The first one, pretty much. He was the center of an extremely well-acclaimed film.

Hmm, tough question. Normally I'd say the Coens get director because they're due, but Slumdog is just not a BP without BD film under any circumstance. I'll say No Country on the back of the Coens and Bardem and being overall the superior film.

Question, would Bardem be competing with Ledger? If he was that might hurt No Country a bit

And Slumdog would destroy TWBB.

Blood had measurable success with critics against the No Country juggernaut in an against all odds scenario. Despite No Country, it still managed 8 Oscar noms and 9 Bafta noms.

Slumdog fared not nearly as well with critics but performed perfectly with guilds and precursors. In a no-competition scenario, it managed 10 Oscar noms.

I don't see why people are so quick to dismiss Blood.

Loyal, you try to argue, but all I read betwen the lines is:

"I love There Will Be Blood. And I don't like Slumdog and its success. So I'll just imagine myself an imaginary scenario in which Slumdog doesn't win BP and loses it to Blood! Yesyesyes!"

well duh!

we should do a Slumdog vs... Thread and include it as the 6th nominee for every BP race this decade.

As xiayun pointed out before..it usually just doesn't work. By changing one thing in the race, it usually has an effect on the whole thing, so it's difficult to compare.

Ah, the Butterfly Effect.

set that read up, I'll take part int he discussion.

Slumdog Millionaire beats No Country for Old Men. It doesn't beat There Will Be Blood

But NCFOM beat TWBB so why would SM beat it and not beat TWBB if it beat...but....

Even though both movies are far from being their years' best, NCFOM is superior to Slumdog by a lot.

It's called a personal opinion. here's a definition since you don't seem to understand it

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

Oh forgive me, I thought you were reffering to the context of the oscars. I suppose that is a totally ridiculous assumption since we're not on the oscar forum or anything....

If they were all up against each other, I'd say Slumdog Millionaire wins. Slumdog would win in any scenario actually.

After thinking about, No country has got to be one of the oddest BP wins of all time. I'm still a little surprised the Academy went for it and I know alot of people went for it just because it got all the acclaim and it was declared "a masterpiece."

I can't see Slumdog losing to NCFOM. And throw Blood in the mix and assuredly you get vote splitting between Blood and No Country and again, allow Slumdog to win.

The Best Supporting Actor category would have been really interesting, though. I think Javier Bardem could have still won - I dunno, tough call. Woulda been surreal... two of recent cinema's greatest villains against each other.

NCFOM>>Slumdog>TWWB

Nobody beats Ledger's joker unless he hadn't of died, but as the situation was, nobody, ever, was gonna beat him. Ever.

Yeah, Bardem would not have won against Ledger. He'd have been a very solid second, but it wouldn't even be a Penn v. Rourke competition.

Anyone who thinks BP would have gone to anything other than Slumdog is just a tiny bit delusional

You do mean this year, right? After all, No Country's win was just slightly less decisive.

I've resigned to the fact that this question is impossible to answer.

You insert No Country into Slumdog's year and Slumdog doesn't win nearly as many precusors.

Insert Slumdog into No Country's year and Slumdog doesn't see the light of day because of Juno.

There are a billion variables at work.

What if the American's got to Berlin first, what if Able Archer had caused the Russians to launch their nukes, what if the Americans had lost at Bunker Hill.

2007 was an amazing year for movies and NCFOM won.

Slumdog wouldn't have a shot in hell. 0%.

In a perfect world.