First Post-Oscar Nominations Predictions
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19362
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
That's the first thing you've said that makes sense.ITALIANO wrote:Exactly FilmFan. And also, for the vote-splitting theory to mathematically work (and to be of real damage to the two frontrunners, so that a third can result as the "unexpected" winner), at least 50% of the voters must ALL be in doubts between the SAME two movies - which means about 3000 people, nobody with a clear preference, all torn between those two movies, and then splitting their votes, if not exactly by half, almost.
You've been using the wrong argument to make your point. It's not a question of mathematics, it's a question of personal preference. The majority may be torn between two choices but ultimately they have to make one and once they've made it there's no longer a split. The entire Academy is resposible for giving awards to Rocky and Crash just as the entire country is responsible for electing for George W. Bush president.
Obviously, there are two other movies nominated - which should at least count on 10% of the votes each. This is what you implied, anyway.OscarGuy wrote:Wow...since when did 50% plus 30% equal 100%? Amazing...are you sure Italians know how to add? :p
There is - again - a big problem in your way of thinking. Your example with ice creams is interesting, because you stubbornly want to believe that, while three tastes get neat, clear preferences (5-15-30% respectively), ALL THOSE (50%) who like vanilla will ALSO like chocolate, and with the same intensity. And this is impossible - some will like vanilla, some will like chocolate, some (much less than 50% then) will like both, and some, why not, will like, say, vanilla and pistachio, in the same way.
The problem is that, for the vote-splitting theory to work, you HAVE to imagine that two movies (or two nominees) are liked by such a large amount of voters (half of the Academy) in the same way, and that all those who like one must also like the other, to the point that they will split their vote. You can't allow that these two movies can have even JUST a few voters who like just one of them. And this is clearly absurd - from a human, a psychological, and most important even from a statistic point of view.
Is it so difficult for Americans to understand (or to accept) this?
And anyway a nominee which ALONE gets 30% of the votes, still MUST win - because it deserves to - over two movies which TOGETHER get 50%. This is democracy.
Also, it's not important which movie was the most hated. We vote for the most liked of the five, and yes, true, the winner may even be the most hated by all the other voters, but I have bad news for you: this isn't important. It's possible that an American President was hated by all those who didn't vote for him, by the majority of Americans even (those who voted for his opponent and those who didn't vote at all) - yet between the two options he was the more liked. So he deserved to win - and same with Oscar nominees.
You may say that for example Crash was hated by even 70% of the Academy. Ok, this is what you think. But the point is that AMONG THE FIVE NOMINEES it was the most liked - and this is enough.
So please let's not start this other typical American fairy tale ("they were actually voting against another movie and this is why it won" etc) - otherwise I will have to show you why, statistically, even this is completely absurd.
But it's enough for me to have completely destroyed this vote-splitting theory which I have always found so annoying, so clearly wrong.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Wow...since when did 50% plus 30% equal 100%? Amazing...are you sure Italians know how to add? :p
Anyway, I think Marco fails to see one issue. One example, does not equal the only possibility. As I said, there are thousands of permutations based on a PSYCHOLOGICAL inability to choose the same option that could lead to a split of votes.
There are 1000 people, all of whom like ice cream. 5% love rocky road, 15% love pistachio, 30% love strawberry, 50% love both vanilla and chocolate. Between 50% and 100% of those of those 50% hate strawberry (hence 25% to 50% of the original total). However, those 50% of voters couldn't make an easy decision which of the two flavors they like. Now, those 5% and 15% don't really have an impact on the vote count, thus why after I have stated this, they are virtually ignored, though they could be pro- or anti-Strawberry fans, which may throw the discussion into a tailspin. However, for pure statistical purposes, any of the following ways the voters "split" (29%/21%, 28%/22%, etc) would result in a victory for Strawberry despite even a modest or overwhelming distaste for Strawberry.
But in terms of numbers, in a pool of 5000 voters, if at exactly 1,500 voters picking Candidate C, while 2,500 would vote against C, any split (1250/1250 to 1450/1,050, which is 400 votes one way or another) could result in a C victory.
Statistically, the chance of this occurring is small, but the POSSIBILITY exists. Is it impossible that someone could shit money? No. Is it improbable? Yes, but it is completely possible. That's where we see things differently, Marco. I see things in shades of gray, you're looking at this entirely in black-and-white. Either it's psychologically and mathematically true or it's psychologically and mathematically false.
Italiano, you said "Now, I think even Oscar Guy will admit that the vote-splitting theory isn't just highly improbable. It's impossible."
I said: "Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable sure, but not impossible." So obviously I DON'T agree with you on this and never will. While I understand that there is no even split of like or dislike of 1 individual typically that can occur and that there are five competing, but it is possible for a large number of voters to share an opinion that 1 of 5 candidates shouldn't have been nominated, regardless of how they like the other 4 candidates, those individuals will actively work against that one they dislike. Now, whether it will have an impact on other opinions or be shared we cannot know because none of us are AMPAS members and none of us travel in circles with AMPAS members to know how they THINK. So, at this point, the entire discussion is moot because we have no evidence to prove one theory (Magilla's) or another (Italiano's). It's all conjecture at this point. It's an unnecessary and pointless discussion that is entirely unimportant to this year's races because I doubt there's a single film that is universally despised.
Now, let me throw this theory out there:
The way ballots are tabulated, at least 20% of voters pretty much have to think a nominee is among the 5 best films of the year (or performances for that matter), so it's entirely possible that no film/performance is truly disliked simply because if there weren't enough people to like it in the first place, it wouldn't probably get nominated. Then again, I may be misunderstanding the vote tabulation process again, but it stands to reason that this would suggest even the least liked competitors have a strong base of support. How strong that base is is another matter and one which we will never know or understand without seeing those individual ballots.
Anyway, I think Marco fails to see one issue. One example, does not equal the only possibility. As I said, there are thousands of permutations based on a PSYCHOLOGICAL inability to choose the same option that could lead to a split of votes.
There are 1000 people, all of whom like ice cream. 5% love rocky road, 15% love pistachio, 30% love strawberry, 50% love both vanilla and chocolate. Between 50% and 100% of those of those 50% hate strawberry (hence 25% to 50% of the original total). However, those 50% of voters couldn't make an easy decision which of the two flavors they like. Now, those 5% and 15% don't really have an impact on the vote count, thus why after I have stated this, they are virtually ignored, though they could be pro- or anti-Strawberry fans, which may throw the discussion into a tailspin. However, for pure statistical purposes, any of the following ways the voters "split" (29%/21%, 28%/22%, etc) would result in a victory for Strawberry despite even a modest or overwhelming distaste for Strawberry.
But in terms of numbers, in a pool of 5000 voters, if at exactly 1,500 voters picking Candidate C, while 2,500 would vote against C, any split (1250/1250 to 1450/1,050, which is 400 votes one way or another) could result in a C victory.
Statistically, the chance of this occurring is small, but the POSSIBILITY exists. Is it impossible that someone could shit money? No. Is it improbable? Yes, but it is completely possible. That's where we see things differently, Marco. I see things in shades of gray, you're looking at this entirely in black-and-white. Either it's psychologically and mathematically true or it's psychologically and mathematically false.
Italiano, you said "Now, I think even Oscar Guy will admit that the vote-splitting theory isn't just highly improbable. It's impossible."
I said: "Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable sure, but not impossible." So obviously I DON'T agree with you on this and never will. While I understand that there is no even split of like or dislike of 1 individual typically that can occur and that there are five competing, but it is possible for a large number of voters to share an opinion that 1 of 5 candidates shouldn't have been nominated, regardless of how they like the other 4 candidates, those individuals will actively work against that one they dislike. Now, whether it will have an impact on other opinions or be shared we cannot know because none of us are AMPAS members and none of us travel in circles with AMPAS members to know how they THINK. So, at this point, the entire discussion is moot because we have no evidence to prove one theory (Magilla's) or another (Italiano's). It's all conjecture at this point. It's an unnecessary and pointless discussion that is entirely unimportant to this year's races because I doubt there's a single film that is universally despised.
Now, let me throw this theory out there:
The way ballots are tabulated, at least 20% of voters pretty much have to think a nominee is among the 5 best films of the year (or performances for that matter), so it's entirely possible that no film/performance is truly disliked simply because if there weren't enough people to like it in the first place, it wouldn't probably get nominated. Then again, I may be misunderstanding the vote tabulation process again, but it stands to reason that this would suggest even the least liked competitors have a strong base of support. How strong that base is is another matter and one which we will never know or understand without seeing those individual ballots.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Although I will contend that it is a possibility that this is how Crash won.Akash wrote:It would work especially if voters were actively voting AGAINST a certain film, but reason tells us this is not how most people will cast their votes.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
This is like a bad soap recast.Akash wrote:Marco you know I agree with you and I think you have made all your points and made them well. There is a bit of difference in terms of what you and OG think you disagree on, and beyond that people are either going to see your point or not. At this juncture, everyone is just repeating themselves and since you've made your position clearly and eloquently, perhaps it's time to just let this one go?
"The role of the Voice of Reason will now be played by Aakash."
Hmm, no. Somehow I don't think so.
Oh for fudge sake! That's what I said Marco. It's clear OG was only arguing an abstract concept while you were arguing both the implausibility of the abstract (as applied to a certain kind of vote splitting) and the impossibility of it occurring in the real world.
And hello, I was agreeing with you. Calm down. I'm South Asian, remember? We're good at Math.
Maybe I should come to Italy and teach you how to listen?
Edited By Akash on 1201602279
And hello, I was agreeing with you. Calm down. I'm South Asian, remember? We're good at Math.
Maybe I should come to Italy and teach you how to listen?
Edited By Akash on 1201602279
Read better, Aakash. I did something a bit more subtle, to be honest, and I'm surprised that you didn't get it.
I showed how, for the vote-splitting theory to mathematically happen (and it HAS to be possible mathematically to be believable of course), one must have a situation which is IMPOSSIBLE from other points of view. So it IS mathematically possible, but ONLY mathematically - as an abstraction - it can't happen in real life - do you get this? Too difficult, eh?
IF the nominees were just three, MAYBE it would be different. But with five nominees the vote-splitting theory is unrealistic or, if it happens, wouldn't have any real influence on the outcome. This is a fact, it's not Oscar Guy's opinion versus mine, Aakash.
And you are also wrong when you say that it would be possible only if people were actively voting against a movie - so you mean that 3000 voters would make this conspiracy, agree on choosing the same two movies, splitting their vote, and then by the way still failing because the third one would still win?! Or what? I don't understand this new version of the game, but it doesn't sound more realistic than the other ones...
I showed how, for the vote-splitting theory to mathematically happen (and it HAS to be possible mathematically to be believable of course), one must have a situation which is IMPOSSIBLE from other points of view. So it IS mathematically possible, but ONLY mathematically - as an abstraction - it can't happen in real life - do you get this? Too difficult, eh?
IF the nominees were just three, MAYBE it would be different. But with five nominees the vote-splitting theory is unrealistic or, if it happens, wouldn't have any real influence on the outcome. This is a fact, it's not Oscar Guy's opinion versus mine, Aakash.
And you are also wrong when you say that it would be possible only if people were actively voting against a movie - so you mean that 3000 voters would make this conspiracy, agree on choosing the same two movies, splitting their vote, and then by the way still failing because the third one would still win?! Or what? I don't understand this new version of the game, but it doesn't sound more realistic than the other ones...
Marco and Oscar Guy -- I really think you guys are arguing two different points. As far as I can tell, Oscar Guy is only arguing the mathematical possibility of a "split" vote (and he himself has said perhaps the term "split" is not accurate) and the example he presents is indeed possible (though not likely). It would work especially if voters were actively voting AGAINST a certain film, but reason tells us this is not how most people will cast their votes. In any event, Oscar Guy is arguing the mathematical possibility and Marco is arguing both the mathematical impossibility of a different kind of vote split (different from Oscar Guy's anyway) and the psychology/reasoning side -- that voters are unlikely to think a certain way about the same film (or two films) en masse. And you are both therefore correct.
Marco you know I agree with you and I think you have made all your points and made them well. There is a bit of difference in terms of what you and OG think you disagree on, and beyond that people are either going to see your point or not. At this juncture, everyone is just repeating themselves and since you've made your position clearly and eloquently, perhaps it's time to just let this one go?
Edited By Akash on 1201598393
Marco you know I agree with you and I think you have made all your points and made them well. There is a bit of difference in terms of what you and OG think you disagree on, and beyond that people are either going to see your point or not. At this juncture, everyone is just repeating themselves and since you've made your position clearly and eloquently, perhaps it's time to just let this one go?
Edited By Akash on 1201598393
Exactly FilmFan. And also, for the vote-splitting theory to mathematically work (and to be of real damage to the two frontrunners, so that a third can result as the "unexpected" winner), at least 50% of the voters must ALL be in doubts between the SAME two movies - which means about 3000 people, nobody with a clear preference, all torn between those two movies, and then splitting their votes, if not exactly by half, almost.
Nobody must have one of these two movies as a clear favorite - anyone who likes one movie must also like the other one. 3000 voters, all liking both movies in the same way, and nobody else liking even just one of them!
And the so-called "underdog", the one which will emerge as the winner, should still count on about 30% of the votes, which would make it, if not an obvious winner, definitely not an underdog.
Now, I think even Oscar Guy will admit that the vote-splitting theory isn't just highly improbable. It's impossible. I implied this even before - not as accurately because if I had done so even just one year ago I'd have been literally massacred - but I like truth too much to let this myth go on forever.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1201599260
Nobody must have one of these two movies as a clear favorite - anyone who likes one movie must also like the other one. 3000 voters, all liking both movies in the same way, and nobody else liking even just one of them!
And the so-called "underdog", the one which will emerge as the winner, should still count on about 30% of the votes, which would make it, if not an obvious winner, definitely not an underdog.
Now, I think even Oscar Guy will admit that the vote-splitting theory isn't just highly improbable. It's impossible. I implied this even before - not as accurately because if I had done so even just one year ago I'd have been literally massacred - but I like truth too much to let this myth go on forever.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1201599260
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Not to mention that EVERY nominee must be affected by "vote splitting." How many voters do you suppose who have a category where there is only one candidate they like (it may happen on this board, but this seems an unlikely occurrence for a more populist Academy voter) . They may have a preference, or a favorite, but you have to imagine that no one went in in 2005 and said Crash is the ONLY good film in that lineup, or that Munich is the ONLY good film in that lineup. Every voter has to make a decision, and in instances like this it just happens that the film which most of them decide is the best film is not the perceived front runner.ITALIANO wrote:OscarGuy wrote:Highly improbable sure
Ok, highly improbable. Big Magilla's theory is highly improbable - this is enough for me. So let's not use vote-splitting as an excuse for any Oscar win that we can't reasonably accept, please. As Oscar Guy said, it's highly improbable.
(And by the way, a movie which by itself gets 30% of the votes deserves to win over TWO movies which TOGETHER can only reach 53% - not to mention the fact that it's my right to doubt that this 53% is completely made of people who like both films in the same way - some MUST have have a clear preference, those are not the same movie after all! And who knows, maybe even the winner can be a victim of some kind of vote-splitting, can't it?)
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Ok, highly improbable. Big Magilla's theory is highly improbable - this is enough for me. So let's not use vote-splitting as an excuse for any Oscar win that we can't reasonably accept, please. As Oscar Guy said, it's highly improbable.OscarGuy wrote:Highly improbable sure
(And by the way, a movie which by itself gets 30% of the votes deserves to win over TWO movies which TOGETHER can only reach 53% - not to mention the fact that it's my right to doubt that this 53% is completely made of people who like both films in the same way - some MUST have have a clear preference, those are not the same movie after all! And who knows, maybe even the winner can be a victim of some kind of vote-splitting, can't it?)
-
Movielover
- Graduate
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:24 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Picture - No Country for Old Men
Lead Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
Lead Actress - Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose)
Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
Supporting Actress - Ruby Dee (American Gangster)
Director - Ethan Coen and Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men)
Original Screenplay - Juno
Adapted Screenplay - No Country for Old Men
Cinematography - No Country for Old Men
Art Direction - Atonement
Costume Design - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Sound - Transformers
Editing - The Bourne Ultimatum
Sound Editing - There Will Be Blood
Visual Effects - Transformers
Makeup - La Vie en Rose
Song - "Falling Slowly" - Once
Score - Atonement
Animated Short - Madame Tutli-Putli
Live Action Short - Tanghi argentini
Documentary Short - Freeheld
Documentary - No End in Sight
Foreign Language Film - The Counterfeiters
Animated Film - Ratatouille
Lead Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
Lead Actress - Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose)
Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)
Supporting Actress - Ruby Dee (American Gangster)
Director - Ethan Coen and Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men)
Original Screenplay - Juno
Adapted Screenplay - No Country for Old Men
Cinematography - No Country for Old Men
Art Direction - Atonement
Costume Design - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Sound - Transformers
Editing - The Bourne Ultimatum
Sound Editing - There Will Be Blood
Visual Effects - Transformers
Makeup - La Vie en Rose
Song - "Falling Slowly" - Once
Score - Atonement
Animated Short - Madame Tutli-Putli
Live Action Short - Tanghi argentini
Documentary Short - Freeheld
Documentary - No End in Sight
Foreign Language Film - The Counterfeiters
Animated Film - Ratatouille