Miscellaneous desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 26

Oscars: best director = best movie

I could understand that the best screenplay/actor/makeup doesn't always produce the best film (someone else screwed up), but who can be a better director if not the one who made the best movie? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say I'm Auguste Escoffier, but I'm only given spam and Vegemite to work with. I'd whip up the best meal I could, but wouldn't you rather have [insert favorite dish here] even if it were cooked by an average chef? Even a great director can only do so much with a so-so script and crew. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be under the impression that the director is in charge of everything about the movie. That is so not the case. The people who accept the Oscar for Best Picture are the producers, not the director (unless the director happened to be a producer). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, where do you see the greatness of the director? Some aspect of the movie has to be remarkable, and has to be linked to him clearly. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Expanding on my previous comment: Direction is obviously an important part of any movie, but it is not the only element. Critics make distinctions about the merits of individual elements of a film, and about the overall product. They might think some movie has the best sound track or best editing or best costume design in the history of the cinema, but overall the movie completely sucked. Or vice-versa. Just look at Argo (2012 film). It was:

Nominated for Best Director, and won: BAFTAs, Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globe Awards, San Diego Film Critics Society, St. Louis Film Critics etc
Nominated for Best Director, but did not win: AACTA International Awards, Detroit Film Critics Society, Satellite Awards and Washington D. C. Area Film Critics Association
Not even nominated for Best Director: Academy Awards, César Awards. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear how to discern the film and from the soundtrack. But, when you watch a film that sucks, you don't say "whoau, this film sucks, but what an amazing director." The question is still not answered: where do you recognize the director, if not in the whole product? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the question, but one reason why best director <> best movie is because of who votes in these categories. Per the rules, Best Picture is really the only one where everybody in the Academy gets a vote. In the other categories, only those members who specialize in that respective field gets to vote. So those members who belong to the Writers Branch (i.e. specialize in writing) are the only ones who vote for best screenplay, only those members in the Actors Branch vote for best actor, and so forth. And thus for Best Director, only those Academy members in the Directors Branch (who know all the technical aspects of film directing, and all the duties as outlined on Film director#Responsibilities -- which is probably very subtle to the average viewer) are given the responsibility to choose the winner of that category. Whereas for the voting for Best Picture, you are getting the input from every voter of the academy, from all specialties. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all after the nominations themselves have been decided. There are processes for determining which movies get nominated for which awards, and a nomination for award category A is no guarantee of a nomination for award category B. There have been Best Picture winners that weren't even nominated for various of the other major awards; or were nominated but didn't win. Such as The Sting (1973) and Crash (2004). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, under the current rules, Best Picture nominees can now range from five to ten. This was changed before last year's ceremony. Most of the other categories, including Best Director, are limited to five. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a point of order, the members of the respective fields vote for the nominees (except for Best Picture) but all members have a vote on which of the nominees is the winner. This goes some way to explain why there are often discrepancies between the Best Picture and the Best Director nominees. Valiantis (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference lies in movies where the producer is an investor/entrepreneur but not an artist himself. He knows how to get films made, but he is not necessarily the one who knows from a "vision" of the film, which shot, which angle, which take, how subtle, how lowbrow the product needs to be to be art. Jerry Bruckheimer is a great producer (his films make money and entertain some people) and a horrible director so far as I am concerned, while Orson Welles was a great director, perhaps the best, and one of the worst producers. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Welles is a good example. He broke ground is so many ways with Citizen Kane. (Naturally, there was no Oscar for best director or film.) Conversely, Gus Van Sant added nothing of value to Psycho (1998). A poor director can ruin good material, a good one can make things better, and a great one can maximize what s/he is given to work with, but if the potential isn't already there, you can't squeeze blood from a stone. Plan 9 from Outer Space can never be The Godfather. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's nothing about Plan 9 that couldn't have been helped by getting a different director, actors, script, technicians and money. Just a few tweaks here and there and it would have the quality of the immortal hit, Bride of the Monster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a quarter of sticky chronic. The plots' the thing. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I like to say that Spielberg, at the age of 5, could make a better film than Ed Wood ever did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic Earthlings. We've made you an offer you can't refuse, now or in the future (where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that's a line from Plan 9? μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they teach the classics in school anymore?

From Plan 9:

"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future."

"Because all you of Earth are idiots." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a clip which must have inspired Gomer Pyle:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See auteur theory. --Viennese Waltz 12:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]