Statistics and the Oscar nominations

Galt · 01-07-2005, 01:21 AM

I don't really follow these much, and I've usually not even seen a majority of the movies that get picked, but it's just so annoying that every single year, there's always a few movies that just get nominated for EVERY CATEGORY accross the board.

There were what, probably like 1,000 movies made this year for consideration. And thousands of actors (I see no need to genderfiy the word beyond that: actor/actress, waiter/waitress, but no doctoress, teacherina, or reporterette?) worked in those movies.

What are the chances that out of the multiple thousands of acting jobs that have happened this year OMG!!!! three of them coincidentally ALL CAME IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!! THE CHANCES OF THAT MUST BE ASTRONOMICAL!!! WAIT, WHAT? AND THE DIRECTOR ALSO DID A BETTER JOB THAN ANY OTHER DIRECTOR IN ALL OF MOVIELAND THIS YEAR?? NO WAY!

Why can't you have a movie that sucked, but someone had a great role in that movie and people vote for that person?

It's just virtually impossible for all the best acting jobs to all happen in the same fucking movie. No way. Impossible.

The Jays · 01-07-2005, 01:28 AM

How is that statistically impossible? I'd certainly say that some of the best acting jobs of 1972 occured on the set of The Godfather.

GonzoStyle · 01-07-2005, 01:29 AM

first off if you really think about it, there aren't thousands of movies that come out in a year. Maybe back in the 20's and 30's when studios were cranking out a movie a week and even then there weren't thousands. Think about the 1,2 or 3 movies that premiere every week and think about how many of them are crap. There really aren't many "great" films being put out, it's mainly formulatic "blockbusters" which may be visually pretty but for the most part are shallow films. It usually boils down to a handful of movies that deserve any recognition. Though yes there are many times when a film or actor gets missed for a nomination but even that falls into a handful category out of all the films that come out. In the end i'd say maybe 15-30 movies max in a year deserve any recognition.

The Jays · 01-07-2005, 01:33 AM

If an actor does a really good job in a lesser known, or not-so-great movie, and there are people who realize that the actor was really good, they know how to get the news out there, and even buy those "For Your Consideration" ads in the trades.

The Sleeper · 01-07-2005, 01:40 AM

i.e. ed norton in primal fear

GonzoStyle · 01-07-2005, 01:42 AM

well unfortunatly the indie flicks which sometimes have amazing performances don't get much, if any notice and they are the ones who get really overlooked. Though thankfully you have festivals like Cannes, Sundance and others that recognize these films and sometimes get them out into the main stream for oscar consideration.

The oscars mostly just don't get it right. LoTR was a predicatable win last year because all 3 films were announced already and you knew it'd lose the 1st 2 and win on the last film.

Keyser Soze · 01-07-2005, 03:12 AM

william h macy and phillip seymor hoffman are consistantly robbed!!!

Galt · 01-07-2005, 03:57 AM

the people who vote in the academy aren't Joe and Jane six pack whose most recent movie was National Treasure.

They should have seen all the damn movies. They shouldn't be picking based on "Hmmmmm, out of the movies that were released in the last three weeks of the year, which one was my favorite? I think I'm going to vote for every single person who was in that movie. Pfew, thank God that's over.

So, it looks like Sideways was a good movie, everyone seems to love it. That's swell, but give me a fucking break, EVERYONE in the movie, individually, performed the best individual jobs in all of movie making this year? No fucking way.

The Sleeper · 01-08-2005, 08:30 PM

well last year, charlize theron won for monster, which wasn't nominated for much else, and was a really really crappy movie

Galt · 01-08-2005, 11:33 PM

I just saw Closer. Hopefully Jude Law, Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts, all win oscars!

When in fact the only person who really should get nominated is that other guy

Arpikarhu · 01-09-2005, 01:03 AM

the oscars have very little to do with excellence and more to do with revenues and networking

2 tired 2 give N F · 01-10-2005, 09:19 AM

I bet that's the same thing you say about the Tony's.

drusilla · 01-10-2005, 09:54 AM

Galt Wrote:Why can't you have a movie that sucked, but someone had a great role in that movie and people vote for that person?

i believe that happened with training day & denzel washington.

sideways was really good. but i think thomas hayden church is being over praised. maybe critics were just happy that he wasn't playing a complete moron for once. paul giamatti was really good. but he always is.

Edited By drusilla on 1105351004

GonzoStyle · 01-10-2005, 03:55 PM

drusilla Wrote:
Galt Wrote:Why can't you have a movie that sucked, but someone had a great role in that movie and people vote for that person?
i believe that happened with training day & denzel washington.

sideways was really good. but i think thomas hayden church is being over praised. maybe critics were just happy that he wasn't playing a complete moron for once. paul giamatti was really good. but he always is.

Training day was awesome, you take it back!!!

Galt · 01-10-2005, 05:51 PM

oh, that movie sucked. And Ethan Hawke was the one who actually did a good job. Denzel was so over the top and cheesy.

GonzoStyle · 01-10-2005, 07:04 PM

One of the best villians in cinema history.

HollywoodJewMoses · 01-10-2005, 07:12 PM

phillip seymor hoffman is amazing.

Galt · 01-10-2005, 07:31 PM

His character in Happiness is one of my favorites of all time.

drusilla · 01-10-2005, 08:34 PM

Gonzo Wrote:One of the best villians in cinema history.

in a shitty movie

lush · 01-10-2005, 08:51 PM

Martin Scorsese gets robbed every time for best director. Although, it would have been horrendous if he won for "Gangs of New York" because it was lackluster compared to his other works.
Another awful thing is that Chris Rock is hosting. Nothing worse than a comic telling PG jokes. It's like Eddie Murphy all over again.