criterionforum.org

beamish14 wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:13 pm

Walter Kurtz wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:35 pm

Twenty years from now people will be stunned Butler didn't win for Elvis.

I’m not convinced that we’ll be talking about him much, period. I’m definitely getting George Chakiris vibes

Maybe Butler too will appear in a weirdo vampire movie where he's hunted down by Wings Hauser.

They did the thing that I always beg for every year and (mostly) muted the live audience applause but thought it was shitty that they divided the dead into Oscar and non-Oscar winners.

Grand Wazoo wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:05 am

beamish14 wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:13 pm

Walter Kurtz wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:35 pm

Twenty years from now people will be stunned Butler didn't win for Elvis.

I’m not convinced that we’ll be talking about him much, period. I’m definitely getting George Chakiris vibes

Maybe Butler too will appear in a weirdo vampire movie where he's hunted down by Wings Hauser.

I only realized a few days ago that Butler played Tex Watson in Once Upon a Time.. in Hollywood - would love to see him return to these kinds of grimy roles

lethallyfab wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:47 am it was shitty that they divided the dead into Oscar and non-Oscar winners.

Is that what the blurry fade in and outs were about? I didn’t make that connection. That’s stupid, but even if there was no internal logic, it’s still a weird way to organize images of people. If you want to honor artists one at a time, just show one pic at a time. The fade ins/outs were so awkwardly drawn out, it probably took longer than it would have to just scroll through as usual

So weird when people say the In Memorium segment "forgot" someone, as if there's a segment producer who spent the morning jotting names on a bar napkin. Whatever in-house committees are ranking names and jostling for the honor of having their members' photos serenaded by Lenny Kravitz while making sure the representation includes only 93% actors and directors instead of 99% actors and directors are in a hopeless situation. People clearly don't care about the Academy's site (which they could use to compile a more complete list of snubs!) any more than they do winners' online thank-you lists.

Maybe next year they should just do a slow crawl of names with a Marvel bumper at the end to make sure everyone watches the whole thing. Or make it a ceremony-long tribute wherein the Academy's vaunted seat-fillers are replaced by ghosty holograms of the deceased with their job title and dates floating across their chest. It would save time, spare us the cloying accompaniment, and provide ready clickbait for the trades the morning after. (SEE! The late Philip Baker Hall's appalling lack of reaction to Michelle Yeoh's historic win!)

The easy fix is to have Phish play a live funk jam over the complete list and then throw in everyone dying in real time as the news breaks til Trey hits the last whale call

YES. Bolt the auditorium doors. Does Phish have a song called "It's an Honor Just to Be Nominated?"

Not yet

lacritfan wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:24 am

Aunt Peg wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:25 pm

colinr0380 wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:34 pm
Not to mention no Hugh Hudson either, who actually directed the Best Picture Academy Award winning film of its year which would have seemed to make his inclusion mandatory in the Academy Awards "In Memoriam" segment. Maybe the long shadow of Revolution had something to do with precluding his inclusion (and maybe they felt they had Chariots of Fire covered with the Vangelis slide, since he won the Oscar for Original Score for that film), but that seems a particularly egregious oversight.

(And you could argue that it was too late to add him because he passed away on 10th February if not for Raquel Welch being in there, who passed away on the 15th!)

I forgot Hugh Hudson - another glaring omission.

PTA must be pissed they forgot Philip Baker Hall (in addition to Melinda Dillon)

They called missed Tom Sizemore, Chaim Topol & Cindy Williams. Whilst I appreciate that Cindy Williams most famous role is Shirley in Laverne & Shirley but she also started in icon films such as American Graffitii & The Conversation as well as cult classic's The First Nudie Musical and UFOria. Perhaps the Academy hated UFOria so much they felt compelled to leave out Williams and Fred Ward.

All right, below are the final results for the CriterionForum's 95th Oscars Competition:

WINNER
MV88
Nominations: 327.98
Wins: 120.12
TOTAL: 448.10

VARIOUS LOSERS
Pavel
Nominations: 302.87
Wins: 105.12
TOTAL: 407.99

Toland's Mitchell
Nominations: 254.59
Wins: 152.62
TOTAL: 407.21

Computer Raheem
Nominations: 284.64
Wins: 110.95
TOTAL: 395.59

DarkImbecile
Nominations: 275.61
Wins: 108.45
TOTAL: 384.07

therewillbeblus
Nominations: 245.85
Wins: 107.62
TOTAL: 353.47

lacritfan
Nominations: 222.35
Wins: 125.62
TOTAL: 347.97

bottlesofsmoke
Nominations: 221.72
Wins: 114.5
TOTAL: 336.22

soundchaser
Nominations: 243.17
Wins: 85.12
TOTAL: 328.29

Apperson
Nominations: 248.09
Wins: 71.62
TOTAL: 319.71

NeverCursed
Nominations: 231.29
Wins: 95.12
TOTAL: 326.41

geoffcowgill
Nominations: 202.96
Wins: 88.12
TOTAL: 291.08

LOSINGEST OF LOSERS
swo17
Nominations: 188.87
Wins: Couldn't be bothered
TOTAL: 188.87

Congrats to MV88, who can PM me for the prize codes at their convenience, and to swo17 for exceeding expectations.

Any thoughts about the modified scoring this year? I could pretty easily adjust the multipliers in the nominations stage to bring those totals more in line with what we saw from the wins stage. That said, even in a year without many upsets there were two 30-point predictions (Curtis in Supporting Actress and The Whale in Makeup) and one 20-point prediction (Black Panther in Costume Design) in wins compared to a single 19.5-point nomination prediction (Top Gun in Adapted Screenplay), so I think the potential is still there for huge swings in picking winners.

Should I take the Jamie Lee Curtis approach and say that we all won?

Honestly, I'm shocked that I won this contest since I'm usually not very good at predicting the Oscars (I don't think I would even have made the top 5 had I participated last year), but obviously this year was a pleasant exception for me. Thanks for running it!

Thanks for running, DI, and congrats on the W, MV88! So was this just for the gift cards? I thought that was in addition to choosing a movie that all participants had to watch, which is the more motivating (and fun) prize from years past (I also thought that was the main reason members chose not to participate in this pool, so as not to risk the gamble of being forced to watch and write about a movie they didn't like!)

MV88 wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:54 pm Should I take the Jamie Lee Curtis approach and say that we all won?

Yes, we all won

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:00 pm Thanks for running, DI, and congrats on the W, MV88! So was this just for the gift cards? I thought that was in addition to choosing a movie that all participants had to watch, which is the more motivating (and fun) prize from years past (I also thought that was the main reason members chose not to participate in this pool, so as not to risk the gamble of being forced to watch and write about a movie they didn't like!)

Participation was too low when we did the movie watching requirement, and enforcing it became a little ridiculous; that said, if MV88 wants to make a non-binding recommendation, I’m sure at least a few of us will seek it out and write up a response.

Of course enforcing it with real consequences is ridiculous, but I feel like enough of the losers approached the wager in good faith to keep it. And if you can't take two hours over 365 days to watch a movie but keep coming back every year to play this game, I don't think any amount of badgering is going to change that personality trait

Anyways, if you want to expose the forum to a movie you like, MV88, I'll happily watch and try to say something about it. That's what this place is all about

Cate Blanchett not winning for Tar is the crime of the century. This is going to age very badly, as Blanchett performance will be hailed as the best acting performance of all time. This performance and Daniel Day Lewis performance in There Will Be Blood are the pantheon acting of the 21th century.

Or, ya’know, you could be happy the Yeoh won and not worry so much about your preferred performance.

^^ this post is going to age very badly.

Blanchett performance in Tar is a landmark in the performing arts. When I saw the movie, never crossed my mind that Lydia Tar was a fictional character. This was a step in evolutionary process from Blanchett, who I never doubt because she is our greatest living actress. What happened two nights back was a case of the EEAAO jugaurnut swapping the award guilds, while a disturbing case of narrative pushing against artistic merit. The whole controversy over the snubbing of Viola Davis and Deadwater while offering Andrea Riseborough the nomination was a factor in the race. This means nothing against Yeoh performance, who did her best job despite the movie being not my cup of tea and being annoyed by the Daniels Reddit humor. With that mindset in check it helped paved the way for Yeoh to be crowned Best Actress. Blanchett will come back and win another award down in the future, my personal opinion is this role was something that had to be immediately awarded.

Yes, Michelle Yeoh making history in the wake of Asian hate finally getting addressed in America will age badly.

EEAAO is going to age in the Crash manner. Already I'm seeing people lashing out against the movie for the obnoxious filmmaking. This quasi-Marvel movie is going to be the death knell of cinema. Success of films like EEAAO will put more funding into psuedo-superhero films, with less original adult Faire getting the boot by studios.

We are living in a dark time.

Less original adult fare like CODA, a far more worthy winner in its day.

EWMMTFAN wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:18 pmCate Blanchett not winning for Tar is the crime of the century. This is going to age very badly, as Blanchett performance will be hailed as the best acting performance of all time...
...EEAAO is going to age in the Crash manner. Already I'm seeing people lashing out against the movie for the obnoxious filmmaking. This quasi-Marvel movie is going to be the death knell of cinema. Success of films like EEAAO will put more funding into psuedo-superhero films, with less original adult Faire getting the boot by studios.

We are living in a dark time.

Are you from the future? How could you possibly know this?

Anyway, thanks for running the game DI.

soundchaser wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:21 pm Less original adult fare like CODA, a far more worthy winner in its day.

Coda is part of the issue too. That is a cheesy Lifetime TV movie, not a major motion picture. In fact, it should have contended for the Emmys, just as Netflix movies. Netflix does not have a theatrical componet in place, they should not be sitting in the same spot with Columbia or Paramount.

Although I also thought Blanchett gave the best lead performance... the crimes of the century are probably the lynchings, discrimination and internments of various groups of American citizens.

Blanchett at the Oscars is now becoming MJ in the nineties winning the NBA MVP. Everyone knew he was the best so many of people begain looking for somebody else, anybody else, to award.

PS: Her performance in Tar, although great, wasn't the best this century, much less the past 100 years. It will never lift Tar to a top ten finish in the S&S poll.

Naomi Watts did. And I don't particularly think she's an exceptional actress. But she certainly owned that role. (Roles?)

BTW... my one and only list I will ever make.

Top Two Supporting Actor Performances Since the Invention of Sound Cinema

1. [tie] Heath Ledger as The Joker
1. [tie] Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday

They fucking owned the roles.