Joey here...just wondering what suggestions you guys have for making the site the best site...EVER!
What should be improved? (Especially for me personally, tear me a new one people...lemme have it!)
What do you like?
What new additions to the site would you appreciate?
Open forum ladies and gents...have at it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
[criticism of Joey]:
ReplyDeleteI feel like sometimes you let your personal feelings get in the way of your analysis. Clearly, you were not the biggest No Country fan , and I felt like that played a factor in you picking Juno for best picture. Also, you were obviously a big fan of Into the Wild, and I felt like that played a role in you picking Holbrook to win best supporting.
In both cases, you opted not to choose the clear favorites to win (especially Bardem). But if the tagline to OI is, "It's not about who we want to win, It's about who will"...Don't you think your decision making goes against the very purpose of the site? You might retort by arguing that you selected people you reasonably thought would win.
But, if you are choosing against the odds on favorites, then it would make the tagline and purpose of OI superfluous. I know it might seem mundane and trite to choose all the same people. But if the evidence points that way, then you must choose accordingly to adhere to the spirit of the website.
[possible new additions]
I'm not sure if you heard of blogginheads.tv. But, if you can set up the technology, maybe we can get some live discussions and debates from each of the critics. It would be great to see how you flush out your ideas through verbal communication.
[everything else]
Other than that, I like everything else you guys do. The writing is clear and entertaining. But there is also an intellectual and argumentative aspect to it, which allows for open discussion.
Keep up the great work.
I had legitmate reasons for both of those selections...I had gone on record more than once in believing that the Academy might be turned off by all the dark, violent films permeating the list, and go for the frothy entertainment of Juno...and for supporting actor, that category has more than once gone to the esteemed verteran, and Holbrook fit that bill as well as anyone ever has
ReplyDeleteI´m brazilian and I live in Rio de Janeiro; I´m a film and law student here, and I have to say that I love reading and being a part of this site. And I think you do a wonderful job presenting good arguments and opinions. Of course your personal feelings will be in the way of what you think - since you´re no machine - and let´s not forget they ALSO get in the way of many academy members, like we´ve seen before.
ReplyDeleteSo all I can say is congratulations for making this a really entertaining and thoughtful site!
;)
I like how this site goes clearly for the entertainment/fun route (without dumbing down the Oscar talk) and don't take itself too seriously. I'm sick of all those web experts than only care about themselves cough david poland cough
ReplyDeleteI think my criticism derives from the ambiguity in the tagline.
ReplyDeleteThe tag-line states:
"It's not who we want to win, its who will win"
Clearly there is not determinative method to sufficiently know who will win. Since we are only making predictions, there is doubt and subjectivity inherently imbued in the prediction. Hence, we can't really determine who will win from the limited evidence we have.
With that being said, I think OI wants to predict in the *most objective manner*. Moreover, if one considers the culture of Academy Awards predicting, there are clear indicators that play a larger factor in predicting winners [such as the Guilds, and critic Awards]. Past trends are helpful too. But they certainly are not the strongest indicators.
So, if we consider you example with Holbrook. Yes, in the past, the Academy Awards have recognized veteran, "overdue", actors in the supporting category. In the last 3 years, the Academy Award selected Morgan Freeman and Arkin for the oscar. However, in many cases, AMPAS goes with the frontrunner. And typically there is a trend of them picking an overdue older actor, then following it with a younger guy. I think when looking at trends one could easily manipulate them to fit an argument.
Moreover, Tom Wilkson fit that bill too, but if Javier Bardem is winning every Award imaginable (and not making movies like Norbet), it seems pretty illogical to think he will not win. To satisfy the tag-line, it would seem more reasonable to go with the person that is winning everything, as opposed to following the "esteemed veteran" theory, which is a bit more up in the air.
--------------------------------------
"I had gone on record more than once in believing that the Academy might be turned off by all the dark, violent films permeating the list, and go for the frothy entertainment of Juno"
What precisely was your evidence for this claim? Yes, there were a great deal of dark movies this year. But, clearly after nominating TWBB and NCfOM with 8 awards, any sort of "turn off" theory should have been squashed. Critics of all sorts praised both films, and even the Globes gave each nominations. Going on the record with the *belief* that something might occur does not seem strong enough to choose against films that clearly more in front.
Using your logic, shouldn't the AMPAS nominate more feel good movies if they are turned off by the dark ones? Why nominate four seemingly dark, less campy movies, if you are turned off by them? To me, that does not seem reasonable. I guess one could argue that most of the good films were dark, hence they could not find other *Juno* type films to nominate. However, there were a few good comedies released this year, and Charlie Wilson's War was around. I think they nominated what they thought were the best films, and the violence and darkness of them did not sway them otherwise.
[Should there not be more than mere belief and speculation? I'm sure we all can come up with concoctions that might explain how the academy might vote. But, is it not more safe in most cases to go with the nomination trends, guild wins, and critic Awards choices?]
"Of course your personal feelings will be in the way of what you think - since you´re no machine - and let´s not forget they ALSO get in the way of many academy members, like we´ve seen before."
ReplyDeleteI agree with both. But if we are looking to the plain meaning of the tagline, then *personal feelings* seemed to be less (if at all) important. I'm not saying we should become machines. In most cases, you cannot control how you feel, and that can ultimately sway your decision making. But, I think the point of Igloo [and I might be wrong] is to pick the movie that *will win*, not the one you personally feel *should win*. Again, I might be completely wrong. But, I would love for someone to help me understand the tag line of Igloo a little bit more.
I love the site and the blog, but I agree with verbal intercourse that your love for some films gets in the way of your analysis i.e predicting Into The Wild for Best Pic without any big victory. Other than that, its great.
ReplyDeleteFor the site, the only thing I would like to see done would be updating the "Chart" as the year goes compared to just the end of the year. Probably just the big 8 instead of all the tech awards
opps...clayton predicted ITW not you. My bad
ReplyDeletewithout being able to read a voter's mind, it's impossible to be sure how anything is going to go, but I am a heavy believer in awards fatigue, and that played into both my predictions as well...as for Juno...it was the fact that it was so vastly different than the other nominees that made it fit as the counterprogramming choice to me...as for Wilkinson, he did fit the bill, but not as snugly as Holbrook, so to speak....in any case, there's no surefire right answer until the name is actually read on Oscar night, so there's naturally going to be disagreement on who "will" win
ReplyDeletealso, i have a feeling that the sit's monicker is more something to influence the general ideology of the site as opposed to a mandate that must be following as rigidly as a board...we're not supposed to predict things based on personal feelings, but difference of opinion/deduction are to be expected....I would probably venture to say Johnny would have a slightly better answer than I when it comes to this, but that's my understanding
i would like to see updates a little bit more frequently, if that is possible...and maybe a different forum host??? all the advertisements on this forum are really obnoxious and screw with the way that the forum is viewed...other than that, great job!!!
ReplyDelete"also, i have a feeling that the sit's monicker is more something to influence the general ideology of the site as opposed to a mandate that must be following as rigidly as a board...we're not supposed to predict things based on personal feelings, but difference of opinion/deduction are to be expected"
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Great point.
I'm not all to clear on how to interpret the site's tagline. If we take a broader view, like the one you suggest, then a reasonable argument to support a film seems permissible in determining who will win.
The only problem is that one could technically come up with many deductively and/or inductively logical arguments to support a movie's chances of winning. Realistically, it is possible (and quite probable) for one to have come up with reasonable arguments to support each best picture nominee.
It's the *who will win* clause of the tagline that gets to me. But, I can certainly see it fitting a broader view to maintain the high level of discussion that exist on the site.
Johnny Alba, (or whoever is responsible)
ReplyDeleteWhere is the 2008 Preview? For the past two years I have used your 2008 preview as my outline in seeing movies during this half of the season! You predicted American Gangster, Departed, Dreamgirls etc. I want to know what your early picks are to keep my eye out for!
-Dan
not Alba or Joey
ReplyDeletebut looking forward to:
Guerrilla/Argentine
Frost/Nixon
Valkyrie (i hope this does well despite the cruise backlash effect)
Doubt
Body of Lies
The Dark Knight
Revolutionary Road
Australia
Milk
the Incredible Hulk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Seven Pounds
Changeling
Burn After Reading
Defiance
and Iron Man of course
I'm predicting an early showdown between Del Torro, Penn, Hoffman Pitt and DeCaprio for Best Actor.
Heath Ledger will get a best supporting nod for the Dark Knight.
Its tough with best picture.
But I really like Valkyrie. It seems like it could be really really good. Singer is directing and McQuarrie wrote the script. The material is there too (assassination attempt on Hitler). the only drawback is Cruise.
The five I think:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The return of Pitt and Fincher. Story seems incredibly interesting. And it has the juggernaut, Cate Blanchett (Swinton is also in it)
Doubt also seems like it might contend for best picture (Streep and Hoffman will likely be considered for acting nods).
...I think Frost/Nixon and Milk will likely contend to.
and round it out with a DiCaprio movie (Body of Lies or Revolutionary Road) more likely the latter.
I myself am excited to see Synecdoche, New York. Charlie Kaufman's new film with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Michelle Williams, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Catherine Keener
ReplyDeleteI missed that one [Synecdoche, New York]...I'm looking forward to it too. Does Hoffman every slowdown?
ReplyDeleteshoot, I certainly hope not
ReplyDeleteHoffman will slow down once he is dead. Until then, he is going to keep given us great performances. What a gift from god...
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I just read the short story to the "Curious Case of Benjamin Button". What a story! I hope the movie can capture the same feeling from beginning to the end. It's funny and heart warming, yet incredibly sad. It makes you think about the power of perception, and consequences that come with age disparity and difference.
If the film can capture that with great performances, I expect a bunch of Oscar nods. I really would like to read the screenplay. The great Eric Roth wrote it, so I'm not expecting anything short of magnificence.
Has anyone read Revolutionary Road yet?
One thing that bothers me: Shouldn't the "want" be underlined at the top of the page, not the "we"?
ReplyDelete