OscarGuy wrote:Let's say then that C is actually a huge candidate that appeals to the same base as A. They split votes and:
1250 go to Candidate A
1300 go to Candidate B
1250 go to Candidate C
The base split giving the underdog a chance to step in as a winner.
Oh mamma mia... This just means that there are THREE strong candidates, not TWO strong and ONE underdog - is it so difficult to understand?! And then the one who's marginally stronger wins of course!
Because otherwise you can't conveniently forget that there are two other nominees, and so, MATHEMATICALLY, the remaining 2500 votes (5000 minus the votes of A and C) must be statistically shared between THREE other nominees - which means about 830 votes each! They would lose, Oscar Guy - you can't use math only when it works in your favour.
So Big Magilla's too-often repeated theory is - once for all - completely wrong. And I'm surprised that I am the only one who says it openly. Don't Americans study math at high school? I'm speechless.
Penelope: thanks for italics lesson. I will use it.
Big Magilla: I think if Ellen Page wins, you are going to call the results as a split vote between Christie and Cotillard, when , in actual fact, some are saying that Junois going to win--you will say it is as a result of a split between No Country and Blood--and Page will win the Oscar. Then there will be cries of "Foul".
Italiano, I think you're both looking at vote splitting in a different light. You're both right in your own ways.
I completely understand what you're saying and there's a logic to it, but what Magilla's saying is:
In a year that features one big performance that draws attention, a large number of votes go that way and a winner is crowned. In a situation where there are two huge contenders, a third one can earn more votes simply because the base that would have voted for the one splits to vote for the two. Such as:
5000 votes.
2500 go to Candidate A (the only strong choice)
1300 go to Candidate B
700 go to Candidate C
300 go to Candidate D
200 go to Candidate E
Let's say then that C is actually a huge candidate that appeals to the same base as A. They split votes and:
1250 go to Candidate A
1300 go to Candidate B
1250 go to Candidate C
The base split giving the underdog a chance to step in as a winner.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla wrote: When it came to choosing a winner, the majority was likely split between Davis and Swanson, admiring them both but having to choose one over the other threw the award to third choice Holliday.
But this is not vote-splitting Big Magilla. It's just that Judy Holliday got more votes than Davis and Swanson. If this is vote-splitting, then any election with more than two alternatives is based on vote splitting! I mean - it doesn't make much sense, do you realize it?
As for Best Supporting Actress in 1992, your point is that Marisa Tomei just won because she was the least admired actress! Well... a surreal theory, but I'm sure that it will have its supporters here. Lack of rationality (and of even just a simple understanding of math) often does.
There are 5 nominees, Big Magilla, not three - do you undestand this? The rest of the votes will be split among the three other nominees, statistically - resulting in less votes!!!! Vote-splitting can't work only when you need it!
And even more important - if you deny that vote-splitting can happen between two nominees for the same movie, then all your very personal theory crumbles, because that's the closest two nominees can possibly have in common to lead to vote-splitting; anything else is not only impossible to prove (like your theory about how Anne Baxter got nominated by the way), but LESS probable, because any other two nominees will definitely have less in common between them than if they were in the same movie. Oh yes, two actresses may have, say, red hair - but that's not as divisive as the fact of being in the same movie. If you deny that, you lose any chance of being believable.
Now, you all, together: "Big Magilla is right!"...
Anon wrote:I meant to say "more popular" with Academy voters.
we don't and can't know that. You're assuming that Academy voters aren't more like casual moviegoers. Look at Crash on IMDB and compare it to Brokeback Mountain. We don't understand it, but people for some reason actually liked the piece of crap Crash. It's impossible to pick out Academy tastes on films like TWBB and NCFOM. You can assume, but you can't know for certain.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I hate to keep harping on this, but vote splitting or the cancelling out of major contenders occurs most often when the majority prefers two or more of the nominees to the actual winner. It applies more often to performances from different films than to two performances in the same film.
For example, Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole were equally admired for their perforamcnes in Becket, but neither was a front-runner in 1964. Veteran Rex Harrison was the expected winner and he won easily.
In the case of Bette Davis in All About Eve, she didn't have any competition from Anne Baxter. Contrary to myth, Baxter didn't pull any votes away from her. Baxter's nomination came because of the way the ballots are counted. Davis, Swanson and Holliday were most likely nominated on their first placement showings whereas Baxter and Eleanor Parker were most likely added when the counting went to second placements names. It is likely that a number of those who preferred Davis, listed Baxter second. When it came to choosing a winner, the majority was likely split between Davis and Swanson, admiring them both but having to choose one over the other threw the award to third choice Holliday.
The same thing happened in the supporting actress race of 1992 with Judy Davis, Miranda Richardson, Joan Plowright and Vanessa Redgrave, revered actresses all, splitting the majority of votes between them so that Marisa Tomei was able to come out nowehere with a small but strong following to take the award. It had nothing to do with the fact that she was the sole American among the nominees.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but I do beleive in group think to an extent. I don't beleive they sat around strategizing how to keep Brokeback Mountain from winning, nor do I think they were somehow persuaded to think that the filmed in L.A. Crash would be a better represnetation of what the Academy was all about. I think it was the old vote split. There were enough voters who liked both Brokeback and Good Night and Good Luck to split the vote between those two films to give Crash the advantage.
dws1982 wrote:After seeing There Will Be Blood l ast night, I'm changing my prediction to No Country For Old Men for Picture/Director.
I'm inclined to agree with this! I saw both films, and Daniel Day-Lewis is clearly the best thing about TWBB. I don't see it becoming more popular than No Country for Old Men.
It already has, at least with audiences and major critics. It has a higher average score on Metacritic and IMDB than No Country.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
dws1982 wrote:After seeing There Will Be Blood l ast night, I'm changing my prediction to No Country For Old Men for Picture/Director.
I'm inclined to agree with this! I saw both films, and Daniel Day-Lewis is clearly the best thing about TWBB. I don't see it becoming more popular than No Country for Old Men.
I don't think there will be any vote splitting for Enchantment. "That's How You Know" is the clear favorite of those who would vote for one of the songs from that film. What it has going against it is it just sounds like more of the same, a throwback to the 90s. The film Once is about songwriting just as Hustle & Flow was two years ago and just as the song that came from the songwriting process, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" won the Oscar so will "Falling Slowly", the song that is the ultimate collaboration of the composers in Once.
dreaMaker wrote:I m surprised how negative you are about the songs from Enchanted. Is this only because you're frustrated your favorite songs haven t made it?
Actually, I'm not being negative. I'm simply predicting that the songs from Enchanted will split the vote.
Why call it an vote split? Easy. If I call it a vote split, I can then pretend that if it weren't for that pesky other nominee, my favourite would've won (All The President's Men vs Network vs Rocky; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon vs Traffic vs Gladiator). As for groupthink, I think it definitely exists (I doubt the sweep for Return of the King would've occured without it).
Sonic Youth wrote: But again, if that happens, what was split? It sounds more like Page managed to siphon votes away from the two earlier front-runners, should it happen.
Exactly - it's as simple as that. You can say - if it happens - that it's a case of a popular Best Picture nominee leading its actress to a victory, or of the Academy choosing a young, pretty actress over a veteran and a foreigner (both things which happen often), but it wouldn't be the result of split-voting.
I just don't understand why it's called a "split"? It sounds more to me like your garden-variety upset, albeit with two or more frontrunners being passed over by the voters. When Juliette Binoche won over Lauren Bacall in '97, that's not called a "split". Davis-Swanson-Holiday is called a case of vote-splitting; Netowrk-All The President's Men-Rocky could be called a case of vote-splitting, because one film wins out over two (or more) others that were expected to win. But what exactly is being split? It sounds more like two frontrunners received fewer votes than expected, and a third candidate received more.
I'll call it a split for the purposes of discussion, but I don't see it happening this year, not for Best Picture. Best Lead Actress sounds likelier, with Ellen Page the possible beneficiary of being a late-emerging favorite after a year of Christie vs. Cotillard. But again, if that happens, what was split? It sounds more like Page managed to siphon votes away from the two earlier front-runners, should it happen.
OscarGuy wrote:And don't tell me the Academy doesn't have a tendency towards career recognition, jumping behind a candidate in an almost alarmingly uniform direction. You may not believe a group as large as the Academy could suffer from group think, but I'll bet that if we actually were able to conduct a poll each year of the members and how and why they voted, you would find a similar thought pattern in a majority of voters' minds.
A pattern, yes - like, I mean, in national elections, etc. - but this doesn't mean that they have an agenda; it's not like they sit down all together and plan a terrible conspiracy just, for example, to prevent Reds or Brokeback Mountain (or, to mention an even more shocking omission, a masterpiece like Dreamgirls) from winning Best Picture. And anyway I just wanted to point out how this "cancel-each-other" theory, which is so popular on this board, is, like so many other things which are popular on this board, a bit absurd. Then of course you are right that there is something like a "group thinking", which must be understood and can influence the final outcome - but it's more on a social and psychological level than a rational, intentional aspect.
Career recognition? Yes, it happens. But again - what does it have to do with this year? It won't lead to Hal Holbrook and Ruby Dee winning in the Best Supporting races anyway.
