Daniel Day-Lewis is done.

[mikeymikec]

OK. So your really bad idea is that we might not give out best actor awards some year and might give out multiple another year. I assume you aren't so naive as to think this only applies to actors, so it clearly gets expanded to the entire set of awards. I'm sure, given your extremely well-thought-out idea, that you're familiar with how both the nomination and final vote works right? So the first reason the idea is complete nonsense is that the entire system for deciding the short list would have to be thrown out the window. What would you like the ballot to look like exactly?

A summary of your first paragraph is this: I don't know how your system would work, so it's a really bad idea.

What you are asking is for a group of actors to collectively somehow indicate that none of their peers did a good enough job to warrant recognition. That will never happen.

Since this already happens to some extent, as a counter-argument this is nonsense. Nominees are formally submitted to the academy, then the academy votes on a shortlist of nominees from those submitted. Therefore it has already decided who doesn't make the cut. The main difference in the possible voting process that could be used to implement my suggestion is that a 'none of the above' option would be included, and off the top of my head it would seem sensible that if the number of votes for that option exceed a certain percentage, the award is dropped for that year.

And clearly this is objective right? It's not like the academy members who vote on actors will all have really different ideas about what's Oscar-worthy, right?

Surely this argument applies just as much to the current system as it does my suggestion.

Now go on and start coming up with how you'd like the ceremony to work. "Here are the nominees for best actor. There are none." "Here are the nominees for best director. There are only 3 and all of them win the oscar."

If you want to pick the most absurd way of doing it, sure, but the fact of the matter is that in the scenario I'm suggesting, it would be known well beforehand which categories are going to be awarded before the ceremony, so categories that had no winners would simply be skipped without comment.

The award names would change a little as well, so instead of "best director", it might be announced as "the winners of the directing oscars are:".

Of course, there's also the fact that we are basing this entire idea on what a random dude on the internet thinks, seemingly without having any idea what it's like to be an actor. No doubt some years, no one really did a great job at this job because it's easy to do what they do and unless they are truly exceptional, their own peers shouldn't be awarding them anything, right?

At no point have I suggested that I am authority on this topic. I presented an opinion, just like you have. Instead of saying that my justifying logic is faulty in some way, you seem to have decided to focus on how it would be implemented, even though your opening argument was that it was like the world cup in some way, which it clearly isn't.

The only point that I can think of that has merit against my idea, and again it's related to the implementation is how mind-numbingly boring and long the oscars ceremony is already, and if each winner out of potentially multiple winners for each category had a chance to make a speech, it could take many times longer

 

[zinfamous]

Not really. The club gets VERY small at the top. DDL, Oldman, Streep...it's really hard to put anyone else on their level.

If you say Pacino or De Niro, you lose a testicle.

what? Of course De Niro is still up there. no question. Who cares what he does these days? And besides, even his comedic/slapsticky stuff is pretty good. Pacino...yeah. He likes to oversell himself way too much.

...I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time that DDL has "quit acting," btw.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'll take a stab at sporting events. In your OP, you feel that awards like the Oscars shouldn't be limited a specific number but to the amount of "amazing" performances per reviewed year. If there are no amazing performances in a reviewed year then there are no awards given in that category. However, we don't an accurate way to measure performances because they're based on opinion.

Using your logic with sporting events is a lot easier since there is a quantifiable number involved. So if the World Cup was best 3 out 5 not only would have to win 5 but you would have to have as many or more points then the best prior years champion. If you don't then your performance wasn't as good and therefor you don't deserve a trophy. That applies the logic for not giving out awards for non-exceptional performances but it's obviously very silly.

The world cup already has a quantifiable and direct competition system that works pretty well. What you're suggesting wouldn't be a tournament like the world cup but closer to a league. We already have those.

How about giving out multiple awards for exceptional performances. You feel it's silly to only give out 1 award when there could be multiple great performances and you downplay the award system because of that. Do you also downplay things like the Commissioner's or Larry O'Brien trophies because the same exact thing can happen there. You can have a year where two teams are quantifiable better every other team by large margins or even years but only 1 gets a trophy. Shouldn't they give out two trophy's that year?

I thought I had already described how the current oscars system is already de-valued by the notion of having to give out awards no matter how crap the options are.

 

[zinfamous]

People still think Oscars mean something?

well yes. to actors and the Industry they mean quite a lot.

Oh, you meant they don't mean anything to you?

That's nice.

 

[zinfamous]

Pacino.
De Niro.

clever

 

[Miramonti]

Fantastic actor.

Somewhere, somehow, this is an FU to somebody and he'll be back at some point. He's an artist that will long for the creative outlet again (and the big paychecks.)

 

[AdamK47]

I liked his performances in The Big Lebowski, Brokeback Mountain, and No Country For Old Men.

 

[torpid]

A summary of your first paragraph is this: I don't know how your system would work, so it's a really bad idea.

Yes, the summary is, there's no reasonable way I can think of to make this work. This is where you present an idea since you have thought this through so well. I'll wait...

Since this already happens to some extent, as a counter-argument this is nonsense. Nominees are formally submitted to the academy, then the academy votes on a shortlist of nominees from those submitted. Therefore it has already decided who doesn't make the cut. The main difference in the possible voting process that could be used to implement my suggestion is that a 'none of the above' option would be included, and off the top of my head it would seem sensible that if the number of votes for that option exceed a certain percentage, the award is dropped for that year.

Explain more, please. You expect people to vote for a short list knowing full well that they don't think anyone deserves the award, then from that short list vote "none of the above?" Or do you expect people to not even create a short list in the first place? Also, do you think that "none of the above" is the same as "no one deserves it this year" because it sure sounds like it.

Surely this argument applies just as much to the current system as it does my suggestion.

With your system, you'd have to get everyone to agree that NO ONE deserves it rather than a bunch of people thinking A LOT of people deserve it. Again, look at the way the voting works now. There's a wide range. Not everyone can even agree who the formal nominees should be. Not because everyone sucks. It's the opposite.

If you want to pick the most absurd way of doing it, sure, but the fact of the matter is that in the scenario I'm suggesting, it would be known well beforehand which categories are going to be awarded before the ceremony, so categories that had no winners would simply be skipped without comment.

How so? You expect them now to release the results of the ballot count in advance now too?

At no point have I suggested that I am authority on this topic. I presented an opinion, just like you have. Instead of saying that my justifying logic is faulty in some way, you seem to have decided to focus on how it would be implemented, even though your opening argument was that it was like the world cup in some way, which it clearly isn't.

The only point that I can think of that has merit against my idea, and again it's related to the implementation is how mind-numbingly boring and long the oscars ceremony is already, and if each winner out of potentially multiple winners for each category had a chance to make a speech, it could take many times longer

I already addressed the complete absurdity of your general argument when I spoke of awards and how they work. What prestigious awards work this way that you can cite as a successful implementation of this idea you have?

I went into detail because you are suggesting a specific system for the Oscars, which is an existing award. You didn't suggest that some new award get created that somehow has prestige and works the way you describe. I'm describing the practical ways in which it won't work, which includes:

• No actual actors in the academy will ever think that no one deserves the oscar, so it would never happen, nor should it
• More generally, you are almost never going to get a body of prestigious people in a field to decide that their field deserves no award that year, not only because it's a bad idea, but because it acts against self-interest
• There would be no realistic way to get people to vote "no oscar awarded" even if they did
• There would be no realistic way to have a ceremony of any value in such a system
• No one who actually knows anything about the awards would say, "no one deserves the oscar." Do you have any expert who agrees that this has happened any time in the last 50 years or so?
• Even if you can't find an expert, please provide a list of 5 years where no one deserved the acting oscar, and 5 years where more than one person deserved it so that we can all judge whether this is even a necessary change.

 

[mikeymikec]

I should point out that I don't think this implementation argument is remotely interesting.

Explain more, please. You expect people to vote for a short list knowing full well that they don't think anyone deserves the award, then from that short list vote "none of the above?" Or do you expect people to not even create a short list in the first place? Also, do you think that "none of the above" is the same as "no one deserves it this year" because it sure sounds like it.

That makes no sense. The list of potential nominees is submitted the usual way, then the academy members vote on the shortlist, or to abandon the category for that year.

With your system, you'd have to get everyone to agree that NO ONE deserves it rather than a bunch of people thinking A LOT of people deserve it.

You could do it that, way, but that makes little sense, and I already described how I would do it in the previous post.

Again, look at the way the voting works now. There's a wide range. Not everyone can even agree who the formal nominees should be. Not because everyone sucks. It's the opposite.

They vote on who the nominees should be already. If someone doesn't make the cut, they don't make the cut.

How so? You expect them now to release the results of the ballot count in advance now too?

No, as I already described...

What prestigious awards work this way that you can cite as a successful implementation of this idea you have?

Does that matter?

• No actual actors in the academy will ever think that no one deserves the oscar, so it would never happen, nor should it
• More generally, you are almost never going to get a body of prestigious people in a field to decide that their field deserves no award that year, not only because it's a bad idea, but because it acts against self-interest
• There would be no realistic way to get people to vote "no oscar awarded" even if they did
• There would be no realistic way to have a ceremony of any value in such a system
• No one who actually knows anything about the awards would say, "no one deserves the oscar." Do you have any expert who agrees that this has happened any time in the last 50 years or so?
• Even if you can't find an expert, please provide a list of 5 years where no one deserved the acting oscar, and 5 years where more than one person deserved it so that we can all judge whether this is even a necessary change.

Ok, a more interesting argument.

It's difficult to respond to each bullet point directly beneath it, so here goes:

1 - The first part is an assertion based on nothing, so ignoring it except the final "nor should it" - why?
2 - same as the first bullet point. Self-interest?
3 - already described one
4 - tonnes of ceremonies occur in many countries when people graduate for example.
5 - Pretty much a repeat of the first point.
6 - I would have had to watch every single film ever nominated to provide an opinion here, and so would anyone else who attempts to counter my opinion. I haven't, and I'd bet that no-one else here has.

 

[torpid]

I should point out that I don't think this implementation argument is remotely interesting.

Who cares? You are the one who posted the garbage idea. If you can't defend every aspect of the idea then stop posting garbage.

That makes no sense. The list of potential nominees is submitted the usual way, then the academy members vote on the shortlist, or to abandon the category for that year.

The nominees are voted on once by the academy members to make the short list. Then they vote again for a winner. At what point would they vote to abandon the category? If they vote to abandon it before the short list then you are eliminating the honor of being nominated. If they abandon it after the short list then that means they knowingly voted for actors who didn't deserve it.

You could do it that, way, but that makes little sense, and I already described how I would do it in the previous post.

I'm describing your way. I'm not suggesting that literally everyone must unanimously agree. I'm describing your system and saying that you aren't going to get enough people to say "no one."

No, as I already described...

You described skipping a category that year and publicizing this in advance. Which would mean revealing the results in advance.

Does that matter?

Yes. If you have some evidence that your system actually is implemented and works, that matters quite a bit.

Ok, a more interesting argument.

It's difficult to respond to each bullet point directly beneath it, so here goes:

1 - The first part is an assertion based on nothing, so ignoring it except the final "nor should it" - why?
2 - same as the first bullet point. Self-interest?
3 - already described one
4 - tonnes of ceremonies occur in many countries when people graduate for example.
5 - Pretty much a repeat of the first point.
6 - I would have had to watch every single film ever nominated to provide an opinion here, and so would anyone else who attempts to counter my opinion. I haven't, and I'd bet that no-one else here has.

1. Your entire garbage post was an assertion based on nothing. You know nothing about acting yet claim that Daniel Day Lewis, and other actors in general, often win an undeserved Oscar or "get lucky" by being slightly better than other amazing people the same year. Your suggestion is that there are years where no one deserves an oscar instead of the far more reasonable suggestion that all nominees every year generally deserve one and someone gets picked as the best of the great actors. Please provide evidence. I'm basing my assertion on the pretty reasonable assumption that there are a lot of very, very good actors every year giving very, very good performances and the academy knows this.
2. Yes, self-interest. No one who is an elite actor is going to say, "everyone, including me, sucked this year!"
3. Nope.
4. Has nothing to do with my point.
5. Nope, I'm talking about the lack of evidence for need here. I'm talking about journalists and film critics who actually write about this for a living. Show me any article by a reputable source claiming that "no one deserves an acting oscar this year"
6. Uhh.... what? You came up with this idea of years with no winners and years with multiple winners and can't actually offer any suggestions for when this would have applied?

 

[IronWing]

I saw a portion of The Last of the Mohicans and My Beautiful Laundrette. I don't remember much about the acting so I guess he was doing it right.

 

[mikeymikec]

@torpid

I'm done with this argument. I made no such claim that DDL didn't deserve an oscar, which would have been an odd thing to claim since I'd already stated that I haven't seen any of his films. You repeatedly erect strawman arguments and a continuous stream of ad hominems, and when I counter one of your points, you say things like "this has nothing to do with my point", then not even bother to elaborate. You think my idea is garbage. Fine. I couldn't care less what you think for the reasons I've stated in this post.

You can have the last word if you like, call my opinion garbage for the umpteenth time if it makes you feel good.

 

[AdamK47]

Like we needed any more proof that people will argue with strangers on the Internet over anything.

At least we can all agree on Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in Muppet Treasure Island being his career defining role. This is something no one can argue.

 

[ImpulsE69]

well yes. to actors and the Industry they mean quite a lot.

Oh, you meant they don't mean anything to you?

That's nice.

When was the last time your voice mattered in an Oscar? Oh wait...

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is made up of around 7,000 filmmakers and film professionals, and these are the people that vote for the Oscars.

So no, they don't matter. It's peer based basically (more in depth than the quote above). It's about as important as your group of friends and acquaintances voting you worst looking person they know. I understand it might be important to 'them' but it should mean nothing to anyone else that isn't in show business, which is why it is humorous that people throw that around as 'proof' of someones acting abilities.

For most people, if you don't like the movies they are in (regardless of reason), you aren't going to care about the actors either.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Didn`t Daniel Day-Lewis play Kermit in the Muppet movie???
Now that was one of his best movies an all time classic!!

 

[AdamK47]

Didn`t Daniel Day-Lewis play Kermit in the Muppet movie???
Now that was one of his best movies an all time classic!!

His singing of The Rainbow Connection at the beginning of the movie still brings tears to my eyes. It's so beautifully sung. His talents will be greatly missed.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Daniel Day Lewis takes his method acting very seriously. He hasn't quit acting, he simply has taken a part for a yet to be announced project where he plays a retired actor.

 

[Squisher]

Daniel Day Lewis takes his method acting very seriously. He hasn't quit acting, he simply has taken a part for a yet to be announced project where he plays a retired actor.

 

[zinfamous]

When was the last time your voice mattered in an Oscar? Oh wait...

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is made up of around 7,000 filmmakers and film professionals, and these are the people that vote for the Oscars.

So no, they don't matter. It's peer based basically (more in depth than the quote above). It's about as important as your group of friends and acquaintances voting you worst looking person they know. I understand it might be important to 'them' but it should mean nothing to anyone else that isn't in show business, which is why it is humorous that people throw that around as 'proof' of someones acting abilities.

For most people, if you don't like the movies they are in (regardless of reason), you aren't going to care about the actors either.

wow, didn't read a fucking thing I said. It matters to the Industry. Do you understand that? I asked, does it matter to you? Obviously it doesn't...which is what you responded with.

I don't understand your grievance here. The Academy is, in itself, a particular institution within the film industry. They have tasked themselves with creating a standard by which they define the particular content within their industry as representative of a particular sense of art. It isn't so much to say "this is what all film is," it is to define a standard by which a class of "good film should aspire to be," and by which those that work within the industry should aim. It isn't there to govern all of the content that gets released.

They aren't beholden to what you think, and what ticket sales are, and that is as it should be. If you want to bitch about self-serving nonsense awards institutions that votes entirely on the money-driven, low-quality tastes of the average idiot, then you should focus on the Grammys.

I do like how you reinforced my point about what the Academy does, and still managed to complain that it isn't somehow what you want it to be. Again, look towards the Grammys and the shit they reward, if you want your "my vote matters!" participation model of awards ceremonies.

"I don't like the movies that win awards therefore it is crap!" OK, fine. no one is hurt here. I hope you also complain about the shit albums and artists that usually win their industry's praises, because that is exactly what you want to happen with the Academy. The Academy can continue on doing its thing, and yet you can continue pumping money into shit Michael Bay movies all you want, and no one is harmed. Not awarding Michael Bay statues that he will never ever deserve will, in no way, hinder his ability to make shitty movies for you. Believe me.

 

[IronWing]

If Michael Bay produced the Oscars show, I might watch it.


Edit: I looked at Michael Bay's imdb entry. I've never actually seen a Michael Bay movie. I've just been imagining all those tits and explosions.

 

[torpid]

@torpid

I'm done with this argument. I made no such claim that DDL didn't deserve an oscar, which would have been an odd thing to claim since I'd already stated that I haven't seen any of his films. You repeatedly erect strawman arguments and a continuous stream of ad hominems, and when I counter one of your points, you say things like "this has nothing to do with my point", then not even bother to elaborate. You think my idea is garbage. Fine. I couldn't care less what you think for the reasons I've stated in this post.

You can have the last word if you like, call my opinion garbage for the umpteenth time if it makes you feel good.

Wait... you said that DDL winning 3 oscars was "a bit of a nonsense" and yet have seen none of his films, and seemingly very few films ever nominated for an oscar for best actor, and yet you decided to offer up an opinion on what's "wrong" with the Oscars and your little solution to the problem, despite having no actual examples of where this "problem" you've described occurred? Apparently you've never heard of onus probandi? Is this some sort of weird invocation of Cunningham's Law?

 

[ImpulsE69]

wow, didn't read a fucking thing I said. It matters to the Industry. Do you understand that? I asked, does it matter to you? Obviously it doesn't...which is what you responded with.

I don't understand your grievance here. The Academy is, in itself, a particular institution within the film industry. They have tasked themselves with creating a standard by which they define the particular content within their industry as representative of a particular sense of art. It isn't so much to say "this is what all film is," it is to define a standard by which a class of "good film should aspire to be," and by which those that work within the industry should aim. It isn't there to govern all of the content that gets released.

They aren't beholden to what you think, and what ticket sales are, and that is as it should be. If you want to bitch about self-serving nonsense awards institutions that votes entirely on the money-driven, low-quality tastes of the average idiot, then you should focus on the Grammys.

I do like how you reinforced my point about what the Academy does, and still managed to complain that it isn't somehow what you want it to be. Again, look towards the Grammys and the shit they reward, if you want your "my vote matters!" participation model of awards ceremonies.

"I don't like the movies that win awards therefore it is crap!" OK, fine. no one is hurt here. I hope you also complain about the shit albums and artists that usually win their industry's praises, because that is exactly what you want to happen with the Academy. The Academy can continue on doing its thing, and yet you can continue pumping money into shit Michael Bay movies all you want, and no one is harmed. Not awarding Michael Bay statues that he will never ever deserve will, in no way, hinder his ability to make shitty movies for you. Believe me.

you sound like a grumpy old man. Someone disagrees with you. Get over it. Oscars are a meaningless award outside of anyone in the industry. If you agree with what a bunch of 50-80 year old men think is good, then so be it. Don't care.

 

[zinfamous]

you sound like a grumpy old man. Someone disagrees with you. Get over it. Oscars are a meaningless award outside of anyone in the industry. If you agree with what a bunch of 50-80 year old men think is good, then so be it. Don't care.

lol, I'm not grumpy. I just don't understand why you are upset about an institution that specifically exists to promote a very specific set of qualities within its own industry is intentionally and necessarily closed off to people that are not in that industry. That is the point, my man. You said "people still think Oscars mean something?" I said: "yes, people within the film industry absolutely do because they are a very important metric to gauge the industry as a whole, a certain value of a very important part of the industry." Oscars determine salaries and production costs and funding for studios. They actually mean a whole lot if you are in the industry and, as a consumer, very much influence the type of content that is available to you.

They just don't mean anything to you, apparently. Which is fine.

 

[AdamK47]

Are you guys running out of things to argue over?

 

[foghorn67]

Thread derailed by a guy that didn't like Lewis' accolades but hasn't seen any of his movies.......OK.

WTF is wrong with people?