First Post-Oscar Nominations Predictions

[Sabin]

I'm just going to put this out there...isn't any outcome in which the final tally is not unanimous a vote split?

[OscarGuy]

You didn't disprove anything Italiano. My mathematics is sound. You didn't read nor understand my point. I think you're just being stubborn. I'm done with this debate simply because it's obvious you're never going to see/understand/appreciate our argument and we're never going to see/understand/appreciate yours. So, it's really futile at this point.

[ITALIANO]

Brava Steph

[Steph2]

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.

And there are those who see things that aren't there. I'm not saying who's who but I think it's fairly obvious, it's you. :p

[ITALIANO]

I'm not saying who's who but I think it's fairly obvious by now.

Always a coward, eh, Big Magilla? Very sad. I've proven your theory to be wrong and this is your reply. Did you read my disproving of Oscar Guy's mathematical theory? Can you understand it or you just prefer to believe in fairy tales?

Mister Tee, you are more reasonable, but according to your view of things, in 1976 Laurence Olivier should have won Best Supporting Actor - because not only All the President's Men and Network were face to face in that category, but there were not one but TWO nominees from Rocky, which could have made this movie's chances weaker. Yet Jason Robards for All the President's Men won. Why? And, if I follow your (and Big Magilla's) way of thinking, in 1950 - why did vote-splitting between All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard lead to Born Yesterday winning Best Actress, but not Best Picture? And I could go on with endless other examples, but I won't, because I have shown - with Oscar Guy's help - how EVEN FROM THE MATHEMATICAL point of view this vote-splitting theory can happen maybe, but only once in, say, a million times (and then only if the so-called "underdog" isn't an underdog at all, but has a very strong support to begin with - which makes the theory not relevant anyway).

My point is that vote-splitting can happen - we all can have our doubts between two or more nominees of course - but if you have FIVE contenders (and not three), this works for all of them and so the outcome isn't affected by it UNLESS four nominees are markedly different from the fifth one, have very strong aspects in common, and the fifth one can count on a (maybe unpredicted) support by itself - which by the way it's logical, since it was nominated. So yes, the Marisa Tomei example is an acceptable one, but if someone says the she was voted because Alfre Woodard hadn't been nominated, first he's rewriting history and I'm shocked that I am the only one to point out this, and second I will call the best lunatic asylum in Northern California giving them his name and address.

In the end, we all know that it's a matter of chance - it's true, if Rocky had been nominated in another year, along with four (and I repeat, four, not two) different movies, maybe it wouldn't have won. Ok, but then if George W. Bush hadn't been elected president there wouldn't be the invasion of Iraq - so? The point, in history, is that these situations happened. Rocky WAS nominated in 1976, and like the other four nominees it was an expression of that year's cinema - and among those five nominees, it was the one which most voters thought was the best of the year - if it had been hated, trust me, it wouldn't have won. And then we have all the rights to try to understand why it won - there ARE reasons - but vote-splitting is a very superficial way of looking at things. Oh, and for a moment I forgot - very American, too.

The Gladiator example is typical and it shows how the vote-splitting theory is wrong and unfair. Why should Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Traffic have been the victims of vote-splitting? What do these two movies have in common? And why was Gladiator the one which benefited from it? And - again - why didn't Gladiator split its votes with, say, Chocolat then? And - I could go on forever - why did vote-splitting harm Traffic's chances in this category, but NOT in Best Director, where Ridley Scott lost to Steven Soderbergh DESPITE the fact that Soderbergh not only had Ang Lee as a rival even here, but, most important, had a double nomination which, according to this theory, might have led to more vote-splitting and damaged his chances?

This is your vote-splitting theory - judge for yourself how and if it can be applied.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1201529130

[Sabin]

...what are you people doing?

[Damien]

Sez the guy who praises Alvin and the Chipmunks.

And your point is . . . ?

[Penelope]

Well, that's your opinion. Not mine. Certainly, there are better films than Gladiator, but Gladiator is infinitely superior to Traffic.

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

At least now your hatred of St. Hilary makes some sense in that it fits in with a pattern of ridiculousness.

Sez the guy who praises Alvin and the Chipmunks.

[Damien]

Well, that's your opinion. Not mine. Certainly, there are better films than Gladiator, but Gladiator is infinitely superior to Traffic.

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

At least now your hatred of St. Hilary makes some sense in that it fits in with a pattern of ridiculousness.

[Penelope]

And, remember folks, it does only take 1 vote more than the others to win.

[Steph2]

The best case, for me, is the Rocky/Network-All the President's Men pile-up, because the latter two did beat Rocky in important categories where the face-off was one-one-one -- President's Men took sound, Network screenplay and actress. The fact that Rocky's only three wins were in categories where all three films competed suggested to me the other two appealed to similar tastes and it took splitting them to give the Stallone film the advantage.

OR that a majority of voters simply preferred the performances of Finch, Dunaway and Robards to any of those in Rocky, admired the writing for Network and All the President's Men, but overall thought Rocky was the best picture! Rocky did still win Directing after all. Occam's razor - all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

[Mister Tee]

For the most part I'm in sympathy with "the person who won got the most votes, period", and I think people throw out vote-splitting too often, many times when the split is a figment of the quotee's imagination. And all winners of course have to have a solid base of support to be able to benefit from whatever vote configurations there are, so you can't call any win illegitimate.

However...It can happen that several nominees can be from films appealing to the same sort of viewer, and that can help an underdog achieve unexpected victory. I've always felt Annie Hall won in 1977 because the other four nominees were so retro, it allowed an unusually cool choice to triumph. And the Marisa Tomei win surely was helped by the fact that all four other nominees were from art house movies, while hers was in a broadly popular comedy.

The best case, for me, is the Rocky/Network-All the President's Men pile-up, because the latter two did beat Rocky in important categories where the face-off was one-one-one -- President's Men took sound, Network screenplay and actress. The fact that Rocky's only three wins were in categories where all three films competed suggested to me the other two appealed to similar tastes and it took splitting them to give the Stallone film the advantage.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1201494769

[Penelope]

Well, that's your opinion. Not mine. Certainly, there are better films than Gladiator, but Gladiator is infinitely superior to Traffic.

[Steph2]

But...GLADIATOR??? It's one of the worst films I've ever seen!

[Penelope]

Oh, c'mon. Traffic is one of the dullest, most snooze-worthy, most pretentious films ever to come near the Academy Awards. It makes the Stanley Kramer epics of the 50s and 60s look like paragons of subtlety and restraint.