Oscars 2009

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

I guess any investment in the winning and losing confuses me. Not because accolades have no meaning, but because I don't understand the criteria for selection, and I know that most people don't either. I know who is in the Academy, but I don't know the first thing about their process for determining "best" of anything.

If there were a critical analysis that laid out the standard of excellence, not only would I understand the investment, but I might care myself. As it is, it seems like a dog and pony show that is little more than a collection of paparazzi, fan service, some performances, career acknowledgments and career bumps. None of it seems based on a communally accepted standard.

Well I think curiosity is the major entertainment factor causing people to watch the show. If people weren't invested in who would win, what would be the point in watching the show? The lame jokes? The horrible music act?

Yeah, as evidenced from tonight the criteria is more shady than ever. But, the same can be said about most game shows based upon opinion. American Idol claims to have the audience vote for the winner, but the truth of the matter is there are many shady claims stating the show itself is fixed. I guess people just turn off their brains and trust that some sort of credible process occurred in the selection of the winner. As I recall, I think people in the industry vote for the winners in addition to some other sort of mechanism.

[sva91]

Re: Oscars 2009

Well I think curiosity is the major entertainment factor causing people to watch the show. If people weren't invested in who would win, what would be the point in watching the show? The lame jokes? The horrible music act?

Yeah, as evidenced from tonight the criteria is more shady than ever. But, the same can be said about most game shows based upon opinion. American Idol claims to have the audience vote for the winner, but the truth of the matter is there are many shady claims stating the show itself is fixed. I guess people just turn off their brains and trust that some sort of credible process occurred in the selection of the winner. As I recall, I think people in the industry vote for the winners in addition to some other sort of mechanism.

Why would American Idol or any audience voted show be fixed?? More votes equals higher ratings. It would be crazy to kick off a more popular contestant because that would just lose viewers.
The Oscars are a lot more subjective but I wasn't really to upset with any of the winners tonight. I haven't seen all the films, but didn't think Hurt Locker was amazing or anything, it was just a really good flick.
I thought Martin and Baldwin were hilarious tonight. And ben Stiller is always money.

[Bellsprout]

Re: Oscars 2009

Why would American Idol or any audience voted show be fixed?? More votes equals higher ratings. It would be crazy to kick off a more popular contestant because that would just lose viewers.

Because the winner is signed automatically to Simon Cowell's label. So, the one that will sell the most records automatically becomes the guy that you would think producers would want to win.

[sva91]

Re: Oscars 2009

Because the winner is signed automatically to Simon Cowell's label. So, the one that will sell the most records automatically becomes the guy that you would think producers would want to win.

I dont want to turn this into an Idol board, but wouldn't the most popular contestant usually be the most marketable? I mean if people are voting for someone, they would be much more likely to go out and buy their records. I could def see how the first stages are fixed in order to get some likable contestants, but after that the voters pretty much do all the work.

[Bellsprout]

Re: Oscars 2009

I dont want to turn this into an Idol board, but wouldn't the most popular contestant usually be the most marketable? I mean if people are voting for someone, they would be much more likely to go out and buy their records. I could def see how the first stages are fixed in order to get some likable contestants, but after that the voters pretty much do all the work.

I don't think it's fixed, I was just offering a reason it could be.

Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks winning should be proof that it isn't fixed, because there's no way anybody thought they would sell a lot of records, and look at that, they haven't.

[Adam Dayton]

Re: Oscars 2009

Why would American Idol or any audience voted show be fixed?? More votes equals higher ratings. It would be crazy to kick off a more popular contestant because that would just lose viewers.
The Oscars are a lot more subjective but I wasn't really to upset with any of the winners tonight. I haven't seen all the films, but didn't think Hurt Locker was amazing or anything, it was just a really good flick.
I thought Martin and Baldwin were hilarious tonight. And ben Stiller is always money.

There are strong pervasive rumors that American Idol is fixed and has been for a couple of years. Oscars are voted on by over 1000 people in the film industry, so they follow the same supposed criteria as an American Idol (most votes gets it). As for why the show might be fixed, who America votes for isn't necessarily indicative of who will go on to have the best career. Look at the votefortheworst.com and the whole Sanjaya movement for proof that such a concept can become inherently flawed. There are many factors as to why people vote for a certain contestant, and popularity many times is not indicative of ability or marketability.

[Blzer]

Re: Oscars 2009

I wish Up In the Air got Best Picture, but oh well. As long as Avatar didn't dominate this night, I am good. It probably should have won Best Director, though.

I'm really glad that they gave The Dark Knight a nod this year with Morgan Freeman discussing audio mixing after it getting shafted last year. Not saying that it should have won Best Picture, but it wasn't even nominated (along with WALL-E) and it couldn't be nominated for Best Musical Score, so I think to give it some mention (and show more Heath Ledger) was very generous of them.

[JayBee74]

Re: Oscars 2009

Observing Meryl Streep solidifying her role as the Susan Lucci of the Oscars- Funny

Seeing an undeserving actress win an award from a glorified Disney film- Slightly annoying

Watching Jesse James turn in his mancard -priceless

Dude was like the 07 New York Giants- ballllllllling

Everybody's got an opinion-you're right about James. Not sure what you mean about the 07 Giants.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: Oscars 2009

One of the few years, that out of the nominated movies, the one I thought was the best actually won. I would have loved to seen Up or District 9 win as well.

Hurt Locker was an incredible film, glad to see it get it's due.

Also loved the horror tribute

[CMH]

Re: Oscars 2009

Yeah, as evidenced from tonight the criteria is more shady than ever.

The criteria used by the Academy to vote for Best Picture is a complicated one that was adopted again this year. It is also the same format that has been used for decades when nominating pictures/people for the other awards, but not the same process used to vote for the winners in those other awards. (Only the Academy could be so complicated).

When it comes to voting for Best Picture, the members of the Academy, which actually includes over 5,000 members from every field in the film industry, (this includes producers, actors, writers, sound editors, video editors, special effects technicians and on) vote by ranking all 10 films in order of preference.

The system - known as the preferential system - could (like another popular vote we know) vote a winner that did not finish with the most first place votes, but instead with more second and third place votes.

How it works:

PricewaterhouseCoopers handles the voting. They take all of the votes made by the Academy and rank the votes from 1-10. However, if the film with the most 1st place votes does not win by majority (over 50% of the votes) then that film does not win the award. Instead, PwC eliminates the film with the least 1st place votes and begins a recount by second place votes. If a film earns over 50% then the voting ends. If not, the process continues until one film eventually gets over the 50% mark.

The process is used to discern a true consensus and uncover the picture that has the most support from the entire Academy. The film that is mostly preferred.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the process used for nominating films/people in the other categories. The preferential system was used 75 years ago when the Academy nominated 10 films for Best Picture but was eliminated when the number was cut to five. The system is used to avoid having a winning film take in less than 1,000 votes among the 5,000 plus members. A film that has that few votes should not be recognized as the preference amongst a large voting group.

[Blzer]

Re: Oscars 2009

Also loved the horror tribute

The thing that I hated was that Twilight got exactly as many shots in the tribute as Saw got... one.

How is it that Twilight is a horror movie (and they just show off Stewart and Lautner)? How is it that Saw didn't get more? I was surprised to even see at least two clips of The Ring (one was pretty revealing as well).

[Blzer]

Re: Oscars 2009

How it works:

Brilliant explanation, YP.

Is there a way to verify that each voter has seen all ten movies that are on the ballot?

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: Oscars 2009

The thing that I hated was that Twilight got exactly as many shots in the tribute as Saw got... one.

How is it that Twilight is a horror movie (and they just show off Stewart and Lautner)? How is it that Saw didn't get more? I was surprised to even see at least two clips of The Ring (one was pretty revealing as well).

It's the Oscars, I don't expect them to go all horror, I mean, they showed Edward Scissorhands in there as well. LOL Gotta take the good with the bad.

[CMH]

Re: Oscars 2009

Brilliant explanation, YP.

Is there a way to verify that each voter has seen all ten movies that are on the ballot?

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy asks that its members watch every film, but you can never be sure that they actually do.

[~LiverpoolRed~]

Re: Oscars 2009

Macualey Culkin looked effed up during the John Hughes tribute. He was sooo out of it.