Re: This year. Perhaps I should have said the "Awards have been Broken for years" because I agree, this is nothing new. However, this year is pretty ridiculous. You can justify a film like Saving Private Ryan or Titanic winning Sound Mixing or something like that, some of the more technical things, because they were huge in scope and had scenes that were very challenging for sound, etc. Slumdog didn't really have anything like that – especially not when you compare it to TDK, Iron Man, etc.

Re: College/Superbowl. It's not contradictory. In the Super Bowl, it doesn't matter what your record was that go you there. You're there, now it comes down to one game. In College, that's not true. Your record is all that matters. The comparison to the Oscars is that the only thing on a persons mind should be THAT film that is nominated in THAT category. Jack Palance was in a dozen fantastic movies but his performance in City Slickers should have only been judged by his performance in City Slickers, not taking into account anything else. Denzel Washington should have been judged based on Training Day, not Glory. I don't see how that's contradictory in the slightest.

Re: This year. Perhaps I should have said the "Awards have been Broken for years" because I agree, this is nothing new. However, this year is pretty ridiculous. You can justify a film like Saving Private Ryan or Titanic winning Sound Mixing or something like that, some of the more technical things, because they were huge in scope and had scenes that were very challenging for sound, etc. Slumdog didn't really have anything like that – especially not when you compare it to TDK, Iron Man, etc.

Re: College/Superbowl. It's not contradictory. In the Super Bowl, it doesn't matter what your record was that go you there. You're there, now it comes down to one game. In College, that's not true. Your record is all that matters. The comparison to the Oscars is that the only thing on a persons mind should be THAT film that is nominated in THAT category. Jack Palance was in a dozen fantastic movies but his performance in City Slickers should have only been judged by his performance in City Slickers, not taking into account anything else. Denzel Washington should have been judged based on Training Day, not Glory. I don't see how that's contradictory in the slightest.

Hence, we were left with with a relatively unremarkable field leading to unremarkable results. Were the five Oscar picks good films? Yes. Were they films for the ages? No. But, what film last year was?

I cannot think of any film last year that is one to remember for the ages, at least outside of the fan community.

(Again, I might love TDK and play it over and over, but would the general public? No.)

Hence, we were left with with a relatively unremarkable field leading to unremarkable results. Were the five Oscar picks good films? Yes. Were they films for the ages? No. But, what film last year was?

I cannot think of any film last year that is one to remember for the ages, at least outside of the fan community.

(Again, I might love TDK and play it over and over, but would the general public? No.)

That's not the point.

The point is you think the awards [the system] is broken because it's boring and predictable, then your supporting argument of how many Oscars Slumdog won by comparison to previous years is completely irrelevant because those are based on the same broken system. If you think somebody else should've won a whole bunch of awards THIS YEAR then rant about how movie abc or xyz FROM THIS YEAR was so much better and why. The system didn't break suddenly THIS year – do you think Jack Palance really deserved best supporting actor for City Slickers?

And on the subject of strange supporting arguments, you start with the inequities of how some college sports teams go undefeated but never get national titles, how some teams with one or two losses be ranked above those who are undefeated… but then you go on to say the Oscars should be like the Superbowl – an all or nothing single day competition where past record should be completely irrelevant? HUH?? (<–ala Scooby Doo) Your position contradicts your own argument and somehow you expect the reader to understand how this applies to the Oscars?

I'm not criticizing your position.
I'm not criticizing your right to have/express your opinion.
I'm criticizing the argument you are using to justify your opinion. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense. That is why i called it "idiotic".

If you're gonna opine without an argument – that's cool. If you're gonna support your position then support it with relevant arguments. If you are gonna support it with irrelevant and illogical arguments then you're just a crazy man with a soapbox and a megaphone.

P.S. – believe it or not i have no malicious intent here, i'm only writing this to make you a better writer/blogger. I quite like this site and the efforts you guys go through. But just like you have an opinion about "this" Oscars, i have an opinion about "this" post.

That's not the point.

The point is you think the awards [the system] is broken because it's boring and predictable, then your supporting argument of how many Oscars Slumdog won by comparison to previous years is completely irrelevant because those are based on the same broken system. If you think somebody else should've won a whole bunch of awards THIS YEAR then rant about how movie abc or xyz FROM THIS YEAR was so much better and why. The system didn't break suddenly THIS year – do you think Jack Palance really deserved best supporting actor for City Slickers?

And on the subject of strange supporting arguments, you start with the inequities of how some college sports teams go undefeated but never get national titles, how some teams with one or two losses be ranked above those who are undefeated… but then you go on to say the Oscars should be like the Superbowl – an all or nothing single day competition where past record should be completely irrelevant? HUH?? (<–ala Scooby Doo) Your position contradicts your own argument and somehow you expect the reader to understand how this applies to the Oscars?

I'm not criticizing your position.
I'm not criticizing your right to have/express your opinion.
I'm criticizing the argument you are using to justify your opinion. It doesn't make any kind of logical sense. That is why i called it "idiotic".

If you're gonna opine without an argument – that's cool. If you're gonna support your position then support it with relevant arguments. If you are gonna support it with irrelevant and illogical arguments then you're just a crazy man with a soapbox and a megaphone.

P.S. – believe it or not i have no malicious intent here, i'm only writing this to make you a better writer/blogger. I quite like this site and the efforts you guys go through. But just like you have an opinion about "this" Oscars, i have an opinion about "this" post.

Call me a fanboy, but it just seems like an effects-heavy movie like Iron Man would be more deserving. But I can't change the past.

Call me a fanboy, but it just seems like an effects-heavy movie like Iron Man would be more deserving. But I can't change the past.

That said, I never did get the chance to see Frost/Nixon, mostly because I live nowhere near civilization, so it's entirely possible I would consider Frost/Nixon better than Milk.

That said, I never did get the chance to see Frost/Nixon, mostly because I live nowhere near civilization, so it's entirely possible I would consider Frost/Nixon better than Milk.

Yes. I just quoted Mace. And it made me Feel So Good.

Yes. I just quoted Mace. And it made me Feel So Good.