Preseason Oscar Game Results

Oscar's Tush.

The results are in! and in a thrilling, nailbiting finish, Kadusey ties me for the win in an unprecedented but long-desired break in my (previously) seemingly endless winning streak! We tied at eleven, but had she paid attention to the rules better, she might have won outright. She did submit a disqualified second guess that put her up by two points.

I didn't see a big leader in the nominations, but now that there plainly is, I'm more irritated than ever at myself for not seeing Benjamin Button yet.

In other news, by not including Dark Knight in the best-picture noms, the Oscars have taken one more step to irrelevancy and bad tv ratings. Good job, Academy!

Click on the minichart below to see the full results.

Preseason Oscar Game Results Jan 2009

(Curses. Shrunk. I'll come up with something else later.....)


  1. curses. oh well.

    and I honestly have no desire to see benjamin button.

  2. .

    That's too bad. I've had years where the big film was disinteresting as well: Titanic, American Beauty . . . .

    But good effort, Celia. Part of what happened to you that some likely contenders that you chose were delayed to next year. Resulting good news: you can choose them for next year.

    Incidentally, I've never thought of what to do in the event of a tie. I think I'll still send Kadusey a prize, so get me your address, 'kay, K?

  3. Curse you, Academy! You forgot the most tragic result of neglecting to nominate Dark Knight for Best Picture: they totally screwed my chance of winning this game. I figured I'd at least get 1 point.

    Also: American Beauty is worth seeing, if you still haven't.

    Also: It's not not just Kadusey's computer.

    WV: barro, which means mud in Spanish.

  4. Also: I'm very curious to see Benjamin Button, largely for apparent similarities between his story and that of a character I created without knowing anything about Mr. Button.

    WV: fivenths, which is five times as good as just one Th.

  5. I really should be more participative in this game: for having only made 5 off-handed guesses, I feel pretty good about the 4 points I earned.

    As for Benjamin Button, Ebert said he couldn't get in to it because, as he watched Mr. Button age backwards, he "became consumed by a conviction that this was simply wrong." I had the opposite reaction: Benjamin's reverse aging played such an insignificant role in the overall film that I felt like I was watching a prototypical coming-of-age romance.

    But that's just me.... This isn't even my blog....

  6. .

    Actually, kadusey, it's because I (once again) typed rhef when I meant href. But the sidebar email goes to the same place.

  7. .

    re: other comments:

    I look forward to next year.

    And, Schmett, if I had been right about Man on Wire's proper placement, I would have won. Curses!

  8. I agree with the tv ratings comment but not the irrelevancy. Dark Knight was a box office hit which was a decent movie but really not Best Picture Material. Heath Ledger was the only thing really relevant about the movie as low talking need a lozenge Batman and the use of jump cuts to advance every story angle was annoying and jarring, especially for those who watch movies for a living. "Hey I will make a movie with no blood by not actually showing any violence, just jumping away at the last second." The Dark Knight was on most movie critics top 10s at 7 or 8. Batman was like Donnie Darko in which it's the gateway drug for good movies. Getting a whole generation into movies and claiming still the first movie they saw was the best movie ever.

    What i think is an irrelevancy is that Wall-E was not nominated for best picture.

  9. .

    Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, (maybe The Incredibles), and now WALL*E.

    Creating the Best Animated Feature award was long overdue and very necessary, but it means that movies with a strong chance at Best Picture get that as a consolation prize instead.

  10. .

    I've been thinking about the irrelevancy argument, 3M, and I think I'm right and you're wrong. (Who would've guessed I would reach that conclusion!) For a few reasons, in ascending importance:

    # How do you think those poor movie stars feel, all on tv at the same time and nobody watching?

    # The Oscars were begun as a marketing tool and that is still, at core, their purpose. By picking films that minimize public interest, they become irrelevant.

    # Public opinion has merit. Sometimes, of course, public opinion is dead wrong. But when a genuinely good movie breaks $500million, not at least giving it a wildcard slot for best picture rejects the industry's raison d'etre, viz getting money from ticketbuyers. Not good to draw a line on the floor and tell them to keep on the other side. (The nominated films have, combined, gossed $10.5million so far. Granted, they're early in their runs (save Slumdog), but still: that's what --- 2% of Batman? I'm not suggesting we turn the Oscars into the People's Choice Awards, but at least show some respect for the public.

  11. Yes, but the marketing folks aren't the ones who choose the nominees. With the exception of Best Picture, all of the other nominees are selected by their peers in that particular profession.

    Shouldn't we say it's a good thing when there are too many *good* movies to nominate for the number of slots available?

    * (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

  12. Relevance. When an industry decides to get together and pat themselves on their collective back, the desires or hopes of those who pay their bills seem to take a back seat.

    I was trying to remember the last time I can remember the Academy Awards as having any true relevance to me. Interestingly, it was 1985. The same year Amadeus beat out The Killing Fields for best picture and the feature length documentary about Harvey Milk won. The Killing Fields should have taken the Best Picture spot.

    I have to wonder if the Documentary about Harvey Milk will have any sway on the outcome of the best picture results...

  13. .

    Eh, that was over 20 years ago. I doubt it. Although Academy members are notoriously old, so they may well remember it as if it were yesterday. Who can say.

    I agree that having too many films to fit in the slots is a good thing

    Here's a question I don't know the answer to: when one fills out a nomination ballot, do you just put one movie per slot or can you mention a couple? I believe it's the latter, but that means apple pie will never get nominated for an Oscar.

    Let me explain.

    Few people call Apple Pie their favorite pie, but it's still the most popular and widely sold pie in America (note: my stats are quite old). Why? Because the people who like peach best and the people who live razzberry best and the people who like pumpkin best and the poeple who like lemon merigne best and the people who like coconut cream best all like apple too. It's everyone's second favorite. But if you can only nominate one pie, apple won't get a nomination.

  14. Different rules apply for each award category, but for Best Picture and all the acting awards each nominator is instructed to select no more than five entries from the eligible list. The selection isn't weighted. Then the top five vote-getters in each category are included in the final list of nominees, which is then open to voting by any Academy member.

    Sources are good, so here's one.

    If it's relevance you're looking for, there's always the People's Choice Awards or the MTV Movie/Music Awards. I'm sure they and many other awards shows are all lined up ready to bestow upon "The Dark Knight" and "WALL-E" the honors they feel they deserve.

    Personally, I find the Oscars an interesting gauge of how much Hollywood agrees with me regarding the value of a person's contribution to a film. I don't need the Academy's validation to tell me whether or not a film's any good. I can tell them myself with my pocketbook.

  15. Th. said, "That was over 20 years ago."

    Um, thanks for reminding me. Ouch. I remember that almost as if it were yesterday.

    Our presidential nominations suffer from the same Apple Pie theory, I believe. Not every time but regularly.

    I agree that the Oscars should not be a people's choice award but it is quite interesting how divergent they can be. I guess I look at these nominations and recognize how different my values are from the industry's.

  16. .

    Thanks, Bryan --- I'm glad to hear they can vote more than in some categories at least. I think that will result in better, more correct results.

    For me, one of the most dispiriting things to learn was how poorly the members of the Academy reflect the actual film workforce. Their average age is much higher, they're heavily weighted towards actors, etc. I think if the voting members of the Academy better reflected the industry, I would be less skeptical of their choices.

    All that said, I'm still a sucker for the Oscars.

    And I couldn't care less about People's Choice or MTV.