The Hot Blog

a possible excel solution, just go to the next sheet, copy over the list of films and then in your column that totals up the points include the total from the first sheet in the formula to calculate the grand total

for instance, say the total column on sheet 1 is FF, so cell FF2 has the total for no country for old men (presuming it's sorted like above) The formula on sheet 2 for the grand total should be =sum(B2:Y2,Sheet1!FF2) presuming of course that sheet1's name is still the default.

I'd also create a new column on sheet 1 that references the new Sheet 2 total, because when you do a sort you'll need to sort both sheets since they'll be referencing each other. in fact it might just be a better idea to type in the totals as straight numbers on sheet two and then just use sheet two for new lists and sorting, because doing a sort with the formulas could pose problems.

I've actually wondered if you use a formula to tell excel to invert the lists so the ranked voting systems work (ie every 1 is scored 10 pts, every 10 is scored 1 point and so on in between) or if you just type them in yourself in the scored version and have another version with the rankings?

I haven't found an Excel formula that does that, though we started doing a secondary chart a couple of weeks ago that inverts everything into other columns... it's inverting than adding them up that I haven't figured. As is, I have to do the odd votes, like split votes, by hand.

I would guess we could go another 25 more lists or so before really squeezing for names. As is, we include many low profile people for strategic balance... not just the high and mighty (or TM)crix.

Thanks for the ideas.

this may be a retarded question - i've probably missed something along the way - but why has 'zodiac', which appears highly regarded by critics and the movie-going public alike (everyone i know who saw it thought it was excellent, except one guy who's a grumpy bastard at the best of times; i personally thought it was one of the best movies i've seen in ages, perfectly capturing the era and prolonged, uneasy menace of the zodiac killing spree) been deemed 'out' of awards contention? i'm baffled (but to be honest that's not unusual for me, i spend great stretches of time in a baffled state).

Guess Dave's Axis of Evil column about critical onanism failed to stop Jesse James from leapfrogging I'm Not There all the way to #11.

Crazy critics...

Leahnz, I wouldn't count Zodiac completely out. While a Best Picture nom is probably a longshot, there's certainly a possibility to be acknowledged for editing, cinematography, art direction, sound, and screenplay. Plus, if you consider the very young careers of potential BP nom directors like Joe Wright, Jason Reitman, and Tony Gilroy, it's not inconceivable that Fincher could sneak in there.

Leahnz-- pundits pretty much kill the chances of movies like Zodiac by saying they have no chance. It's a rather arbitrary, self-fulfilling prophecy.

For Zodiac in particular, there are of course many reasons that history suggests it will not be a part of this Oscar race-- its release date, middling financial outcomes, its cold tone-- but its critical success should overcome those reasons. My theory is that the tipping point comes when everybody says that Oscar voters will be ignoring it, and as a result Oscar voters don't feel they need to bother.

Why is tripe like The Bucket List ever discussed in an Oscar context? The same reason, but in reverse. It's discussed as an Oscar hopeful and the voters are compelled to see it, quality be damned.

Why is tripe like The Bucket List ever discussed in an Oscar context? The same reason, but in reverse. It's discussed as an Oscar hopeful and the voters are compelled to see it, quality be damned.

The good news is that those movies don't make it in either. I think I agree that pundits can kill Oscar hopes, but I don't think they can create them. Cold Mountain is a great example. Pundits got it nominated in most of the precursors, but when it came to Oscar, the voters were smart enough to realize, hey, we don't *like* this movie.

Sam, you're right. In general, a deserving movie can be more easily killed than an undeserving movie can be rewarded, especially for Best Picture. As awful as Crash was, for example, there are people that really seemed to care for it. The final vote tends to filter out the awards-grubbing fluff, even though they can get plenty of nominations.

I think that many of you are still under the delusion that The Academy thinks monolithically... probably the same people who think I am evil for suggesting that critics have motives that are not always virgin pure.

There is no question that there are cultural waves within that culture. Brokeback vs Crash was one of those moments when people just didn't want to hear the anti-Brokeback sentiment and when they did, had to claim bias. On the other hand, sometimes there actually is bias. Again, it comes in waves. And somehow, it makes a lot of people uncomfortable when things turn on a dime because of circumstance. But that is the nature of having 6000 people narrow a field from 15 to 5. (See: Iowa)

What always spins my head is that people often decide that "something has changed" when the outcome rolls a certain way. And it's not like movies are failures because they don't make this cut or successes because they do. Hold the same contest a year later and see how things change. Oscar, for better or worse, is a flash frame of a moment, not a definitive portrait.

Pundits and critics only matter when united, pro or con. The There Will Be Blood pile-up of late gives that film a chance to be nominated. If things had remained split up, it would be dead for BP.

"More deserving" and "less deserving" are such blurry ideas. Please see the Barry Corbin scene of No Country and get back to us...

I think the maddening thing for film fans like us is that a flash frame of a moment is the only measure of quality remembered by the vast majority of the filmgoing public.

thanks for trying to clear that up for me, still seems bizarre, tho. now if any of you can explain to me what was surrounding the tiny ball of supercondensed matter before the big bang explosion, that would really ease my mind...

There was nothing, it's like asking 'what's north of the North Pole'. By definition it was nonexistent.

I think that many of you are still under the delusion that The Academy thinks monolithically...

Not at all. But in terms of practicality, it is more efficient to say "The Academy didn't like this movie" than "When the Academy voted on the movie, an insufficient percentage of its 6000 independently-thinking members considered it their favorite movie of the year, and, depending on how the first-place votes shook out, an insufficient number of the remainder ranked it second, and so on, up to their fifth place selections."

You are correct that too many people discuss the Academy in monolithic terms, but it's pedantic to criticize every unclarified use of "the Academy" as a collective noun.

...probably the same people who think I am evil for suggesting that critics have motives that are not always virgin pure.

"Critics" aren't a monolithic entity either, David.

In any case, I never said critics have virgin pure motives. What I objected to was a question of degree. I fully admit, as you said in the earlier thread, that critics (and indeed anybody) can and will be influenced, consciously and subconsciously, by the external tides, be they political, social, critical, or whatnot. But to a degree! A very good movie will become great, or a poor movie will become terrible. Not what you were claiming: that a *majority* of critics proclaim Top 10-caliber love for movies they didn't genuinely love just to send a message to the the studios. I can believe certain individuals will do that. Not critics en masse. In a general sense, the critics that loved Zodiac loved Zodiac, and you have provided utterly no evidence to substantiate your claim otherwise.

Something tells me I'm going to get slammed for my use of the word "majority" in the post above. I am content to substitute the words "significant faction."

"What always spins my head is that people often decide that "something has changed" when the outcome rolls a certain way. And it's not like movies are failures because they don't make this cut or successes because they do. Hold the same contest a year later and see how things change. Oscar, for better or worse, is a flash frame of a moment, not a definitive portrait."

right, how can people say the Departed is a 'new era' for the academy when they picked Silence of the Lambs and Unforgiven back to back? The academy is not motivated by strictly artistic standards (often where many critics and cineaste's tastes are positioned) nor are they motivated from the strictly popular standards of america at large. The academy falls somewhere in the middle of both, and thus pleases noone, ever. For the most part, the relentless pounding of irked critics the past ten years has mainly assured that films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Fatal Attraction, Ghost, Babe, the Sixth Sense and the Fugitive can no longer be nominated for the big prize (epics get an exception to the popular-at-large exclusion).

Really is it so odd that the only film that was first an entertainment out of the fifteen most recently BP nominated films won last year?

"that a *majority* of critics proclaim Top 10-caliber love for movies they didn't genuinely love just to send a message to the the studios."

Never said that.

Please, DGA. Swing the pendulum. Include Mr. Fincher. Then things might really heat up.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: