[amitoj]

I am going to collect entertainment tax from you all!! just you wait...

Originally Posted by Samurai

You were repeatedly quoting me, so I mistook you were talking to me.

I did not quote you in my first post today on this thread and i did not quote you in my first post yesterday AND YET you took both of them personally. After that only i had to quote you because you started quoting me. Its basic forum etiquettes Samurai. You respond when you are quoted. And thats what i did.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Oh brother... What I mean is I trashed the opinion of Oscar committee, and not of a Team-BHP member. BTW, there is s difference between trashing the opinion of a person vs disrespecting the person. Many of my family members trash my interest in Jeep/offroading, but they don't disrespect me. Hope you can see the difference.

You know the context in which i used the word respect. Dont take it out of context. You want me to not take your words literally and yet you go about taking mine literally. Use the same glasses when you look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by Samurai

In other words, you still haven't understood what I wrote despite tanveer's interpretation.

To be frank, tanveer's explanation was more of an excuse for your rude response. I just went along with it to be nice.

Now... all those with popcorns, queue up!

[srishiva]

Just to find what I think is right..

Each category is awarded by members who are part of the same fraternity. Editors vote for Best Editor award, directors for Best Director and so on... (Isn't it?)

Its not one big committee voting for everything (except Best Picture) Since SDM was nominated in many categories, does anyone think that they all got together and decided to vote for one movie?

Its good to be critical about things. In this country (where not many good things happen), its become a habit to do it for everything. My opinion (its easy to do it this way !)

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitoj

To be frank, tanveer's explanation was more of an excuse for your rude response. I just went along with it to be nice.

It has started to happen both ways, now I don't understand what you are talking about. When was I rude, when were you nice... oh forget.

[RX135]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Its good to be critical about things. In this country (where not many good things happen), its become a habit to do it for everything. My opinion (its easy to do it this way !)

Is that why you are criticizing others? Sorry, just couldn't resist it...

Coming back to this thread, I am loving it....

Now, where is that popcorn guy? Hand over one here, if you will!

[spadival]

Maybe SDM won because it was an "underdog" at the Oscars, like the story within the movie itself. Remember, the film barely made it to the box office when the production house that had the rights to the film shut shop. As far as lobbying is concerned, how would a low budget producer afford to lobby in Hollywood.. for 8 Oscars ??

Perhaps the West likes/appreciates the underdog more than we Indians do.

PS: On a related note, I never understood why Satyajit Ray got the French Legion of Honor and an Oscar (for lifetime achievement!!). I found his movie (alas, watched only one) intensely boring. But doesn't mean he didn't deserve the awards that he got.

[nitrous]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

A.R. Rahman is built like a tank.

Oh ok! I Didn't know you know Rahman that well.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by amit

Read properly. People who don't agree with the awards are saying that these guys have done better work. Everyone is happy that ARR is recognised for his work but this isn't his best work.

Since the fire is burning here, let me add just some chunks of coal. I have been burnt here earlier in the day for generalising my opinion as everyone's even though God knows, I could be only accused of missing a word.

The first statement: People who don't agree with the awards are saying that these guys have done better work. I am not one of them so perhaps I am not a people but something inferior.

The second statement: Everyone is happy that ARR is recognised for his work but this isn't his best work. Everyone means just about everyone on this planet, and everyone. Second part: this is not his best work. Would that mean `everyone thinking that this is not his best work' or you thinking.

I can perhaps offer justification for the above: this medium can overtake our thoughts and cause us to skip something resulting in perhaps (or perhaps not) the meaning coming out different that what was intended.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by Samurai

oh forget.

Forget what??

Now lets collect the entertainment tax from all these popcorn eaters.

[harry10]

Popcorn- oh ya can i have some as well cos am enjoying this fully..lol
Ok For Your Information-

The following is a detailed and yet hopefully clear description of exactly how the Oscar nominees are determined.

(1) The Academy is made up of approximately 6,000 members. Each member belongs to a branch — the directing branch, the writing branch, the cinematography branch, etc. You can't belong to multiple branches, so the Coen brothers are out of luck even though they direct, write, and edit their movies.
(2) Each branch votes within its own category: Actors vote for all the acting categories; directors vote in the direction category; and so on. Everybody gets to vote for Best Picture.
(3) Voters are asked to list up to five names, ranked in order of preference. The Academy instructs voters to "follow their hearts" because the voting process doesn't penalize for picking eccentric choices, as we will see. Also, listing the same person or film twice doesn't help their cause — in fact, it actually
diminishes the chance that the voter's ballot will be counted at all.
(4) A "magic number" is devised for each award category. This number is calculated by taking the total number of ballots received for that category and dividing it by the number of possible nominees plus one. So, for Best Actress, say that 600 ballots were received. There are always five nominees chosen for Best Actress, so you divide 600 ballots by six (five potential nominees plus one), which equals 100. That's your magic number.
(5) The magic number is important because as soon as a potential nominee reaches that number, they automatically become an official nominee. And so, the counting begins...
(6) The ballots are sorted into piles based upon each voter's first-choice selection. A nominee must have at least one first-choice vote to be eligible. If any nominee reaches the magic number based solely upon first-choice selections, they're in. So, for the 1939 race, let's say Bette Davis received 125 first-choice votes. She's now an official nominee, and all the ballots that listed her as a first-choice are set aside — those ballots are done.
(7) We now have four nominee slots left to fill. The actress who received the fewest first-place votes is eliminated, and those ballots are redistributed to the other piles based upon those voters' second-place selections and another round of tabulations begin. Let's say Vivien Leigh started out with 98 first-choice votes, and now has received two more votes from ballots that were redistributed. She has reached the magic number (100) — she's in! All the ballots in Vivien Leigh's pile are set aside.
(8) This process is continued. The actress who has the fewest ballots in her pile has those ballots redistributed to other piles based upon the voters' second-choice selections, and if need be, their third-choice, fourth-choice, and fifth-choice selections. If a ballot runs out of selections, that ballot is voided and is no longer in play, which is why it's important for voters to list five different nominees.
(9) The magic number will drop as ballots are voided. For instance, if 12 ballots are voided, the new magic number becomes 588 divided by 6 = 98.
(10) Actresses continue to be eliminated and ballots redistributed until five nominees reach the most current magic number, OR until there are only 5 nominees left in the running.
And there you have it. What this process means is that it's better to have a small but passionate group of voters who love your film than a larger but less passionate group. And it explains how a small foreign movie such as City of God was nominated in four major categories — it inspired enough supporters who most likely placed it No. 1 or No. 2 on their ballots to let it squeak into the final five. Having a lot of No. 4 or No. 5 votes isn't as advantageous because most of those ballots will have already been counted toward another film.

And in case you're wondering, the procedure for choosing the Oscar winner is much simpler. Once the nominations are decided, the entire Academy can vote for every category. Each member gets one vote per category, and the nominee that receives the most votes wins. It takes the accountants only three days to determine those winners.
Academy voters are discouraged from voting in categories they don't fully understand (who knows exactly what sound editing is?), and from voting in categories in which they haven't seen all the nominees. But try convincing a member not to vote in a certain technical category — checking boxes is just way too much fun.

[hrag]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

A.R. Rahman is built like a tank.

If *the Academy* had shut the doors on A R Rahman, India would have felt the "thud".

[benbsb29]

I have rated this thread a 5 star.
Those who dont agree can crib and post about it; thats all that can be done.

[hrag]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

I have rated this thread a 5 star.

Pop Corn is better.

[Spitfire]

WHAT?? The party's over? (say it the way Hurman(aka Harmaan) Baweja)

@Harry10: Thanks for putting up the guidelines for the nominations.

[diabloo]

Going by that, most ‘Indians’ who won the Nobel prize till now will not count technically as Nobel prizes for India. Rabindranath Tagore, CV Raman and Rudyard Kipling did most of their work in India, but did it before independence i.e. in British India. Hargobind Khorana, S Chandrashekar, Amartya Sen and VS Naipaul did most of their Nobel prize winning work abroad. And Mother Theresa, wasn't born here.

Similarly at Oscars. Bhanu Athaiya for Gandhi, A R Rahman and Resul Pookutty for SDM - though these movies cast featured large number of Indians, it is not an Indian movie.

So there is nothing much achieved by Indians themselves at ether Nobels or Oscars. So anything remotely associated becomes a cause of joy.

Originally Posted by amit

1.) This is a hollywood movie set or based in India. How does it become an Indian movie?
2.) Why do we jump in glee whenever anyone remotely Indian becomes successful aborad?

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by diabloo

So there is nothing much achieved by Indians themselves at ether Nobels or Oscars. So anything remotely associated becomes a cause of joy.

So what's the problem in we showing our joy? Even if it is remotely associated with us?

Its like saying the awards should be by the Indians, for the Indians and to the Indians. Then we take care of being thoroughly happy. Try getting the Oscar jury to judge Bollywood movies next year round Lets all lobby for that since someone else said lobbying can get you Oscar awards too.

Somehow i dont get the logic that since ARR and Resul Pookutty both got awards for SDM which is a hollywood movie(agreed) but does not equate to much(relative term i know, you might have had bigger expectations like an award given by aliens from outer space)??

Comeon guys they won a universally recognised award and we say it does not amount to much?? Something seriously wrong with our pysche