Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:24 pm
by OscarGuy
It's not WHAT you said. It's HOW you said it. But you don't realize how you come off sometimes, so I shouldn't be surprised that you can't tell the difference and easily understand why I would be offended.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:10 pm
by ITALIANO
Well, I'd say the same - and I did, and many others here did - about any other prize-giving organization who make bad choices like this one. I don't care if it's, say, the Satellites or this one. It's not like you never criticize the Oscars or the Globes, Oscar Guy.
Also, do yourself a favor, and read the thread where this Taki - not ME - commented on my posts without even remotely understanding my point. And then tell me who's right and who's wrong. Ok? Good.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:40 pm
by OscarGuy
Well, BJ, by our rules, the songs from Hello, Dolly were not eligible. The song must be re-recorded for the film, usually in a performance, but not always so. The songs from Dolly were actually just lifted entirely from the original source material, therefore were not adapted, just used.
Well, Italiano, as is clear from your unwarranted attacks against Taki in another thread, you don't have the capability of being nice. I'm not saying that you have to be politically correct, shit, I'm not always politically correct, but sometimes you have to realize you're coming off sounding like a prick. Your words are mean and vicious and, whether true or false, it is entirely off putting and makes you sound more often like a petulant child than a rational adult.
So, you can say "I disagree with the decision, I don't agree it was the right one to make" but don't accuse someone of doing something unless you know that is what they did. It was far more likely that those who voted her in Supporting agreed with Weinstein's ADVERTISING to this effect. It wasn't a 'let's copy of the Globes or SAGs or what not' decision. It was that based on their personal views of the performance, perhaps marginally influenced by previous groups' awards, but entirely a personal decision. As I said, there were votes for her performance in Lead, but the majority of the votes were submitted in Supporting and, since her other performance did not receive enough votes in the lead category but did in support, there goes her nomination. I would have preferred it in lead as that is where it seems to fit in my mind, but our rules specify that it is up to the individual voter to decide what is lead and what is support. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to understand it, but you don't have to insult the organization and thereby me for the personal decisions of the membership.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:47 am
by The Original BJ
Um...exactly how did NEITHER of the Hello, Dolly! songs place in Best Adapted Song. Forget Springsteen's Oscar snub. Jerry Herman's omission here is the HORRIFYING snub of the season! Priorities, people!
I kid, I kid.
But I did vote for both of Winslet's performance in lead.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:16 am
by Zahveed
I didn't get my votes in but I didn't see enough to make an independent decision. I was hoping they would would have voted with a little more variety though.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:49 am
by Damien
Geez, how can every awards group have the same half dozen or so films on their nominations lists? Doesn't anyone have individual taste any more. Has no one who votes in these things seen more than 8 movies this year? Oh well, the IRAs are coming up in March.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:12 am
by ITALIANO
Ah my dear Oscar Guy, one day you will understand that being "constructive" doesnt mean to go with the majority (and definitely not with the majority in this board). The opposite, actually.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:01 am
by OscarGuy
It's an entirely subjective distinction, Italiano. After all, we have no rules against two nods for one actress in a lead category (witness Nicole Kidman's double nod for Moulin Rouge and The Others). I don't think anyone in our group votes specifically as a forecaster of the Oscars and, having seen the actual ballots and tabulated them, I can't say that a single person who voted put more than two or three of the eventual nominees in their lists.
So, it sounds like you just need something to bitch about. If it's not this, it's something else. Provide some constructive feedback every once in awhile, not bitter, unnecessary attacks as you seem to be wont to do.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:00 am
by Reza
OscarGuy wrote:Reza's not registered as a member, BM...
Ok, I guess I can rest easy now that I've been exposed in public that I'm not a member.
I guess I was being facetious then!!
Edited By Reza on 1232895674
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:58 am
by OscarGuy
Reza's not registered as a member, BM...
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:50 am
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:anonymous wrote:Reza wrote:Who vote for these awards?
Members of the OFTA. I'm one of them.
And so is Reza, I believe. He was being facetious.
Actually I wasn't being facetious at all. I couldn't recall who voted for them and I certainly had no idea that I was part of the voting process.
Ahh well, there's always next year.....if I am part of the OFTA team.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:50 am
by Eric
Yes, Kate Winslet is objectively a lead in The Reader.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:43 am
by ITALIANO
Yes, this is possible, but you know what I meant.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:35 am
by Eric
ITALIANO wrote:But the Academy proved - let me say it - smarter.
Not quite. They nominated the wrong performance.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:26 am
by ITALIANO
OscarGuy wrote:I will tell you this. There were a large number of votes in both categories. However, she earned the nod in Supporting. And it's a matter of opinion whether her role is lead or supporting and while many would say it's lead, others would say it's supporting, so it's a matter of personal opinion and should not be a negative reflection on the body as a whole.
No. They were just following what they believed would have been the Oscars' choice. But the Academy proved - let me say it - smarter.