' voting process awards safe movies

4692 ジャンル 保存
韓澐 2017 年 8 月 10 日 に公開

お気に入り

loading

コメント

読み込み中…
  1. 1. クリック一つで単語を検索

    右側のスプリクトの単語をクリックするだけで即座に意味が検索できます。

  2. 2. リピート機能

    クリックするだけで同じフレーズを何回もリピート可能!

  3. 3. ショートカット

    キーボードショートカットを使うことによって勉強の効率を上げることが出来ます。

  4. 4. 字幕の表示/非表示

    日・英のボタンをクリックすることで自由に字幕のオンオフを切り替えられます。

  5. 5. 動画をブログ等でシェア

    コードを貼り付けてVoiceTubeの動画再生プレーヤーをブログ等でシェアすることが出来ます!

  6. 6. 全画面再生

    左側の矢印をクリックすることで全画面で再生できるようになります。

  1. クイズ付き動画

    リスニングクイズに挑戦!

  1. クリックしてメモを表示

  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