« Which Award Show Is The Best Predictor Of Them All? | Main | And by the way… »
January 31, 2006
Oddball Anti-BBM Winning Stat Of The Day
This is the kind of stat that I don't really believe in, but...
When was the last time a film won Best Picture without being nominated for Best Editing?
25 years ago, Ordinary People did it.
Yes, every film that won Best Picture, even Driving Miss Daisy, got an editing nomination since then
Posted by poland at January 31, 2006 12:30 PM
Comments
It would appear only Crash and Munich have a shot at the prize if this stat is to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Melquiades
at January 31, 2006 12:46 PM
I'd like to also mention BM was snubbed in the technical categories. Anne Hathaway's hair alone should get a nomination in its own category.
Seriously though, thanks for the stat. Strangely the phenomenon is "recent." In 1975 and 1978, Godfather II and Annie Hall won respectively without getting an editing nod (and who could say they didn't deserve them!).
Posted by: palmtree
at January 31, 2006 01:17 PM
Oh no. You're going to make the BBM'ers even more nervous now. Here it comes.
Posted by: Bruce
at January 31, 2006 01:31 PM
omg, I'm so scared. barf.
Posted by: waterbucket
at January 31, 2006 01:40 PM
You can't just take stats that support your position seriously. It doesn't work like that. Instead of talking down the hard and firm facts why not just say "BBM will break the mold"?
Posted by: Josh
at January 31, 2006 02:00 PM
As long as we're throwing out stats, Dave...
(1) When was the last time a film with only 5 nominations won Best Picture? (hint: even farther back than 1980)
(2) How many times has the Best Picture with the fewest nominations gone on to win the Oscar? (hint: even less often those Pics that won without an Editing nod)
Dream on, Dear Dave...
Posted by: ArchiveGuy
at January 31, 2006 03:02 PM
Driving Miss Daisy is the worst Oscar winner of the past 35 years.
I really think someone read the wrong card.
Posted by: Richard Nash
at January 31, 2006 03:42 PM
David Poland said "(quote)When people start trying to rationalize how some “unworthy” film made it into the Oscar race, when you scrape away the bullshit, you will usually find someone who either dislikes the film or heavily supports another film and wants to see the threatening competitor dead." I rest my case.
Posted by: Tcolors
at January 31, 2006 03:52 PM
Please. What is he trying to say? Jesus, Munich getting a nod is like when they nominated Godfather III out of politeness. Godfather III incidentally was nominated for SEVEN Oscars! Won none of course. Now only a footnote in Sofia Coppola's career.
Posted by: bipedalist
at January 31, 2006 04:18 PM
Since David opened the BBM discussion, I thought I'd point you over to an article in the Toronto Star today that was rather interestings, and counters David's claims of a no-prejudice modern society.
Posted by: eoguy
at January 31, 2006 05:05 PM
Let's try that again since HTML doesn't work on this site...
Posted by: eoguy
at January 31, 2006 05:06 PM
What's with the low blows at Godfather 3?
Posted by: Sanchez
at January 31, 2006 06:10 PM
Maybe it's not too late for Brokeback to reedit... I hope to God that Munich didn't get an editing nomination... it wouldn't deserve it unless they edited out about a half hour from the movie
Posted by: EDouglas
at January 31, 2006 06:21 PM
It did.
The other 4 were Cinderella Man Constant Gardener, Crash, Walk the Line.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at January 31, 2006 06:47 PM
It's an interesting piece.
But I have NEVER made an argument that society is without bias OR that it is easy to be gay in today's society or in the 70s OR that it has ever been easy to come out.
It seems that people who want to spin my ideas just keep claimming it though... no matter what I actually say.
Posted by: David Poland
at January 31, 2006 07:09 PM
No prejudice society? Where is this utopia? Fantasy land?
Posted by: Angelus21
at January 31, 2006 09:11 PM
If you want to prove something, you can usually find a stat to prove it. Wanna hear another ''oddball'' statistic? Apparently, no Best Picture nominee that's set in L.A., the home of many Oscar voters, has ever won Best Picture. Examples: ''Sunset Blvd.,'' ''Chinatown,'' ''L.A. Confidential,'' ''The Aviator.'' Now does that mean that ''Crash'' won't win? Who knows?
Here's another one that a little more substantive: Eight movies that have won the PGA, the DGA and the Best Picture Golden Globe (for Drama or Comedy/Musical) have gone on to win the Oscar for Best Picture: ''Dances With Wolves,'' '' Schindler's List,'' ''Forrest Gump,'' ''The English Patient,'' ''Titanic,'' ''American Beauty,'' ''Chicago'' and ''Lord of the Rings.'' And what's the latest movie to win the PGA, the DGA and its Golden Globe? ''Brokeback Mountain.''
Does that mean it's a shoo-in? No. But I'll take ''Brokeback's'' odds over any other film.
Posted by: Wayman_Wong
at January 31, 2006 10:23 PM
Thanks to a TriviaChamp at Oscarwatch.com, here's a list of NINE movies that have won the Best Picture Oscar without a Best Editing nomination:
''It Happened One Night''
''Life of Emile Zola''
''Hamlet''
''Marty''
''Tom Jones''
''A Man for All Seasons''
''The Godfather II''
''Annie Hall''
''Ordinary People''
Come to think of it, isn't anyone else surprised that ''Good Night, and Good Luck'' didn't score an Editing nod either? It must've taken skill to cut back and forth between the new footage and the archival stuff, and make it look seamless.
Posted by: Wayman_Wong
at January 31, 2006 10:50 PM
You'd THINK that wouldn't you? I'm glad The Constant Gardener got in for Editing though - particially makes up for missing Ralph Feinnes and Cinematography. grrr.
The reason that the editing snub was curious to me was because it was a duel job with the late Peroni. Usually they go for posthumus techs. However, it really is a silly stat (of which i understand Dave is agreeing with - how come others don't see that?) because the editors branch aren't the largest one of AMPAS.
Can I please put it out there that I was one of the first to be predicting Crash for Best Picture and Director? Cause I was.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at January 31, 2006 11:09 PM
By the way, the American Cinema Editors, which give out the Eddies, DID nominate ''Brokeback'' in its guild awards. ACE divides movies into dramatic features and comedies/musicals. In the drama category, ACE nominated: ''Brokeback,'' ''The Constant Gardener,'' ''Crash,'' ''Good Night, and Good Luck'' and ''Munich.'' ''Walk the Line,'' which is up for an ACE for comedies/musicals, made the final 5 at the Oscars, and so did ''Cinderella Man.'' And they wound up displacing ''Brokeback'' and ''Good Night, and Good Luck.''
Posted by: Wayman_Wong
at January 31, 2006 11:23 PM
In GN&GL, it probably was not very hard at all to cut the archival footage with the newly-shot footage, for the simple fact that they probably shot the new stuff around the old stuff, and had every tool at their hands to make things match.
Editing is editing.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 1, 2006 12:40 AM
But isn't that a sign of "good" editing? What jeff is saying is that anyone can be an editor and it shouldn't even be a category for awards. "Good Night, Good Luck" is looks seamless because of how well it is done. Everything done well looks easy.
Posted by: BluStealer
at February 1, 2006 07:10 AM
Wayman_Wong: "Million $ Baby" was set in L.A.
Posted by: ArchiveGuy
at February 1, 2006 11:34 AM
ArchiveGuy, could've fooled me. There's nothing about that movie that read L.A. to me. The funny thing is that I first heard that L.A. statistic quoted last year as a reason why ''The Aviator'' wouldn't win. Saw it mentioned on various film chat boards and never saw anyone say that ''Million $ Baby'' is set in L.A. You're the first!
Posted by: Wayman_Wong
at February 1, 2006 12:27 PM
Blustealer, you didn't understand what I said. It was said above that GN&GL's editing was made even more difficult by the process of matching archival footage to new footage. I said that the movie was almost certainly designed - shot, costumed, edited, to fit around the previously existing footage. So while any good movie is well-edited, the editors of that film didn't really have a hurdle to work around but rather were being accomodated by other aspects of production.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 1, 2006 02:12 PM
I don't think settings play that much into what wins and what doesn't.
Posted by: joefitz84
at February 1, 2006 02:37 PM
But some people like to use that as a way of justifying the fact their their favourite movies did not win.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at February 3, 2006 12:34 AM
M$B was unmistakably set in L.A.
At least one scene outside the gym shows the Library Tower in the background, and there is discussion about the proximity to Vegas (the fight where Maggie gets ***SPOILER***ed).
Posted by: SaveFarris
at February 3, 2006 12:13 PM
It's in L.A. but the location is not primary to the plot, as it is in Crash, Short Cuts, Magnolia, etc.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at February 3, 2006 01:59 PM
The editing stat is interesting, but somewhat silly. Another silly historical stat is looking at the number of nominations among best picture winners. In the past 60 years, only three best pics had less than 7 nominations:
1. Ordinary People (1980)
2. Annie Hall (1977)
3. Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
Posted by: peterv
at February 5, 2006 04:56 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)