Oscar Night!

Scott Hardie | February 27, 2004
Haiti is in chaos, Bush has proposed a constitutional amendment, the Democrats are finally about to settle on their candidate... But I don't want to talk about that boring stuff. It's Oscar time! :P

Seriously, this is my favorite time of year to be a movie fan. Oscar night is the only night of the year when the rest of America loves movies as much as I do. No matter how I do in my contest, no matter whether my favorite nominees go home with statuettes, I have fantastic fun. For the first time in years, I'm not going to an Oscar party or hosting one; I'm just going to sit here at my computer with the TV beside me, and hopefully find some fellow movie fans in my AIM buddy list ("S Scott Hardie" if you feel like chatting). I'll be updating the contest scores live during the broadcast, another wonderful advantage of having a dynamic site.

I thought I'd do something that's been missing since the very first Predict the Oscars contest on this site: Give you a chance to say who you would like to see win. That shouldn't have anything to do with your predictions, so there's no other way to express it around here. My own preferences are as follows, and I can't help commenting on some of my predictions too...

Best Picture: I wanted to see "Cold Mountain" win this, believe it or not, even though I thought "Return of the King" was the better film. I believe in the prestige of the Best Picture award, and "Cold Mountain" would have been better to follow in that fine tradition than the simplistic, escapist "Return of the King." But I have to be glad that "Cold Mountain" did not get enough votes to eke out the fifth nomination spot, because I would have firmly predicted it in my contest, and lost to most of the other players. :-)

Lead Actor: If I were a member, I would have voted for Johnny Depp. His performance was the most crucial to the success of the film, and arguably the most difficult to pull off, and I just plain liked it the most of the five. Will he win? Damn, that's a tough question. Last year, nobody could decide between Nicholson or Day-Lewis, and Brody pulled off an upset when the other two split their votes. I think that will happen between Murray and Penn's votes this year, giving Depp the prize. But "The Pianist" was underestimated all around last year, and certainly "Pirates of the Caribbean" isn't in the same league. Besides, most of the other players have gone with Murray, and it's risky for me to buck the trend unless I'm sure. I'll make up my mind on Sunday afternoon.

Supporting Actress: I liked Zellweger's performance and what I have seen of Aghdashloo's, but I'm probably not qualified to form a preference because I have (sadly) seen only two of these films. This is hardest of the major categories to predict correctly. Best Supporting Actress is notorious for surprise winners, and it's going to be Aghdashloo, Harden, or Clarkson who gets this Oscar -- probably not Zellweger. But almost every player in the contest has picked Renée, and I'm not sure I can break from the herd. It's better to be wrong with the crowd than wrong against the crowd. My perennial competitor had to go and change his prediction to Aghdashloo this week... >:-(

Adapted Screenplay: Another one I wanted to see "Cold Mountain" win, but I'll settle for the literate, nuanced dialogue of "Mystic River" in its place. The characterization of the leads, especially in Robbins's lonely monologues, was excellent. As for the winner, I think it will be either "American Splendor" or "Mystic River." Twice has "Lord of the Rings" failed in this category, but ROTK is the most popular of the trilogy and could easily win this one at last. Tough call.

Animated Feature: I saw no better animated film last year than "Finding Nemo," and the same goes for most of the country. I would like to see it competing for Best Picture, but I'll settle for this trophy instead. "Triplets of Belleville" could pull off a win here ("Spirited Away" proved that good movies can win this, even if "Waking Life" failed the year before), but I'm sticking with the crowd.

Documentary Feature: I have seen none of these films and have no particular preference. For me, there is no more difficult category to predict this year. "Capturing the Friedmans" was so popular and played for so long, and more Academy members have seen it than any of the others. But "Fog of War" is equally powerful if not more so, and it is playing in theaters right now, and its subject matter (the foolishness of rushing into an unjust war) is unmistakably relevant, so I'm giving it a slight edge. If those two films split their votes, "My Architect" will be the upset winner, but despite its fans' devotion, I don't think it played widely enough.

Original Song: Having heard four of the songs (I don't care to download "Triplets of Belleville"), my preference to win would be "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow," because it was a touching event in the film, central to the plot and the romance. I think it will win for that same reason. Matt insists that "Into the West" is the superior song, but I don't hear that at all; it sounds to me like a quickie production attached to the end of a prestigious film to snag an easy Oscar, and I expect it to lose like Enya's song did two years ago.

Visual Effects: Matrix sequels. Love 'em or hate 'em, they fully deserve this Oscar. 'Nuff said.

Makeup: Why isn't "Monster" nominated? (Or, as I asked before, "X2" or "T3"?)

Scott Hardie | March 1, 2004
Some traditions fell last night, but another one continued: Critics calling the show a boring snooze-fest, and me wondering if I saw the same show they did; I thought it was great. I'm no fan of Billy Crystal, but the man works hard at the job, and many of his jokes were excellent. What fell flat was the characteristically useless preshow; this year the celebrities barely hid their contempt for the hosts interrupting them and pushing them around. Go Sandra Bullock! I don't expect to see Billy Bush next year or (hopefully) ever again.

I was also pleased to see the most deserving candidates get Oscars in nearly every category. Sure it's sad that Bill Murray didn't get an Oscar in what was probably his only chance (he was visibly disappointed), but Sean Penn has been nominated three times before without winning, and is held by his fellow actors to be the finest of his generation. I don't like Penn, but then I don't like Murray much either (he's prickly and selfish), so I'm happy just to see the deserving winner get it.

As for the contest... Well, clearly it has problems when there are this many contestants. With this many faceless strangers signing up (some of them with fake email addresses, as I learned when I tried to contact one winner about his prize), I figured there would be some strangers among the five winners, but I still expected one or more of my friends to make it. Nope, complete shutout; I'm spending a hundred bucks on prizes for people who will never give me or my site another thought. Besides that, while I'm happy to be defeated by a worthy foe (that means you Steve West), I don't like getting outscored by a bunch of white question marks. It takes the fun out of the game for me, and I suspect for the rest of you regulars as well.

In discussing this with other players, Matt suggested making players sacrifice something to play (like an entry fee), and Erik more specifically suggested a $5 entry fee. I agree that it would keep out the strangers (and it would give players incentive to predict very carefully), but I fear it might keep friends from signing up as well. What do you think, would you pay an entry fee? Dan & Angela suggested making the contest invitation-only, which is a direct solution to the problem, and a good idea. I have eleven months to think about it, but so far I'm planning to implement a variation on the invitation-only idea: Limiting participation to the regular users of the site. You would need to have guessed at 5 goos, or started 5 TC discussions, or be a FIN or TWC player, to enter the contest. (I could grant special permission to a few non-regulars who I want to see in the contest, like Scott Pugely and Kevin Fiore.) This would eliminate all those faceless strangers, and keep the contest open only to those of us who are site regulars. Ultimately, that's what I want. Your thoughts on the matter?

I should mention also that the scores are an anomaly this year due to LOTR sweeping. Sure, some of the high-scorers gave it careful consideration and predicted correctly that LOTR would win each of those awards, but many or most of those high-scoring "question mark" players were the clueless types who predicted LOTR in every category because they didn't recognize any of the other nominees. (I noticed your blogmate bragging this morning of his similar victory, Steve Dunn. :-) ) This being a rare year in which the extreme popular favorite also dominated the Oscars, it's not something we need to worry about happening again. Besides, us regulars could have predicted LOTR's clean sweep, but we didn't, so we can only blame ourselves.

Scott Hardie | March 1, 2004
If that rule had been in effect this year, the winners would have been Steve West (grand prize), Mario Di Carlo (first prize), Scott Pugely (second prize), Scott Baumann (third prize), me (no prize), and Jackie (fourth prize), with Steve Dunn and Matthew Preston right behind them. That looks like a better set of winners to me.

Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2004
I'm disappointed too, for being hopeful/blind enough to think that LOTR wouldn't win everything, and that strangers took over the game. I am, however, thankful that we're free of the LOTR franchise, at least until they secure the rights to The Hobbit.

Yay for Sophia Coppola though! Yay!

Erik Bates | March 1, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2004
It was probably his only chance to win an Oscar, so it stinks, but I didn't expect a win for him.

Jackie Mason | March 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Steve West | March 2, 2004
Grand Prize! For me?! I want to thank my mother... What's that? Only if those other guys hadn't played... Ahem. Pardon me. In all seriousness, throughout the night, I kept telling my wife that my goal was to finish in the top ten and ahead of Scott. So, mission accomplished. History has shown what a good player he has been. I had a fun night - best Oscar night yet. See ya next year.

Scott Hardie | March 2, 2004
Well, thanks for the magnanimity. The questions remain: Should this contest become invitation-only (assuming that all GOO/TC regulars would be invited), or should it be open to anyone? Would you be willing to pay a few dollars to enter if it went into a prize pool? Do you have any other suggestions for keeping out the strangers? Should they not be kept out?

Matthew Preston | March 2, 2004
Invitation only gets my vote. I think the point of you giving out over $100.00 in prizes is meant as a gratitude towards your friends and regulars of this site. Strangers can compete in the goo game and with dedication to participation (and maybe a picture) they could be given the right to compete in the bonus Oscar game each year. I am not against an entry fee, but it doesn't seem necessary.

Steve West | March 2, 2004
Earlier, you described a scenario in which you detailed the regular participants who would have won prizes had other "strangers" not participated. This seems like a good idea to me - making the people new to the site not "game ineligible" but "prize ineligible". This would encourage participation in the site for the upcoming year. (No, I am not campaigning for a prize this year, although...)

Anna Gregoline | March 2, 2004
I think this last suggestion is the best - encourgages new users to participate, while allowing the old ones a better shot. Best of both worlds.

Steve West | March 8, 2010
Thanks to Scott (again) for a great opportunity to compete and have fun. This is an annual event that I look forward to with relish. (That's what she said...) I love competing with everyone here but my personal competition with Scott should be over early as we differ on only a few low point categories. Good luck everyone!

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
I'm excited, as always. The only categories where I have any doubt at all are Original Screenplay (could be Hurt Locker), Cinematography (could be Hurt Locker), and Live Action Short (could be any of them, good lord). As always, some categories will be complete surprises, but I'm more confident than most years.

I'm not watching the show live, just following the results online, so the scores might take a few minutes to reflect each winner.

Steve West | March 8, 2010
I really wanted to vote for Coco before Chanel for costume design as a dark horse but the Academy loves Edwardian costume period pieces. It's funny that the early 20th century can almost be considered a period piece as well.

Steve West | March 8, 2010
My biggest quandary was Cinematography. I had the same dilemma and made a late change away from The Hurt Locker at the last minute.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
I'm happy to provide this contest every year, although this will probably be the final year in which I give prizes to everybody tied for a top score, rather than just the top 3-5 scores. It was a fair solution, but my wallet just can't take multiple ties.

The competition in the contest has gotten ridiculously tough over the years. This helps me sympathize with goo game players who remember the days when it was much easier to compete and the margin of victory wasn't razor-thin. I spent a long time this afternoon just reading about the live action shorts to earn that last point, because it has gotten that important. (Conclusion: Nobody really has a clue which live action short will win. I'll stick with my original arbitrary pick for lack of a clear alternative, since I've read good arguments for all five.)

Steve West | March 8, 2010
AAAaaaaahhhhh! I switched Original Screenplay at the last minute, too!!!!!

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
Original Screenplay was my biggest point of doubt, and I picked wrong. I went back and forth between Basterds and Hurt Locker a lot for a bunch of reasons, both having good claim to the Oscar. Unless I'm right about all other categories (and I'm not), I'm out of the competition.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
Once again, the three short-film categories are a crap shoot. My hat's off to Samir and Jason for nailing two out of three.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
Kevin and Josh are out in the lead at the moment, but they picked separate titles for Best Picture. One of them is going to be very happy in an hour.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
Foreign Language Feature will decide the winner, unless Mihai gets lucky with Best Picture. This is fun. :-)

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2010
Congrats to the winners! Josh and Jason pulled ahead of the pack with a risky bet on Foreign Language Feature. Except for Precious's unlikely triumph in Adapted Screenplay, Josh predicted right in every category down to the 2-pointers at the bottom of the page. This is Josh's second consecutive win and his third prize in five years. Final scores are here.