Page 5 of 7

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:23 am
by FilmFan720
I agree with all the others just how difficult this is, for a different reason though. I realized attempting this just how shoddy my viewing of past Oscar nominees has been. Before about 1985, I haven't seen a lot of the "worse" winners (maybe I'm lucky there), and in any given category I have only seen one or two nominees, which makes it difficult to fill the ballot out. Sorry, but maybe this will spur me to start watching some crappy older movies:)

Tripp

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:27 am
by OscarGuy
BACK ON TOPIC:

I've only received 3 ballots so far. I'm rather disappointed in the turn out. I expected more out of everyone. Please get your ballots in ASAP!

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:42 am
by Greg
HarryGoldfarb wrote:Venezuela....
So, any thoughts on Chavez?

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:33 pm
by Mister Tee
I've finally got around to working on this and found, like many have, it's a complex process. Some all-time-horrible choices I find hard to include because there's no decent winner among the other nominees (unless I say "as opposed to ANYTHING"); and some of the most egregious omissions I'm reluctant to cite because the ultimate winner wasn't actually undeserving. (I feel like I want to include footnotes: "It's not I hate Godfather II's score; just, I think passing over Chinatown's was criminal)

I also find some low-echelon categories harder to judge from the early years (how can I rate cinematography I've only seen on TV?), so many of my picks lean on the years I've followed in present-tense (at least I have 40-plus years to draw on). And some categories -- like sound -- interest me so little, I can barely come up with a candidate.

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:04 pm
by HarryGoldfarb
Venezuela.... third world country vs. developing country... it just matters depending on how politically correct you are... ok then, "developing country" sound less devastating for some realities... :)

And I wasn't trying to offend anybody and I didn't meant (though my english gave that impression) that some of us were around back in the 20's, I just said that... oh well, it doesn't matter either (great that Magilla wasn't offended!). Just want to know when is the period-ending for sending our options...

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:57 am
by Reza
HarryGoldfarb wrote:I'm just 25 and live in a third world country
Surely the term - ''Third World Country'' - is no longer used? Hasn't it been substituted by the term - ''Developing Country''?

Anyway where do you come from?

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:26 pm
by Big Magilla
LOL. No, I wasn't around in 1929, but I have handicapped all the races having seen most of the major contenders, nominated or otherwise in most years.

I actually think Wings is a better film than 7th Heaven, but not as good as Sunrise. As much as I think some of the early choices were bad, I'm handicapped by not being able to say they should have lost to films that weren't nominated. For example, Grand Hotel wan't as good as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or Scarface, but was better than the seven films it competed against in 1931/32. Marty may not have been as good as East of Eden, The NIght of the Hunter or Rebel Without a Cause but it was certainly better than Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing and The Rose Tattoo.

For the record, my worst decision picks for picture include one from the 30s, one from 40s, one from the 50s, one from the 70s and one from the 00s.

My worst decision picks for actor include one from the 60s, one from the 70s, two from the 90s and one from the 00s. My worst decision picks for actress include one from the 30s, one from the 40s, one from 50s, one from the 60s and one from the 70s, all but one of whom didn;t even deserve to be nominated.

My worst decision picks for song include two from the 79s, one from 80s and two from the 90s.

I'm sure you guys will come up with better selections than I've seen on other message boards where it doesn't appear most posters have ever heard of a film made before 1990, let alone seen one.

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:05 pm
by flipp525
HarryGoldfarb wrote:7th Heaven losing to Wings? Magilla and some others might have interesting and probably very shocking choices from the earlier years but not everyone (and not only for the age factor) have acces to all the years movies...

Be careful there, Harry. Big Magilla and other more senior members of the board might be older than us 20-somethings but I don't think they were following the great race of 1929!

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:44 pm
by HarryGoldfarb
This has been a real hard work, specially cause I've have to review year by year category by category and I'm finding a lot of examples... by the way, this has been very educating, cause now I'm even wondering why after 15 years of vividly following the Oscar, I'm still doing it, cause I've already found 20 examples only in Best Picture where my choice doesn't match the Academy's and it's being very hard to make up my mind for just 5.

By the way, I wonder if the fact that a lot of young people vote won't affect the final result; I mean, I take myself as example, I'm just 25 and live in a third world country with very little access to old classics, I'm usually have nothing to say about the first 10 years and very little to do with the next 12 or 14 years, so then I can't consider those years for my vote cause in some cases I hadn't even seen the winner. So my choices are mostly from the 40's and further. So, for example, If more people vote for Fellowship of the Ring losing to A Beutiful Mind, wouldn't it be simply cause more people lived that than for it's actually more shocking than, say, 7th Heaven losing to Wings? Magilla and some others might have interesting and probably very shocking choices from the earlier years but not everyone (and not only for the age factor) have acces to all the years movies...

By the way, till when can we send our choices?
(my english is growing lousier everyday)

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:51 am
by OscarGuy
How about this:

One entry could be:

Nicole Kidman over Reese Witherspoon AND Julianne Moore. Then you're capitalizing on what a weak year it was for the winner over more superior choices but you don't have to eliminate your choice either.

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:03 pm
by FilmFan720
I'm having no problem filling categories, it is just in some categories I am having trouble which was the most egrigious rob. There are a handful of times where there is an awful winner and two fabulous winner...ah, who to choose?

Tripp

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:18 pm
by OscarGuy
I suppose if you're having THAT many problems coming up with choices to fill the category, then I suppose that would be okay but it should be the most egregious from each contest.

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:42 pm
by FilmFan720
Can we vote for the same win twice? For instance, could I vote for Nicole Kidman winning over Julianne Moore, and then vote again for her winning over Renee Zellwegger?

Tripp

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:14 am
by Eric
Damien wrote:Of course, this begs for another new thread – The worst nominee that became a finalist in lieu of a potential nominee whose absence points out how idiotic Academy voters are. The quintessential example is the imbecilic Goddamn Cartoon The Incredibles [sic] being nominated for Best Original Screenplay of 2004 when Kinsey was not. (How anyone over the age of 10 who’s not a pinhead could sit through this thing is beyond me. )

God. Did the Academy actually manage to get so many nominations correct that this undertaking would even be possible?

Anyway, if there's a quintessential example to be had from the last few years, it's the fact that Janusz Kaminski's Spielberg cinematography hasn't been nominated once in the aughts, while Lord of the Rings the First, Chicago, The Phantom of the Opera, Batman Begins, Brokeback Mountain and TWO g.d. Jean-Pierre Jeunet movies have all been.

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:05 am
by Penelope
Well...I think Wallace Beery is kinda, er, cute. In his fashion. Gloria Swanson found him attractive enough to marry--at least for a few months.