OscarGuy's Nomination Elimination Game

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I was thinking during lunch about this and I had a great idea. How about this:

We start off selecting a random year. An order of selection is chosen for that one year (meaning everyone's placed in a random order for selecting).

On your turn, you have 3 options: Replace, Preserve or Rescue.

You can choose any category within the given year and one of the nominees. You can then Replace them with someone not already nominated or eliminated, Preserve their place as a nominee, or Rescue someon previously eliminated by eliminating someone else and putting them back into the race.

You only get one Rescue per year, so you have to use it wisely. You have an unlimited number os Replacements or Preservations for each year.

Once a selection has been made (the replacement or the preserved), it cannot be undone by a later Replace or Rescue action. Once a category has had all five (or three or whatever) slots Replaced or Preserved, none of the eliminated nominees can be Rescued.

Everyone takes turns until the entire year is finished and then we randomly determine a new year and re-order the turn list.

And, this would not apply to Documentary or Short Film categories. These are too difficult for us to weigh in on since very very few have ever seen them all, better yet all that would have been in competition.

What do you think?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Big Magilla wrote:Why not impose a rule that we wait no more than 24 hours for the person whose turn is up. If they don't respond, they lose that turn.
There are too many people that take time off from the board. I usually take the weekend off to work on other stuff that I wouldn't have time for during the work days.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Part of the strategy that emerged in the other game was passing off categories to certain individuals with full knowledge that they would eliminate or vote a certain way. If we remove that, then part of the strategy and fun of the game is taken away, IMO.
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
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Why not impose a rule that we wait no more than 24 hours for the person whose turn is up. If they don't respond, they lose that turn. Also, if someone passes not because he or she is satisfied with the list of nominees in their particular category, but because they don't feel knowledgable enough to make an informed decision, the next player gets that category.

If the object is to present the nominations as they would appear on Oscar morning, why not do it in chronoloigcal order from 1927/28? We could even do it in the order in which the nominations are generally announced - acting, writing, directing, picture, then the tech awards. Or we could do it category by category, going from the beginning to the present. Either way might be less confusing than jumping around at random. Of course if we're going to go with chronological order within a year we would have to make sure that each player is given a shot at the major categories so if player 1 gets best actor in 1927/28, he doesn;t get that category again until all the players have had a shot at that category. If there are ten players, his next shot will be 1938 unless someone passes.
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

OscarGuy wrote:I love how every time I propose a game someone suggests to "put it off".
Next time you propose a game I'll make one too and postpone yours for a few more months - for consistency's sake. :D
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I love how every time I propose a game someone suggests to "put it off". I don't see how having two games going concurrently will cause any problems. The people having trouble with participating in the other game are going to have troubles whether they're participating in this one or not. PLUS, this would allow those of us who are waiting for people to take a turn in the other game, a chance to potentially have a second game to play while they wait.

And, here's a thought: once a nominee has been eliminated, can they be re-instated later if the category is given to someone who would want to do so?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Actually, I do agree with flipp--not out of any personal pride, but simply that having two games going on at the same time may become confusing. I WAS going to suggest such a game as OG has proposed, but I was going to wait until the other game was finished first.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

I think we've already got enough going on with Penelope's game and people can barely keep up there (including myself). It's hard enough to keep track of that. This might be a good one to come back to once we've exhausted the original version months down the line.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore

Post by rudeboy »

OscarGuy wrote:I disagree on viability. There are generally at least 5 or more films that are worthy of nomination in Visual Effects each year. It's been that way for the last 10 at least.
Maybe so, but introducing five nominees in the visual effects category would overbalance it against the categories with many more viable candidates - it would be a situation exactly like we currently have with best picture against best animated film. Increasing the nominees would be a pointless and ridiculous move.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I don't see a reason why there should be one.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Is there going to be a year cut-off?
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I disagree on viability. There are generally at least 5 or more films that are worthy of nomination in Visual Effects each year. It's been that way for the last 10 at least.

But you bring up a point. Whether it's arbitrary or not, we have to go based off of what they have. We use only official nominations as a guide. We don't add to or delete, we eliminate-and-replace or leave-as-is. That will make it easier from all perspectives.

As for eligibility, we have a very tricky situation as, other than release date, we have no way to know if something would have been eligible as some disqualifications aren't revealed or don't make sense. so, I would say we go off the US release date eligibility and then leave the rest to personal preference.
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
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:I don't know if we should expand categories. Early years they may have been more amorphous, but rules are as they are now, a category's length is pre-determined and cannot be changed. Because otherwise, I know many of us would alter Visual Effects categories for the last several years to allow five and how do we adjudicate when a category is closed at that rate?
For four years from 1931/32 through 1935, the then two acting categories only had three nominees. This was considered so unfair that the Academy allowed write-in votes for not only these categories, but all categories in 1934 and 1935. In fact, A Midsummer Night's Dream actually won as awrite-in nominee for cinematography in 1935.

In 1935 there was a four way tie for the third best actress nomination that resulted in six nominations in that category. If we could have six nominees in that category that year why couldn;t we have five nominees in all categories for those four years?

I'm a little more ambivalent about modern times. The categories that are restricted to fewer than five nominees are so restricted because of the general lack of viable nominees for those categories, which wasn't the case in the early 30s.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Penelope wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:As for eligibility, I suggest we keep eligibility to the prescribed eligibility periods of the given years.

My question about this is related to foreign films--how do we ascertain the eligibility for a foreign film. If I get Best Actress 1960, and I know that L'Avventura is a 1960 film from IMDb, I'll want to add Monica Vitti...but was it eligible in 1960?
No - if you look at imdb for year of release you can usually determine the release date for a film in the U.S. In the case of L'Avventura it was March, 1961.

Determining elibigibility for the foreign language category itself can be a tricky business. Inisde Oscar has lgenerous ists of eligible films that were rejected in given years. I don't know of any other source.

Strict U.S. release dates do not pre-detrmine eligibility in other categories. Eligibility periods are based on L.A. openings. In some years the eligibility period ran to the second week in January in order to give high profile films that opened in New York at year-end a bit of leeway. How Green Was My Valley, for example, opened on January 12, 1942. In Old Chicago, which was not shown anywhere in the world until January, 1938 is a 1937 nominee and supporting actress winner due to this window of opportunity.

Some films are declared ineligible because of silly rules. All the Way Home was disqualified because its initial L.A. run was only six days, not the required seven. Scenes From a Marriage was declared ineligible because it had been shown on Swedish TV the previous year. YiYi was ineligible because the producers didn;t file the requisite intention to be considered papers with the Academy. Are we to pepetuate these silly rules or ignore them?
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

OscarGuy wrote:As for eligibility, I suggest we keep eligibility to the prescribed eligibility periods of the given years.
My question about this is related to foreign films--how do we ascertain the eligibility for a foreign film. If I get Best Actress 1960, and I know that L'Avventura is a 1960 film from IMDb, I'll want to add Monica Vitti...but was it eligible in 1960?
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Locked

Return to “Other Film Discussions”