Yuku free message boards

Wildcat612 wrote:

---

midnightproblay wrote:

---

Wildcat612 wrote:

---

Finally, I'll just add that the "every other year, the actress not in a BP-nominated picture" theory makes no sense because it has no mechanism driving it.  It's not as if the pattern is playing in the minds of the voters.  One trend which does make sense is that in all but one of the past ten years, the younger actress out of the two actresses most likely to win Best Actress has walked away with the Oscar (Helen Mirren was the lone exception and I really don't think anyone was rivaling her that year, unlike most every other year). 

Nobody actually treats the pattern seriously, it's just an interesting observation that exists. It's like the editing rule. Do you think that the voters actually look at the nominees and say to themselves, "Okay, so since this movie has no editing nomination I'm not voting for it for Best Picture"? No, that's ridiculous. And yet the last BP winner without an editing nomination was Ordinary People. Big "upsets" like Brokeback were actually predicted due to the fact that the film in question didn't have an editing nomination.

Of course I don't think that voters say "No editing nomination=not the BP winner."  But I do think that movies without an editing nomination probably aren't as good and so it makes sense they wouldn't win.  That trend has a mechanism that attempts to explain causation rather than just noting some correlation. 

But I do want to clarify: I didn't mean for my comment to come off as condescending as it sounded.  I just meant that I preferred this other theory about younger actresses winning because Oscar voters prefer the young ingenue.