First Post-Oscar Nominations Predictions

[Steph2]

Well, then most people are apparently idiots if they think Traffic was better than Gladiator. Hell, even Scary Movie and Charlie's Angels were better films than Traffic.

Wow Pen, I knew you had horrible taste in films but...wow. That's an all time low. :p

[Damien]

Well, then most people are apparently idiots if they think Traffic was better than Gladiator. Hell, even Scary Movie and Charlie's Angels were better films than Traffic.

I'd be careful about throwing around the word "idiots" when you make a statement like that.

[Penelope]

But I prefer Kate Winslet to Hilary Swank!! Twice!!!!!

Well, of course, that's as it should be. It's astonishing that anyone could think otherwise.

:;):

[Okri]

But I prefer Kate Winslet to Hilary Swank!! Twice!!!!!

[Penelope]

I think most people (I said most people, Penelope) would rank both Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon above Gladiator, for example.

Well, then most people are apparently idiots if they think Traffic was better than Gladiator. Hell, even Scary Movie and Charlie's Angels were better films than Traffic.

[Big Magilla]

Thanks, OKri, but I'm afraid it's a losing battle. There are those who do not see, those who will not see and those who will argue just for the sake of stirring the pot. I'm not saying who's who but I think it's fairly obvious by now.

[Okri]

I'm not so sure I'd agree, though I do think it's a term thrown around far too often.

No one's arguing that the winning film/performance is the one with the most votes, Steph. For me, vote splitting is when there are three films/etc that have a similar level of support. That said, a majority of voters prefer two of them to the third, but there's no ranking or anything to indicate anything like that. I think most people (I said most people, Penelope) would rank both Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon above Gladiator, for example. That said, it seemed that year, it was fairly even as to which one was the better film (ie, neither film was able to become a significant rallying point) and Gladiator was able to win.

It's certainly not scientific, and we have no empirical evidence to back it up, but I certainly imagine situations like the aforementioned occurring.

[Steph2]

I mean - it doesn't make much sense, do you realize it?

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.

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!"...

I fucking love you.

[Steph2]

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.

How could you possibly know this for sure? You say "Contrary to myth, Baxter didn't pull any votes away from her" but you don't know this for a fact any more than the "contrary myth." Yet you cite it with such certainty.

I'm as exasperated with the vote splitting theory as Italiano is. It makes no sense! If two actors get 33% each and the winning actor only gets 34% that still means THE WINNING ACTOR GOT THE MOST VOTES. That means 34% of the voters PREFERRED that actor. It's that simple. The only way the other 66% counts is if those were votes cast actively AGAINST a certain performer. Which is something we can't ever know, and something that logic tells us probably rarely happens (since it's more likely that voters just vote for who they like most). The only other time it can work is if -- as Italiano points out -- there is more than one nominee per film. When Beauty and the Beast garnered three song nominations, it was possible that those who loved the film could have been "split" between say the rousing Be Our Guest and the sweet theme song. Interestingly though, they weren't. Voters weren't morons and they picked the theme song. The same thing happened with Soderbergh, everyone said he'd split his own vote but again, the voters weren't morons and could tell that Traffic was the film to vote for.

If anything, these examples should prove that the idea of vote splitting is hogwash.

[ITALIANO]

You DIDN'T read my example at all. I took into account all five candidates, thank you.

And How do you account for the following:

50% of voters believe Candidates A & B are the two best performance of the year, on equal footing. That's well more than half the voters believe there are no other candidates but A & B. There is no perceived frontrunner of the two, so they are torn for who to choose.

26% of voters think Candidate C is good, but Candidate C doesn't even register on any of the first 50%'s opinion. The remaining 24% splits between the other two candidates. So, A & B end up splitting since none of the 50% can agree on one of the two to put on top, so the split at 25% and 25%, losing to Candidate C who wasn't preferred by a majority of ALL voters, but because the two that WERE preferred split votes, the third candidate one. It does not preclude the popularity of the third candidate, but it can prove that that candidate WASN'T the preferred victor, but happened to win because the full majority couldn't decide the same direction.

You refuse to admit that this is even possible. You can't see how mathematics COULD create such a result. I'm not saying it happens often at all, even ever, but it can happen in exactly that model. You said this can't happen unless there are two candidates splitting for the same film, but it works the exact same way.

Ah, so those 50% split exactly in half, 25-25, NOT EVEN 26-24, eh? Well, I'm sure you realize how the example is pure theory, but realistically it can't happen - and definitely not as often as you and Big Magilla say. I mean, it's the kind of example that I hope will prevent you (if not Big Magilla) from talking about vote-splitting for the next ten years.

But it's also a wrong, unfair example. Because while you talk in detail about those 50% then resulting in 25-25, you describe the other movies' percentages as if they are the result of clear, solid, precise voting. Why? How do you know that even some of those who liked C, let's say 10%, weren't in doubt between C and, say, film D, and then they settled for D? You can't say it, because you can't know, but it can be possible, too. So vote-splitting ultimately can work in any direction - and this is why it can't be used as an explanation for an Oscar win (even one that we may not like much).

And in the end - ok, we may all have doubts about which movie which should vote for, but what finally counts is our number one choice. 25% chose one movie as the best of year, 25% chose another one, and 26% chose the third one. This is the most liked movie, even by a narrow margin - and this is what counts. An analysis of what our second choice would have been not only is irrelevant, but it's also a matter of guessing, and, even more, of wishing, I think. This is not how rational people discuss winning and losing.

Do you agree?

[ITALIANO]

was voted by people who would have voted for Brokeback.

Yes, they say so FilmFan, but it's not true. They are completely wrong. These are three different movies, and the most voted won... I don't think that those who liked Brokeback Mountain were the same who liked the Clooney movie - some, probably, but others didn't... And then I could reply that those who liked Crash also liked Munich, for example... so vote-splitting would have happened here too.

No - these were five movies, and the most liked won. Second places don't count - here and in other contests too: Crash was the movie, among the five, that most voters thought was the best of the year.

Then of course we can - must - try to understand why. But vote-splitting, this kind of magical keyword, is a banal answer, a wrong answer, and a dangerous answer. I won't play this game.

[Big Magilla]

I concede my Brokeback theory to vote siphoning, but my other examples are of vote splitting where where there was no clear front runner, but a real horse race between two or more equally admired candidates.

I was too young to even be aware of the Davis/Swanson/Holliday race so I have no idea what my opinion might have been at the time, but I do remember the the 1992 supporting actress race and going back and forth between the four candidates other than Tomei and not really caring which one won. I remember having the same feeling in other races which I needn't go into as I think we've exhausted this one. Either you agree or you don't.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1201479935

[Sonic Youth]

Maybe we should call this Vote Siphoning,

Get outta my head, man!!

[OscarGuy]

You DIDN'T read my example at all. I took into account all five candidates, thank you.

And How do you account for the following:

50% of voters believe Candidates A & B are the two best performance of the year, on equal footing. That's well more than half the voters believe there are no other candidates but A & B. There is no perceived frontrunner of the two, so they are torn for who to choose.

26% of voters think Candidate C is good, but Candidate C doesn't even register on any of the first 50%'s opinion. The remaining 24% splits between the other two candidates. So, A & B end up splitting since none of the 50% can agree on one of the two to put on top, so the split at 25% and 25%, losing to Candidate C who wasn't preferred by a majority of ALL voters, but because the two that WERE preferred split votes, the third candidate one. It does not preclude the popularity of the third candidate, but it can prove that that candidate WASN'T the preferred victor, but happened to win because the full majority couldn't decide the same direction.

You refuse to admit that this is even possible. You can't see how mathematics COULD create such a result. I'm not saying it happens often at all, even ever, but it can happen in exactly that model. You said this can't happen unless there are two candidates splitting for the same film, but it works the exact same way.

[FilmFan720]

I find myself saying this frighteningly often as of late, but I agree with ITALIANO on this one. What the vote-splitting theory fails to address is that while the film that wins may not be the most popular, it still garnered the most number of votes. An underdog with almost no votes cannot win, it has to be a legitimate second or third place candidate.

What Magilla and OscarGuy are defining here is the experience of one candidate siphoning votes from a perceived front-runner. In the 2005 example (which I have a hard time believing was the case), Good Night and Good Luck (which was the third place candidate, and had no real chance of winning anything) was voted by people who would have voted for Brokeback. Therefor, they siphoned enough votes off of Brokeback's tally that it fell to second place, and the strong contender Crash managed to become the highest vote getter. Maybe we should call this Vote Siphoning, of benefit to a STRONG second place candidate.