Possible Consolidation of the Two Sound Categories

[Big Magilla]

The Bohemian Rhapsody victory in Sound Editing made clear that distinction has been lost.

Maybe uncertainty or plain ignorance among voters regarding the categories differences was a key factor for the BR victory... up to the ceremony, I was in disbelief about the film’s merits for the Sound Editing nomination; however, afterwards I have tried to understand that particular recognition, and it is not like the film didn’t have a strong work in that department:

https://enhanced.media/blog/2019/3/4/os ... s-achieved

This maybe justifies the Sound Editing award for Bohemian Rhapsody, but it's also an argument in favor that the distinction between the two categories is blurred so much that they should be fused.

Agreed.

[Heksagon]

The Bohemian Rhapsody victory in Sound Editing made clear that distinction has been lost.

Maybe uncertainty or plain ignorance among voters regarding the categories differences was a key factor for the BR victory... up to the ceremony, I was in disbelief about the film’s merits for the Sound Editing nomination; however, afterwards I have tried to understand that particular recognition, and it is not like the film didn’t have a strong work in that department:

https://enhanced.media/blog/2019/3/4/os ... s-achieved

This maybe justifies the Sound Editing award for Bohemian Rhapsody, but it's also an argument in favor that the distinction between the two categories is blurred so much that they should be fused.

[Heksagon]

From 1982-2005 it was easy to distinguish the two categories because everyone knew that there were only three nominees for sound editing while sound mixing always had five.

But how do unequal numbers help voters distinguish what an editor does from what a mixer does?

I think the problem was that when they expanded the number of nominees in Sound Effects/Editing, they could no longer find enough outstanding nominees to fill out the line-up.

Sound Effects used to include action/special effects films almost exclusively. Sound Mixing nominees included those films as well, but also musicals, historical films and "usual" Oscar contenders. After the line-up was extended, sound designers struggled to fill the category with deserving nominees from the traditional pool and resorted to filling the numbers with the type of films that usually had competed in only the other sound category. This, in turn, made the two categories look increasingly similar, with the same titles, just different people getting the nominations.

[Big Magilla]

The combined category that baffles me is Hair and Makeup. Both disciplines fall within the makeup department credits. IMDb. lists thirty people connected to last year's winner, Vice, including two hair stylists, a makeup artist and Christian Bale and Amy Adams' wigmaker, that were not listed in the film's credits. The Oscar was awarded to three people: the makeup department head, the hair department head and the special character makeup creator and designer who won his fourth Oscar on his 11th nomination, his first nomination and win in ten years. His previous nominations and wins were for Makeup before the name of the category was changed to Makeup and Hairstyling.

I trust the people within hair and makeup who vote for the nominations know what they're doing, but how does the rest of the Academy judge which is best? Last year's winner, Vice, like Darkest Hour the year before and most if not all previous winners, had obviously outstanding makeup including prosthetics to distinguish them, but does anyone consider which one had the best wigs? I mean fellow nominee Mary Queen of Scots had the better wigs. The Favourite had the most outstanding combination of the two but wasn't nominated in this category despite receiving ten nominations overall. That's the film I would have voted for given the category title.

[rolotomasi99]

Which is a major shame. The work sound editors do can be rather amazing and it's unfair that morons in other branches who should fucking know the difference are going to deny those sound editors their rightful prizes.

The same can be said for Production Design and Set Decoration, but those two fields are combined into one category since the average voter cannot distinguish them enough to justify having separate awards.

I think they should just rename the category to Sound Design, and honor both the Sound Mixing and Sound Editing the same way as the Art Directors category.

We know the Academy really wants to shorten the ceremony, and this is certainly better than not even televising the acceptance speeches at all.

[Greg]

There is one problem I have with this. I was hoping when I win my first Oscar for my first film to say something like this in my speech, "I would like to thank everyone who has helped my entrance into my new career. After all, I am still learning the difference between sound mixing and sound editing." I guess I will have to think up another joke now.

[HarryGoldfarb]

The Bohemian Rhapsody victory in Sound Editing made clear that distinction has been lost.

Maybe uncertainty or plain ignorance among voters regarding the categories differences was a key factor for the BR victory... up to the ceremony, I was in disbelief about the film’s merits for the Sound Editing nomination; however, afterwards I have tried to understand that particular recognition, and it is not like the film didn’t have a strong work in that department:

https://enhanced.media/blog/2019/3/4/os ... s-achieved

[OscarGuy]

Giving both Sound Mixers and Sound Editors the award doesn't fix the problem. Without a separate category, we would have been denied truly deserving winners like Bram Stoker's Dracula and The Incredibles. Unfortunately, both are long enough ago that it seems disappointing that the category has ended up this way. Films that could have won special awards if the sound editors got to choose their own winners (this is speculation, but damned if they wouldn't have made better winners):

A Quiet Place over Bohemian Rhapsody
Blade Runner 2049 over Dunkirk
Up over The Hurt Locker
WALL-E over The Dark Knight (and then Dark Knight could have eaten Slumdog)
Ratatouille over The Bourne Ultimatum

Then again, except for Quiet Place and Blade Runner, I'm not sure the sound editors would have made different decisions.

[Big Magilla]

From 1982-2005 it was easy to distinguish the two categories because everyone knew that there were only three nominees for sound editing while sound mixing always had five.

But how do unequal numbers help voters distinguish what an editor does from what a mixer does?

They don't. They have to know the distinction but if they do but can't recall which category name refers to which discipline if they remember that the lesser number refers to editing they wont get confused and give the editing award to a film without much editing and the mixing award to a film without much mixing.

[Mister Tee]

From 1982-2005 it was easy to distinguish the two categories because everyone knew that there were only three nominees for sound editing while sound mixing always had five.

But how do unequal numbers help voters distinguish what an editor does from what a mixer does?

I had to go back and look up the old rosters, but the ways I think it helped:

I mentioned that, since the expansion to 5 in sound editing, the overlap has often been 4/5. Well, in the decade or two prior to expansion, a non-overlapping film was frequently among the three Sound Editing nominees.

In addition to which, the films eliminated from the Sound Mixing slate were usually music-involved (Walk the Line, Ray, Chicago, Moulin Rouge!) or best picture contenders (The Insider, Shakespeare in Love, LA Confidential) without particularly notable sound effects.

These two things helped to make clear that Sound Mixing meant any significant use of sound, while Sound Effects was reserved for loud, whiz-bang sort of sound stuff. The Bohemian Rhapsody victory in Sound Editing made clear that distinction has been lost.

There are other elements that might have contributed to this state of affairs. The shift of the presentations from late March to late February came in 2003, and the expansion to up-to-10 best film nominees occurred a few years after. Both these factors have significantly limited the number of films that truly compete for awards -- with less time, and a mandate to choose twice as many best picture contenders, voters have tended to focus on a shrinking number of films; we don't get many far-flung surprise nominees like, say, Robert Forster in Jackie Brown anymore, because voters are too stressed/limited to see them out. I imagine the same syndrome has affected the sound branch.

[MaxWilder]

From 1982-2005 it was easy to distinguish the two categories because everyone knew that there were only three nominees for sound editing while sound mixing always had five.

But how do unequal numbers help voters distinguish what an editor does from what a mixer does?

[Big Magilla]

Which is a major shame. The work sound editors do can be rather amazing and it's unfair that morons in other branches who should fucking know the difference are going to deny those sound editors their rightful prizes. Maybe they should treat sound editing as a special prize like Foreign Language Film such that only those who have demonstrated the ability to understand the difference may vote.

I don't think they're advocating doing away with the award to the editors, just combining the two categories into one. Sound editing was a special prize prior to 1982. From 1982-2005 it was easy to distinguish the two categories because everyone knew that there were only three nominees for sound editing while sound mixing always had five. Since then, especially after the name change, it was difficult for people to remember which was which.

[Mister Tee]

Judging by the fact that, since Sound Editing was expanded to five nominees, the categories have tended to overlap by at least 4/5, I'm not so sure the branch members are adept at distinguishing between the two disciplines, either.

[MaxWilder]

The work sound editors do can be rather amazing and it's unfair that morons in other branches who should fucking know the difference are going to deny those sound editors their rightful prizes.

Do we know why they changed the category names in the first place?

If I'm correct in my completely uninformed, fully half-assed speculation--that the sound branch found "sound effects" reductive and demeaning--didn't they screw themselves over? The renaming led to years of incorrect winners and now there might be 50% fewer sound Oscars up for grabs.

[OscarGuy]

Which is a major shame. The work sound editors do can be rather amazing and it's unfair that morons in other branches who should fucking know the difference are going to deny those sound editors their rightful prizes. Maybe they should treat sound editing as a special prize like Foreign Language Film such that only those who have demonstrated the ability to understand the difference may vote.