Talk:Academy Award for Best Picture

Remakes

"Notably, the only remake to win is The Departed, though a few other winners, such as Mutiny on the Bounty and Ben-Hur, were heavily inspired and influenced by previous films of the same name, they were nevertheless adaptations of the same novel."

This view of remakes is far too doctrinaire on a subject which is very open to interpretation. Both of the films cited may be based on books, but they were made by the same production company (MGM in both cases) and were plainly intended as a return to the same material which had been successful before, in widescreen color. If that's not a "remake" what is? It would be far fairer to say that The Departed is the only remake of a film original, but others were based on existing sources but, to differing degrees, possibly inspired by previous film versions— a list which would include everything from Gigi (filmed in France) to Marty (a teleplay) to musicals like Oliver! and Chicago (which echo previous non-musical versions of the same material), and even Gladiator (which does not claim to be based on The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) but has obvious similarities... obvious enough that Dreamworks took the legal precaution of buying the rights anyway). However you feel about any of those cases (and I haven't even gotten to the previous movie about the Von Trapps that no one remembers, and which Rodgers & Hammerstein bought the rights to), the current phrasing suggests that remakes and previous inspiration is rare when it's plainly not. Mgmax (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Best Picture winners West Side Story and My Fair Lady hold the unique distinction among winners of being remakes of an earlier Best Picture nominee—West Side Story is a musical adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, a straight version of which was nominated in 1936 (and another in 1969), while My Fair Lady was a musical version of George Bernard Shaw's 1913 play Pygmalion, previously adapted for film as Pygmalion and nominated in 1938."

How odd that this was removed. The reference to My Fair Lady has been there for years-- but as my additions to it showed, it was never accurate that My Fair Lady was the only remake of an earlier nominee to win. Only once I made it accurate did it apparently fail to meet Wikipedia standards for interestingness! MikeGebert (talk) 2:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

West Side Story and My Fair Lady are not remakes of earlier films to be nominated, they're adaptations of other non-musical films and stories. That's why it was removed. AldezD (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's what I was helping clarify. This whole section has long suffered from people arbitrarily imposing their own definition of "remake" to suit themselves and this is no exception, as my edit clearly stated the provenance of both films, derived from earlier material also turned into nominated films. To belabor it, I suppose one could say: ""Best Picture winners West Side Story and My Fair Lady hold the unique distinction among winners of being musical versions of material that resulted in an earlier Best Picture nominee—West Side Story is a musical adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, a straight version of which was nominated in 1936 (and another in 1969), while My Fair Lady was a musical version of George Bernard Shaw's 1913 play Pygmalion, previously adapted for film as Pygmalion and nominated in 1938." I don't care either way, it seemed more trivial than the previous content, but mine continues to have the virtue of being more accurate than what's been up there for many years. MikeGebert (talk) 8:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGebert (talk • contribs)

Either way, this is trivial information and does not belong in the article. You can arbitrarily find linkage between one nominee/winner and dozens of other films using any number of criteria. Ben-Hur (1959 film) is a remake of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925 film), but the latter wasn't even nominated for Best Picture, so why is it detailed in the section? The same goes for The Departed and Infernal Affairs—the latter wasn't nominated. Analysis detailing that a film later nominated has a similar plot, is an adaptation or is a remake is WP:IINFO and doesn't belong in the article. AldezD (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

I've just tagged the article for contradicting itself. The History section says the name Best Picture applied beginning with "the 1931 awards". The Awards section, and the notes lower down, show a different change for the "1929/30" awards, and Best Picture not applied until much later. --65.95.176.76 (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Directors?

Wouldn't it make more sense to mention directors instead of producers? phme (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Producers are the ones who actually receive the award. That's why they're listed. Crboyer (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The names of the directors are important as well as the names of the producers. The same is done in articles belonging to the Golden Globe Awards and International Film Festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The award does not go to the director. That is why they are not listed in this article. AldezD (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

AldezD, I think that what Michael 182 is trying to say is that the format used in the Golden Globe Award categories, for example the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama article, includes the names of the directors even though, as you pointed out, they are not the recipients of the award. If you ask for my opinion, I would like to include the directors' name in this article. TwentySteps (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Academy Award does not go to the director. That is why the director is not listed in the article, just as actors and other technical staff are not listed alongside the producer. Similarly, the producers are not listed in films which receive awards for direction, because the producer does not receive that award. AldezD (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Severely wrong information

This is an article about Academy Award nominees/winners for Best Picture. How can this information be so wrong? I know for a fact Le Mis, Hugo, The Social Network, and Up, did NOT win best picture. So many people use Wiki and to think something as trivial as Best Picture winners can not even be correct blows my mind. Why can't Wiki have verified pages for important, unchanging information? Could be worth the investment. -jr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.72.200 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Will this link work to verify them all?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It was just vandalism made by a kid. Reverted. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is wrong again; claims "Up" won best picture. User:ktappe 20:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you see info you know is wrong, like many false BP wins, feel free to revert it.Crboyer (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Producing teams

For at least the 85th 86th awards, up to three producers are recognized. A special "producing team" rule enables two-person producing teams to be treated as one person for the purpose of the best picture award. I suggest that producing teams be represented in some way: perhaps grouped together with a slash. For example, for the team from Plan B Entertainment, the producer credit would be:

2010 (83rd)

Film	Production company(s)	Producer(s)
12 Years a Slave	Plan B Entertainment	Brad Pitt / Dede Gardner

67.100.127.31 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Producers of the early Oscars

How come do we have them linked if they are not exactly nominees per say-some of them were even uncredited! Since the pre 1952 Oscars game it to studios so some of them seem a bit odd on here. Just thought I ask. Also-is there any record of what film studio has the most nominees ever? I'm guessing either Paramount or WB. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Silent Film Winners

This section lists The Artist as the first silent film to win since Wings. However according to the article on Silent film, it does not qualify as a silent because it has a synchronized soundtrack, the same way that Schindler's List doesn't qualify as a black-and-white film because it has color sequences. This section also says that The Artist was "...as well as the first Best Picture winner shot entirely in black-and-white since 1960's..." yet the film's article says it was filmed in color and monochromed in the lab. I'm not sure how to edit it, but this section needs to be reworked to state facts that agree with other articles. Goldnpuppy (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• It may actually be necessary to change the other articles as The Artist seems to be generally considered a silent film by mother authorities I've seen (even with the dialogue and sound sequence). I know that's sort of like those who try to categorize The Jazz Singer and Modern Times (and even arguably City Lights) as silents when in fact they had soundtracks, but popular opinion has to be taken into account. As for the filming, it's how it was released that counts. Some films are actually shot on video and then processed to look like film later, but they're still considered motion pictures. I think the answer to the Artist question is what does the Academy say? If they call it a silent, then in the context of the Oscars, it is a silent. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• The article on silent film linked above says "A silent film is a film with no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue." Frankly it seems the height of pedantry to say that The Artist isn't a silent film because it has a synchronized sound track. Silent films were always presented with sound. The only difference between The Artist and a "true" silent film is that The Artist doesn't require live musical accompaniment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C100:86CC:A011:A59D:AB1A:D4DE (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

New nomination process

The article needs a better description of how the nominees are chosen. I looked at the official rules (PDF) and they seem contradictory:

“The pictures receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Best Picture award. There may not be more than ten nor fewer than five nominations; however, no picture shall be nominated that receives less than five percent of the total votes cast.”

There is no explanation of how this is resolved in a case where there are fewer than five films receiving at least 5%. It is shocking how poorly drafted the rule is. The article should explain how it operates in practice. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe it is contradictory: If fewer than five films receive 5%, then the top five films are nominated regardless of percentage; any other interpretation would render the minimum of five irrelevant. The only year with fewer than five nominees was 1927/28 (the very first Oscars, with three nominees); it is highly unlikely that AMPAS will ever again allow fewer than five nominees in its flagship category (unless nominations are revoked for rules violations, which has only happened twice and never in Best Picture). Neither the minimum nor maximum has been tested in practice because this version of the rule, since its inception in 2011 (after two years fixed at 10 nominees), has always resulted in either eight or nine nominees; thus apparently the 5% cutoff has always fallen within the prescribed range. --RBBrittain (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Embolden the winners

I think it would be better if we embolden the best picture winners for emphasis. Thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? All winners in the list are currently highlighted by colored panels, while nominees are in regular black-and-white. Dimadick (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academy Award for Best Picture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tvguide.com/Movie-News/Oscar-Expands-Best-1007223.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/mostwanted/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216113055/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/trivia.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/trivia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing producers and production companies

Why is it that from 1928 to 1950, the nominees in this category have been the production companies instead of the actual producers? Wouldn´t it make more sense to replace them with the names of the producers of these films? 190.19.18.72 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. At that time, the actual winner was the production company, not the producer. And the Academy awarded the award to the production company, not the producer. In other words, the official winner -- per the Academy, at that time -- was the production company, not the producer. And this article is listing the official winners. Those are my thoughts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Colored row?

In the first sentence of the "winners and nominees" section, there is a reference to a "colored row". Isn't that racist? 47.137.185.87 (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed to "gold row" so as to not offend people of color.47.137.185.87 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Individuals with multiple nominations

I noticed that John Wayne is missing from this section He was nominated for best actor twice - Sands of Iwo Jima and True Grit (won for True Grit).

Again, the nominees list is for nominees in this category only. Crboyer (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Meryl Streep

Hello, I wanted to advise that Mery Streep has been nominated 21 times and won 3 times. However, she is not in the "individual" with nomination's article part. Pls fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSkywalker77 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The list is for nominees/winners in this category only. Meryl Streep has never been nominated for Best PictureCrboyer (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Unique and Artistic Picture

The article states that after removing the Unique and Artistic Picture category, the Academy "decided retroactively that the award won by Wings was the highest honor that could be awarded." The cited source, a series of reviews for the first and only winner of the U&AP category, makes no such claim. The only other place where I could find a the same claim is the article for the 1st Academy Awards, which similarly cites a source that says no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added b:[y 98.212.146.132 (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"The first official Best Picture winner (and the only silent film to win Best Picture) was Wings, directed by William Wellman. The most expensive movie of its time, with a budget of $2 million, the movie told the story of two World War I pilots who fall for the same woman." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Production companies with multiple nominations and wins

Apple and Neon are both listed in this section, despite each having been only nominated once for Academy Awards (in both cases winning). Jack Hudson (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jack101yello If that's the case, which I believe it is, either some companies should be removed, or the section should be renamed. But apart from that, it seems to me that this entire section, although interesting, it's problematic. First of all, there are no citations whatsoever. Furthermore, it's not clear whether these are the production or the distribution companies. And at least the films which won the Award for Best Picture should be mentioned in an additional column, so we can corroborate for which films we are talking about... Harry Deconstructing (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Neon's other nominated film is Triangle of Sadness. $chnauzer 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Film Studios Not Listed

After the 23rd Academy Awards, no longer listed are the films studios the nominees/winners have been made by; I propose the inclusion of the film studios for all the movies. 2601:603:4D01:3F10:978C:F588:50D1:8E66 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Why it's called an "Oscar"

Shouldn't there be at least a mention of its etymology? Ambndms (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The section on the 2017 incident should be moved to history

It disturbs the organization of the page to randomly have a section for a specific recent incident. It’s something historical so it should be moved to that part of the page Bluedoor17 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)