Page 6 of 7
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:41 am
by Reza
Penelope wrote:Reza wrote:Penelope who is the bare chested dude in your avatar? Too small to see his face.
It's Thom Barron, actor in adult gay films. It's the body that's important, the face is actually reminiscent of Wallace Beery.
I'm curious. Would ''Wallace Beery'' with a hunky body be an object of lust? Or would the face put off people? Surely a handsome face would rate higher than a body (as long as it is not on the lines of Gilbert Grapes' Mom)?
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:00 pm
by OscarGuy
I'll worry about tabulating after I see the votes.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:24 am
by Penelope
Reza wrote:Penelope who is the bare chested dude in your avatar? Too small to see his face.
It's Thom Barron, actor in adult gay films. It's the body that's important, the face is actually reminiscent of Wallace Beery. After the Crash debacle, I really didn't feel like celebrating Hollywood with my Lana Turner avatar.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:25 am
by Big Magilla
The makeup atrocities were all in the last few years.
I could have named more scores, but there was one that was so blatantly wrong that the others paled in comparison and I liked the composers who won in some years even if the scores they won for were not their best. While I cringed at some of the visual effects winners, I didn't think the competition was any better. I simply haven't seen enough documetaries to make informed decisions in most years.
I found lots to disagree with in the foregin film category, though.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:24 am
by Damien
Big Magilla wrote:That's what I get. I'm submitting mine via PM (through the message center on this site.)
For the record, based on this criteria, I was able to come up with five selections in all but the following categories:
Original score (1)
Makeup (3)
Sound Effects (None)
Visual Effects (None)
Documentary (None)
I've spent the last couple of hours dutifully looking at all the nominees and winers and I'm up to 1994. I have 8 in Original Score, 3 in Visual Effects and 2 Documentaries. But none for Make-Up or Sound Effects.
Although I have way too many contenders in most categories, I only have one for Foreign Picture, 2 for Sound. 3 for Editing and 4 for Art Direction. It is fun, though.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:02 am
by The Original BJ
I agree with Damien. (Not about The Incredibles, although the Kinsey script did deserve the nod more.)
A second thread of the worst snubbees in each category would be, IMO, even more fun. But perhaps only one at a time.
I have yet another question. How are you going to calculate votes for these things? For example, I could see a lot of people listing . . .
BEST ACTRESS
1. Judy Holliday over Bette Davis
and a lot of others listing . . .
BEST ACTRESS
1. Judy Holliday over Gloria Swanson
Would these both be counted as votes against Judy Holliday, or would each one be treated separately? Bette and Gloria already split their vote once, wouldn't want it to happen again . . .
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:25 am
by Reza
Penelope who is the bare chested dude in your avatar? Too small to see his face.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:21 am
by Big Magilla
That's what I get. I'm submitting mine via PM (through the message center on this site.)
For the record, based on this criteria, I was able to come up with five selections in all but the following categories:
Original score (1)
Makeup (3)
Sound Effects (None)
Visual Effects (None)
Documentary (None)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:23 am
by Penelope
Ok, do you mean this (as an example)?
Worst Best Picture:
1. Crash over Brokeback Mountain
2. Ordinary People over Raging Bull
3. The Godfather over Cabaret
4. The Greatest Show on Earth over High Noon
5. Dances With Wolves over Ghost
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:08 am
by Reza
OscarGuy wrote:You will specify X (who was the eventual winner) and Y (who was also a nominee). This isn't a question of who SHOULD have been nominated but what rash decisions the Academy has made based on its own nominations.
I am just not getting this and am getting confused. I think I'll just wait until you guys start posting and then follow suit (after hopefully understanding what all this means).
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:27 pm
by Big Magilla
OscarGuy wrote:You will specify X (who was the eventual winner) and Y (who was also a nominee). This isn't a question of who SHOULD have been nominated but what rash decisions the Academy has made based on its own nominations.
Ok, I think I get it now.
You're looking for something like this:
1. X over Y
as opposed to an essay on each entry?
Only considering actual nominees puts a different spin on it. I consider Braveheart the worst picture ever to have won an Oscar, but considering that the year's best film, Dead Man Walking, wasn't nominated, it is not as egregious a choice as Crash's win over Brokeback Mountain, which was not only nominated but won almost everything else up to the Oscars.
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:39 pm
by Damien
Of course, this begs for another new thread – The worst nominee that became a finalist in lieu of a potential nominee whose absence points out how idiotic Academy voters are. The quintessential example is the imbecilic Goddamn Cartoon The Incredibles [sic] being nominated for Best Original Screenplay of 2004 when Kinsey was not. (How anyone over the age of 10 who’s not a pinhead could sit through this thing is beyond me. )
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:35 pm
by OscarGuy
You will specify X (who was the eventual winner) and Y (who was also a nominee). This isn't a question of who SHOULD have been nominated but what rash decisions the Academy has made based on its own nominations.
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:09 pm
by The Original BJ
Do we need to list specifically X shouldn't have won over Y? (And if so, does Y actually need to be a nominee?) Or just 5 films/performances that are the worst?
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:41 pm
by OscarGuy
Sure.