MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


According to both Tom O’Neil’s NYT piece and Dave Karger in EW this week, the number of votes needed for a nomination is 1/6 the total ballots and not 1/5.  But neither explains why.

I will try to figure it out on Monday.

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Interesting…”

  1. Jeff says:

    What would happen if 6 movies were exactly tied in votes? They can only pick 5, maybe that’s the logic…although you can extend that into infinity, a tie of ten, a tie of twenty…

  2. shawn says:

    I’m no lightning calculator, but wouldn’t 1/6th-plus-one guarantee you one of the top five places?

  3. Joe Leydon says:

    Makes perfect sense to me. Think about it for a minute: Imagine there are 3,000 voters. OK, one-sixth of 3,000 is 500, correct? Leaving 2500, correct? Now, there might be, say, four other movies that would get more than 500 votes. But it would be impossible for FIVE other movies to get more than 500 votes. (Not even 501 votes – that would total 2505 votes.) An exact six-way tie would be pretty unlikely, if not downright impossible, considering the sheer number of movies eligible for the Oscar. So, if you can manage one-sixth of the vote, you’re guaranteed to be one of the final five top vote-getters.

  4. Mark says:

    Math. Joy. Makes brain hurt..

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    Of course, the catch is actually getting one-sixth of the vote. It’s like the old Steve Martin routine: “You can make a million dollars and not pay taxes. Yes, friends, you heard me: You can make a million dollars AND NOT PAY TAXES. How do you do it? It’s simple. First, get a million dollars….”

  6. David Poland says:

    I guess what’s interesting is that it is one more complication in a complicated system. Why shouldn’t a film get 1/5 in order to make it? I guess 1/6th does give additional weight to higher votes.

  7. PeppersDad says:

    Just curious…Any final thoughts on the whole Phantom of the Opera fiasco? I’m not talking about its box office potential or anyone’s personal opinion of the quality of the film. Rather, I’m talking about the fact that several weeks ago it was suddenly and widely declared the likely front runner for Best Picture, and now it’s pretty indisputably a completely dead fish as far as Oscars are concerned.

  8. Barry says:

    Dead fish is Life Aquatic.

  9. bicycle bob says:

    peppa loves the musicals
    if anyone was expecting awards from life aquatic they were sorely mistaken.

  10. Mark says:

    Pep is right. It is dead in the water. Give Wes Anderson some time. He’ll be ok.

  11. PeppersMom says:

    Thank you for your kind words young sir.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon