OscarGuy's Nomination Elimination Game

[OscarGuy]

I think it would be unfair to allow one person to completely redesign a category. So, it would be one voter, one replacement/save.

Up to 5 people can change a category before it's closed and the same person cannot alter the same category twice (this could be a touch confusing).

As my initial post said, we would not select a winner. If you eliminate a nominee that also won, so be it. We're not about choosing winners here. We're about choosing a slate of nominees. Think of this as Oscar Nomination Morning where we don't know who will win yet.

And, when we're done, we can probably select winners as well, but that's a LONG way off.

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?

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

[rudeboy]

What about eligibility rules? It might be tricky for earlier years to pin down when (if at all) a particular film was eligible for the Oscars. Or, what about films which were eligible for the Oscars much later but are firmly established as key films of a certain, earlier period? Would Rules of the Game, for example, be considered a 1950 movie (when it was released in the US) or the 1939 movie which we all know it to be?

[Big Magilla]

I don't think anything was said about picking a winner. I don't suppose that would happen until all the categories for all the years have had a thorough going over. But here's another thought. Suppose whoever is given a category gets to "fix" the entire category, taking out as many of the nominees as he or she chooses and then picking a winner. It would speed things up considerably.

One caveat, though, I propose that in years where there are fewer than five nominees in a particular category, the person who gets that category may, at his or her option, expand teh category to five nominees.

For example - best actress of 1932/33. The nominees are:

Katharine Hepburn, Morning Glory
May Robson, Lady for a Day
Diana Wynyard, Cavalcade

I take out Hepburn in Morning Glory and replace her with herself in Little Women, leave Robson alone and take out Wynyard, replacing her with Barbara Stanwyck in The Bitter Tea of General Yen, then add Marie Dressler and Jean Harlow in Dinner at Eight. I then give the award to Hepburn in Little Women.

[Bog]

I am intrigued but a little confused about the winners in said categories, like does Frances de la Tour inherit the Oscar in the example?

Would it be too identical to Pen's game if in this game I pass a category to Oscar Guy and he lists his "shouldabeens" per se, then passes another category to Penelope. Penelope will thus pick his "shouldabeens" for said category as well as name a winner for the ones Oscar Guy listed. This clearly may not work too well for a lot of people with less recent years.

An example, though I don't know if this would work at all.

I pass supporting actress last year to Penelope...he changes the category to

Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada)
Sandra Bullock (Infamous)
Frances de la Tour (The History Boys)
Shareeka Epps (Half Nelson)
Carmen Maura (Volver)

he then passes Best Picture 2004 to Oscar Guy, which he revamps, and Wes also chooses Emily Blunt to receive the Oscar, and so on...

I was more thinking out loud and realize that it might be hard to come up with a new slate, especially in the earlier years of the Oscars, probably too difficult, but a thought nonetheless.

[FilmFan720]

Or none.

[Big Magilla]

Makes sense - eliminate or save. In some cases there may be only one or two worth saving.

[OscarGuy]

If we do that, then we're not going to be able to use a pass system. If we do that, then you can either eliminate a nominee or save one. Your choice. Only in that way would I ever want to have more than one potential replacement.

[Penelope]

I don't think anyone wants to see a 100% turnover in any given category. I'm thinking we only replace one (otherwise we'll be here until 2016.

Oh no, I think they do.

I agree with FilmFan; I think we all would like a chance to put one of our favorite overlooked performances/films in whatever category. Besides, we've been here for 10 years already, what's another 10 years playing a game!

[FilmFan720]

I don't think anyone wants to see a 100% turnover in any given category. I'm thinking we only replace one (otherwise we'll be here until 2016.

Oh no, I think they do.

[OscarGuy]

I don't think anyone wants to see a 100% turnover in any given category. I'm thinking we only replace one (otherwise we'll be here until 2016.

[Big Magilla]

I think there should be a limit of two replacements for every five nominees in a given category.

[Penelope]

Does the category become closed after only one nominee has been replaced? Or does the category remain open for other players to be given, and then is closed once all the nominees have either been replaced or the category has been has been given to 5 different players (if the category has 5 nominees)? And if that's the case, are the replacement nominees at risk of themselves being replaced (perhaps by the very nominee they replaced in the first place)?

Ok, if I've confused you, let's continue to use 2006 Supporting Actress:

Van Helsing has replaced Abigail Breslin with Sandra Bullock.

Later in the game, Bog is given the same category/year, and he replaces Adriana Barraza with Emily Blunt.

A few turns later, anonymous gets a crack at the category, and replaces Cate Blanchett with Shareeka Epps.

Later still, dws has his turn at the category, and replaces Jennifer Hudson with Frances de la Tour.

Finally, OriginalBJ gets the category at some point, and he replaces Rinko Kikuchi with Carmen Maura. Since he's the fifth player to get the category, it's closed, and that leaves us with the following lineup:

Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada)
Sandra Bullock (Infamous)
Frances de la Tour (The History Boys)
Shareeka Epps (Half Nelson)
Carmen Maura (Volver)

[OscarGuy]

While this isn't exactly the game I had envisioned some months back, I am intending this to act as a companion to Penelope's Oscar Elmination Game.

This will work almost identically.

We will use the same round-robin style of selections. Each person passes a category to the next person in line. You have 3 passes (as you have now in Penelope's game). The distinction is what/how we're going to do this.

Each person will take their assigned category and year and eliminate one of the five nominees (for years with more than five, you can eliminate one for every five nominees. So, if the category has ten nominees, you can eliminate two. If it has fifteen, you can eliminate three and so on.). They will then replace it with a candidate they felt should have been nominated that year instead of the eliminated individual.

That's it in a nutshell. I hope everyone will consider participating who is also participating in Penelope's game. I will take sign-ups until Monday at which point we'll begin the game. You can join at any time after that. Once we have a full list and a few good selections under our belt, I will post a tracking thread similar to Penelope's.

If you're curious how this works because the above isn't explanatory, here's a sample:

Let's say Van Helsing got Best Supporting Actress, 2006.

First, he eliminates Abigail Breslin because she doesn't think she did enough to be there. He then goes in and replaces Breslin with Sandra Bullock for Infamous.

That category has now been altered and the new five looks like this:

Adriana Barraza - Babel
Cate Blanchett - Notes on a Scandal
Sandra Bullock - Infamous
Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Rinko Kikuchi - Babel

If you eliminate a winner, you do not get to choose a replacement winner. This contest is not currently about selecting winners. It is, instead, about re-writing the nominees.