OFTA Nominations

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:05 am

OscarGuy wrote:It's no one's fault, others just happen not to agree.

Or maybe they don't see many movies...

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:41 pm

Work to do for what? I don't see any problems with our nominations or the process. I think it works quite well. The weighted system allows people who want to place a little-seen film at the top of the list to encourage more votes. If those films don't get nominated, then it's not the fault of the individual voter who submitted them. It's no one's fault, others just happen not to agree.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:13 pm

Sabin wrote:I ask again: who are deez peepul?

Like with the Golden Globes at the time of the infamous Pia Zadora win, I'd also be so curious to see the names of the members :)

But seriously, Sabin said it better than I could. I think Oscar Guy has some work to do before next year's voting, and I feel that he will do it.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7224
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:03 pm

Aside from the dubious selection of Nine in Best Cinematic Moment, I don't find anything to be embarrassed about in this year's selections, as has not always been the case.

It's not about embarrassment. It's about bland conformity. This isn't a terrible lineup by any means. The only year this decade where I have liked every movie nominated for Best Picture by the Academy was in 2007, and even then they opted for Atonement, Juno, and Michael Clayton over The Assassination of Jesse James..., Diving Bell, and Into the Wild. I like all five movies this group has nominated, but they're so boring! It makes you wonder who are these people and why don't they venture forth and cultivate more eclectic sensibilities!

The real problem is that these "Left Field" choices (Peter Capaldi, Christian McKay, Tilda Swinton, and Ben Foster whose performance really isn't that great) aren't really Left Field. They've been discussed to death as "Perfect World" nominees. The Academy System is broken, as products of awards-jockeying hype like Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, and Helen Mirren are "Sure Things" but find someone who actually likes them, while performances that are universally praised and would be otherwise sure things like McKay and Swinton are frustratingly left out. This marginalizes true Left Field choices that should find favor in groups like these. No Summer Hours for Best Picture. No Michael Haneke for Best Director. No Joaquin Phoenix for Best Actor. No Charlotte Gainsborough for Best Actress. These nominees feel like congenially consensual pulpit rather than anything truly exciting that would, to quote Nuke LaLoosh in Bull Durham, announce this group's presence with authority.

It's not JUST Nine's nomination for Most Cinematic Moment. That nomination is exactly what's wrong with this group and the balloting process. It just SOUNDS like a sure thing whether you've seen the film or not, whether it's a front-runner or a disaster. I ask again: who are deez peepul?




Edited By Sabin on 1265054706
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:18 pm

Rex Reed is part of the Broadcast Film Critics Association to my knowledge. He is NOT a member of the Online Film Critics Society. And, Damien, the OFCS is the group of which I am also a member.

We also do a 5/4/3/2/1 system for selecting the nominees, but the winner is selected by a straight vote (each person picks one winner in each category and the one with the most votes win). While a majority can often get a lesser-seen film in the list (like the In the Loop mentions), sometimes the films with the most recognition are the ones best represented. But that's they way with most groups like the Academy, Golden Globes and so forth.




Edited By OscarGuy on 1265051943
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15383
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:50 pm

I believe Rex Reed belongs to the Online Film Critics Association.

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:48 pm

Which is the online group that Rex Reed belongs to -- someone mentioned it here once. Wes, don't you belong to another online group?

With my gang's awards (the IRAs), we do it on a 5-4-3-2-1 point basis, and then if a majority doesn't like the winner, the award is rescinded. We seem to annoint pictures that get nowhere nearr the Academy (L'Enfant, Decasia, Mysterious Skin).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15383
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:45 am

Aside from the dubious selection of Nine in Best Cinematic Moment, I don't find anything to be embarrassed about in this year's selections, as has not always been the case.

One of the things we get to do this year is rank members' best picture recommendations to come up with a ten best list. There are some very interesting submissions on the list that don't conform to what may be perceived as herd mentality.

I suspect our votes would have been similar if we had been the first or second group to announce rather the last, but because we don't get screeners and often have to go out of our way to find films in theatres we can't possibly do it any earlier and do it objectively.

Ideally there would be a cut-off date as of October 31st as with the Grammys for all voting organizations so that by December we would all have had an opportunity to have seen everything in contention and could all submit our secret ballots on the same day to avoid the appearance of influence. That, of course, would be impractical and contrary to awards history which as we all know is full of dirty dealings, especially in the critics' groups.

And while OFTA may have no "famous" members, we do have a number of film buffs, historians and currently working critics.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:42 am

I know only a handful of the people in the group (the ones from this board, mostly). And I don't necessarily like or dislike any of them. And I disagree with more of them than you might think. I tabulate the ballots, so I see some of the choices that come from members and even I'm embarrassed by some of them at times, but that's not my business. My business is to tabulate and announce and ignore the rest.

It's one of the reasons we modified the Hall of Fame selection. It's a small group that submit choices, watch all available selections and discuss before coming up with our final list. It has resulted in a far more interesting slate of submissions each year. The core membership still votes on the inductees, but they can't vote in things of little historical importance.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:55 am

You are right, Oscar Guy. The problem is only the selection of the members, like in any other voting group. The fact that you may personally like them, or generally agree with them, doesnt necessarily make them qualified. But of course it's your group so you can do whatever you want, it's none of my business.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:21 am

There are no "famous" members in this organization, Damien. This is the one I run.

And people vote for what they like. There are eclectic choices, but in a system where everyone's ballots are on equal footing and their ranked choices are added together, if a film like say Up in the Air receives a mention on multiple ballots whereas a film like Moon appears on only one, the multiple wins even if the placement on those ballots is lower than the one selection of moon.

That's one of the reasons the Academy's nominations are often homogenized. Now, if it were a system where everyone selects X films, then everyone votes only from those lists, then it might turn out differently, but maybe not. People vote how they like and one individual's eclectic choices aren't easily going to emerge as nominees.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:13 am

Okri wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:Very true. Yet, if more people like you (or even me) joined such groups the results would be probably different, more varied and certainly more interesting.

Only to a certain extent. Individual ballots are largely more ... individual, for lack of a better word (I couldn't spell idiosyncratic). I mean, Armond White votes in New York, but his batshit craziness doesn't change the fact that they voted fairly middle of the road.

But I'm referring to the individuals on this board, at least those who post more frequently - including you. The results would be different for sure.

A voting group must, or should, have its own character, otherwise it doesn't have a reason to exist, there are already so many. This one comes so late in the season, and all it does is copying the most popular and predictable choices.

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:39 am

Big Magilla wrote:Not everyone on this board is a member of OFTA and vice versa but in general terms the nominations probably do reflect the majority of members of the UAADB, just not the most vocal ones.

If this is they're taste, then it's probably best that they remain quiet. :D
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:52 am

Is this the Online group that Rex Reed and Armond White belong to?


I just can't comprehend how 50 individuals can cite their favorites and the results are a sheep mentality in step with just about every other group.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Postby Okri » Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:29 pm

ITALIANO wrote:Very true. Yet, if more people like you (or even me) joined such groups the results would be probably different, more varied and certainly more interesting.

Only to a certain extent. Individual ballots are largely more ... individual, for lack of a better word (I couldn't spell idiosyncratic). I mean, Armond White votes in New York, but his batshit craziness doesn't change the fact that they voted fairly middle of the road.


Return to “82nd Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest