Miscellaneous desk
< December 19	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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

December 20

Academy Award for Best Picture

Good morning. Why is the Oscar for Best Picture usually given to the director? And why is the victory of the statuette attributed to him? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone has to pick it up and it can only really be the director (the person who had overall creative control) or the producer (the person who financed it). Since the Oscar is for best film, it makes sense that it is most closely associated with the director. See also auteur theory. --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award is usually attributed to the producer, not the director. Of course this may be the same person, but not always. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award goes to the producers, yes. There is a separate Best Director award, and our article calls the two awards "closely linked" because they are almost always awarded together. Elizium23 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The producer is not exactly the person who finances a film. That is more in the executive producer's purview. A producer coordinates all kinds of creative things and contributes significantly to how a film "looks and feels". The choice of producer makes a distinct and pervasive impact on the viewer experience, and a film's success may hinge on the producer's performance, so it makes sense for the Best Picture award, for the producers, to be twinned with Best Director. Elizium23 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The choice of producer makes a distinct and pervasive impact on the viewer experience" – that is not true. When we think of a film, we think of it as being the creative output of the director. Or, at least, we should think of it that way. --Viennese Waltz 16:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe that a film's viewers will notice someone who might select a script, hire the director, and oversee editing and visual effects? Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some detail on the subject.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've never noticed who the producer of a movie was. And rarely notice the director. --Khajidha (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not noticing the director is kind of like looking at a great work of art and not being curious about who made it. But there's at least one practical thing to be aware of, in America at least: Once the director's name appears in the opening credits of a movie or TV show, it usually means the credits are done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A great work of art, such as a painting, generally is created by a single painter. True, they may purchase their paints or canvas from a specific supplier or merchant, but the actual effort of applying paint to canvas is a single-person effort. Films, especially nowadays, have all sorts of creative direction staff on board, making all sorts of artistic decisions that impact the direction of a film. So the OP's question is not exactly unwarranted.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The questions "what does a director do" and "what does a producer do" are kind of outside the scope of the reference desk. Any thorough answer would 1. be too long for this venue and 2. inevitably veer into the territory of personal opinion. Temerarius (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. The Oscars database credits the production company/studio up to 1951, then switches to the producers in 1952. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Electoral College

From what I understand, they gather in the capitals of their states in 50 parliaments, plus the DC. But do they vote in the upper house, the Senate or in the lower house, the House of Representatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With 50 states you get 50+ different laws. See the PDF at [[2]]. Some states have their meeting in the Capitol building, some just say in the capital city, some at the Secretary of State office, some at the election commissioners. I think one said "local" election office and then votes mailed to the capital. Also not all states have two chambers in the legislature. Rmhermen (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "their states in 50 parliaments". The electors might very well meet in the building where the state legislature meets, but they are not part of the legislature. They are appointed according to procedures determined by each state. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American states don't have parliaments; they have legislatures and governors which are separate things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The electors are generally not government officials, but rather are party ~~hacks~~ regulars who are appointed to serve what is now taken to be a basically ceremonial role. In principle something consequential could happen because of faithless electors but nobody has (publicly) made any plans for that. 173.228.123.190 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the state. In some states they are appointed, in some they are elected, in some they are named by party committees. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't always vote as ordered: faithless elector. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, a handful of faithless electors seldom swings the electon. If it ever does again, the uproar might finally provide incentive toward ending it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By seldom, you mean once. And by swing the election, you mean switches the expected outcome for Vice President. Further, the laws were changed to end that problem. The current problem is that a candidate can get 2% less of the popular vote and win the electoral vote. That is the entire point of the electoral college. Some see it as a solution. Some see it as a problem. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of the electoral college is that the states choose the president, the people do not. That was what the founding fathers had in mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]