I was just thinking of those, I didn't want to add them.

I agree. In fact, we should all stick with the olde tyme awards and ignore previous mistakes and evolution all together

Whatever, bitchface...

...so, yo, I'd love it if you hosted!

You'd be perfect Cotton!!!

You're the host of a KJ-winning Game Cotton!!!! This'll be fun!

Excellent ideas torrino and all.

I support option #3 where films get ranked sort of like how the Academy does it (it won't be the same way though, right? Because the Academy does a lot of complicated things. After counting all #1 votes, the film with the most votes in order to secure a nomination out of just those #1 votes automatically gets a nomination, and ALL of those ballots are set ASIDE. Then they move onto the rest of the ballots and count #2 votes, and so on. That would be too complicated and unneeded for our awards, I think.) But I definately supporting the ranking process of the nominess, from 1 to 5, and #1 gets most points, and so on.

I also support not voting for the Best Overlooked Film until the winner voting period. Whoever thought of this (sorry, can't remember from when I read the whole thread) is a genius. Great idea. Makes sense, so the nominees truly are overlooked.

And then I support just keeping the categories exactly the same as last year, as many people have said. It had the perfect mix of all the usual categories you need, and some fun categories at the side. Although I wouldn't object to more if they were put in, it's just we have a lot of categories already and this is hard enough to fill out, heh.

Great job all! Nice brainstorming.

PEACE, Mike.

Oh, and COTTON FOR HOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PEACE, Mike.

Torrino, why did you delete your Tom Arnold post???

First, I don't think we should worry about the "Oscar Effect" at all. Make sure the catagories are clear, so as to avoid Supporting/Lead problems, but otherwise, if people see the Oscar noms and suddenly Hoffman in Capote gets 25 nominations, who cares? That's no one and everyone's problem, but ultimately it doesn't make any difference at all.

Do the 5-1 point 1st - 5th ordered list, if you must (actually probably a good idea anyway), but besides that...just let us got at it.

As for catagories, the fewer the better, I say:

Givens:
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Ensemble
Foreign Language Film
Best Editing
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction
Costume Design
Best Score
Best Soundtrack
Best Song
Best Animated Feature


The rest:
Overlooked Film - I like the idea of a second round, where, after the noms are out we all get to nominate something with ZERO mentions...maybe even have a seperate thread for "FYCs" or something. So I say, go for it.
Entertainer of the Year - I'm not sure I like the idea of a whole catagory for one person, especially when it relies on...well, 4 performances by Rachel McAdams does not make her the "entertainer of the year," any moreso than my single favorite, most entertaining performance. I dunno, if you go with it it's gonna be like Jake Gylsomething, Mcadams, Spielberg and Clooney, right? might as well announce em now.
Breakthrough Performance - Hm, I guess this is good, but I'm not sure there's really much deserving. the New World chick will probably win (despite only 4 people having seen her film) Goes back to the "Oscar effect," but again, that doesnt bother me...if we vote her that way, sucks to be us...
Best Sound - i think unnecessary, but whatever.
Best Visual Effect - as long as we have Cinematography and Art Direction, I think this isn't necessary.
Best Makeup - put this with Costumes, if you must, but...

Best Comedy - Wedding Crashers/40 YOV or whatever else could easily sneak in BP...I dont think it's needed.
Best Horror - A whole catagory for horror? Were there even 5 worthy horrors? If your favorite film is a horror, put it under best pic!
Best Sequel/Remake -Hm, I guess this is fine with me.

Oh, forgot to say, I definitely support adding Best Documentary this year.

redundant much?

BestComedy,HorrorandSequelbetterbepresent!They'rejustfunlittlecategoriestostop thisfrombeingacompletedramafest.Noharmdonekeepingthem.

AndIclaimBestHorrorpresenter!

Yeah, seriously.

The people objecting to the 'fun' categories are the ones who don't watch those types of films. Kypade, what good is it going to do to put a horror film in for Best Picture when there no chance whatsoever of it getting nominated?

All three (horror, comedies, and sequels) should stay. It's no harm. If you don't want to vote in them, you don't have to. But there are enough horror films in 2005 and enough horror fanatics on the site to warrant a category.

If they're eliminated, let's just go to the Oscar website on January 31 and copy/paste the whole thing into our ballot and submit it.

I just don't see the point. If there are so many horror fans on the site, you should be able to get something nominated, no? I dunno, it doesn't bother me personally, it just doesn't seem necessary. And like someone mentioned before, why not best action/blockbuster? Best romance? I know many would have loved to see Before Sunset recognized last year (more than screenplay, that is). Best drama? thriller? Yknow?

Like I said, Im fine with sequel (2046!), but that's not genre specific. But the other two just seem pointless to me.

Or maybe a seperate "subawards", with "Special recognition in..." (horror, comedy, action) to determine the best of individual genres.

whatever. ya asked for suggestions...just suggesting.

You may be on to something.

Anyway, honestly, I can't think of a single horror film last year that deserves to be nominated for anything. Comedy, I can understand because many deserving comedies usually get overlooked.....but "action" or "horror"?

My thoughts:

1. I fully support the ranking-voting, but as Zingaling has said, it only works if people actually oblige to that. If half of the people votes with the rankings and the other half just lists five names, it won't work out. I am all for it, but it might be a bit complicated.

2. I am against the Fifth Nomination Squad. I just think it's really not the point that partially the nominees are decided by the public and partially by a certain group. I'm against that.

3. The technical awards should be kept as they are. I think most of us can very well distinguish between Editing and Visual Effects and Cinematography.

4. Adding Documentary would be good.

5. The "fun/genre" categories are fine by me, I am all for keeping them.

I never understood the point of best song...The Oscars, here, what have you. Useless category, in my opinion. Aside from that, I agree with Lecter.

Based on how diverse the ballots were in the best song category last year when I counted, I concur with insominacdude that it's not a useful category. And I definitely agree we should have Best Overlooked after the nominations are made.

For Entertainer of the Year category, I'd keep it since it's a category we can honor the body of work for the year, and we have a stronger group of contenders this year. Just right off my head, I could list Terrence Howard, Steven Spielberg, George Clooney, Catherine Keener, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Zhang Ziyi, who each could get nominated for one individual film but become even stronger for this category.

A good point that needs to be discussed is the deadline for the first voting round. Last year there were complaints that the voters are being too influenced by the reveal of the Oscar noms and that is a fair complaint. Then again, many foreigners will simply not be able to see a lot of Oscar material if the deadline is the end of January, but I guess there is no other way to do it.

I think it's fine to have the dealine in mid Feburary. The biggest complaint last year by far was Jamie Foxx's supporting nom for Collateral. As long as we deal with that correctly this time, we'll be fine. As people have said here, there will always be complaint about the nominees, and there is no point to restrict something to arbitrarily make ours not look like Oscar's. Allowing people watch more complete set of films will give deserving nominees a better chance, then if it makes our final nominations closer to Oscar's, it'll just mean they're indeed the best candidates. For example, I wouldn't trade a Hoffman snub with just being different.

Mid-February is pretty cool because it'd enable me to see Walk the Line, North Country and Capote before voting.

Well, just because there are enough people who like horror on the site to nominate films for Best Picture doesn't mean we all will. I loved House of Wax, and even though I would "grade it" higher than Munich doesn't mean it's better and I'd nominate it. Because I know for a fact that if I had to pick one over the other for voting, it'd be Munich.

There is no single horror film in 2005 that is worthy of Best Picture, but if all are against each other in one category, it's a lot more interesting. And it worked fine last year, so I don't see what the big deal is if it continues. You're not required to vote.

I agree we should have Best Horror, Comedy and Sequel. It's too "stuffy" otherwise without them and movies everyone enjoyed but would generally agree are not really award material could get their due this way.