During the month between the announcement of Academy Award nominations and the ceremony, I get a little too focused on the Oscars. What that means for you is a lot of Academy Award and movie posts for the next few weeks.
As I have seen every motion picture the Academy Awards have ever bestowed the Best Picture title to, I was curious to know how many of the nominees I’ve seen. Including the winners and other nominees from the previous 82 ceremonies beginning in 1928, there have been a total of 475 movies nominated for the Best Picture category. Of that group I have watched at least once, and in some cases too many to count like The Godfather series, Star Wars or Casablanca, a grand total of 272. That equates to more than half of the nominees. The exact percentage would be a shade over 57 percent.
That is not bad. Following this year’s Best Picture Showcase event I will be taking part in I will have seen nearly 58 percent of the nominees and that number is constantly rising as I continue to watch new movies weekly. In my Netflix queue right now I have an additional four nominated films to watch that were put there prior to the idea of this post.
Maybe someday I will shoot to see every movie ever nominated for Best Picture, but that is a mighty big task to take on.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Oscar Nominations Revealed
When it was announced a couple years ago that the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would be expanding their Oscar nominations for the Best Picture category from five to 10 films, I had mixed feelings about it. The knee-jerk reaction was it incorporated too many movies and the field no longer consisted of the cream of the crop, but at the same time it was nice to see a throwback to the beginnings of the Academy Awards when a lot of nominations was the norm at each Oscar ceremony. Beginning with the 5th Academy Awards, the Best Picture category allowed eight movies or more to be nominated and it wasn’t until the 17th Academy Awards that it went back to five nominees, like the second, third, and fourth year ceremonies had been. The inaugural ceremony only included three nominees for Outstanding Picture or Production and three nominees for Unique and Artistic Production. Those were combined the following year to become Best Picture.
After two years of seeing what it is like to have 10 movies nominated for the Best Picture category I have to say I completely support it, and my reasons are twofold. The first, and foremost, reason is it brings to the attention of moviegoers films that normally have been critically praised but publicly overlooked. Take for example last year’s nominees. Obviously everyone had heard of Avatar, The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, Inglourious Basterds, Up, and Up in the Air. But the less popular films that would not have been as well publicized had it not been for the nomination included District 9, An Education, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, and A Serious Man. I like that less popular films come to the forefront of everyone’s minds once the nominations are announced and those movies get some extra buzz, even if there is a miniscule chance they are going to win the award.
The second reason for liking the increase in nominations is it allows me the chance to see more movies at the special screenings prior to the ceremony where certain theaters show all of the Best Picture nominees. With 10 movies nominated, the theaters break the event up into two days and show five movies each day. Last year I was only able to get to one day of the event and I saw for the first time The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, An Education, and Up in the Air. I also watched Inglourious Basterds, but that was a repeat for me.
This year’s nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone. I have already seen Inception (twice), The Social Network, and Toy Story 3 (own it on DVD), but watching these movies again will not be a bore. I had every interest in seeing Black Swan and True Grit when they were first released, but by the time I would have gotten around to seeing them I decided I could just wait until this special screening since I was confident they would be included in the list of 10. Others of the 10 I am looking forward to watching include The Fighter, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, and Winter’s Bone. The only one I am sort of dreading is The Kids Are All Right, but I did not want to see Atonement a few years ago when my wife and I did this and that turned out to definitely be worth the two hours.
I am saddened a bit that The Town got no love from the Academy for any sort of nomination in any category of significance. I was hoping that would be among the 10 nominees since I had missed out on its initial release.
It is interesting to speculate what would have been left out had the nominees been limited to five. My guess is Inception, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, and Winter’s Bone would certainly not have made it and the fifth nomination would have been between The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right.
We’ll find out the winners on February 27, so until then enjoy the movies.
After two years of seeing what it is like to have 10 movies nominated for the Best Picture category I have to say I completely support it, and my reasons are twofold. The first, and foremost, reason is it brings to the attention of moviegoers films that normally have been critically praised but publicly overlooked. Take for example last year’s nominees. Obviously everyone had heard of Avatar, The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, Inglourious Basterds, Up, and Up in the Air. But the less popular films that would not have been as well publicized had it not been for the nomination included District 9, An Education, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, and A Serious Man. I like that less popular films come to the forefront of everyone’s minds once the nominations are announced and those movies get some extra buzz, even if there is a miniscule chance they are going to win the award.
The second reason for liking the increase in nominations is it allows me the chance to see more movies at the special screenings prior to the ceremony where certain theaters show all of the Best Picture nominees. With 10 movies nominated, the theaters break the event up into two days and show five movies each day. Last year I was only able to get to one day of the event and I saw for the first time The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, An Education, and Up in the Air. I also watched Inglourious Basterds, but that was a repeat for me.
This year’s nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone. I have already seen Inception (twice), The Social Network, and Toy Story 3 (own it on DVD), but watching these movies again will not be a bore. I had every interest in seeing Black Swan and True Grit when they were first released, but by the time I would have gotten around to seeing them I decided I could just wait until this special screening since I was confident they would be included in the list of 10. Others of the 10 I am looking forward to watching include The Fighter, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, and Winter’s Bone. The only one I am sort of dreading is The Kids Are All Right, but I did not want to see Atonement a few years ago when my wife and I did this and that turned out to definitely be worth the two hours.
I am saddened a bit that The Town got no love from the Academy for any sort of nomination in any category of significance. I was hoping that would be among the 10 nominees since I had missed out on its initial release.
It is interesting to speculate what would have been left out had the nominees been limited to five. My guess is Inception, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, and Winter’s Bone would certainly not have made it and the fifth nomination would have been between The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right.
We’ll find out the winners on February 27, so until then enjoy the movies.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A Defense For Tony Romo (Not That It Should Be Needed)
Following a heated debate at Thanksgiving and then a repeat performance a week ago with my cousin about the merits of Tony Romo vs. Jon Kitna, I decided to embark on some statistical research regarding both Cowboy quarterbacks.
I will preface this post by publicly declaring my undying fandom for Romo. I appreciate Kitna and think he was the second-best back-up quarterback in 2010, behind Michael Vick who really shouldn’t count but did technically start the season as second string. Obviously my bias for Romo is what has fueled this rant. Yet being the ex-journalist I am, I have gone into this with some objectivity and wanted to find out the true stats of each quarterback for the 2010 season.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this post, I want to prelude once more with some background information on each player. Romo only played five full games and part of a sixth. Kitna played the other portion of Romo’s sixth game, eight full games, and half of a game in week 16. It should also be noted that all of Romo’s statistics were attained under Wade Phillips, whereas Kitna played under both Phillips and interim coach Jason Garrett, which I think everyone can agree should be considered when comparing these two quarterbacks.
Beginning with Romo’s seasonal stats, after six games he finished the year with 1,605 passing yards, 11 touchdowns, and seven interceptions. He went 148 for 213, resulting in a 69.5 completion percentage and averaging 7.5 yards per pass attempt. He was sacked seven times and rushed for 38 yards, gaining 6.3 yards per rush. Romo had a QB rating of 94.9.
In the ten games Kitna was a part of, he passed for 2,365 yards, 16 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions. His completion percentage at the end of the season was 65.7, completing 209 of 318 passes and averaging 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Kitna was sacked 21 times, rushed for 147 yards, attained 4.7 yards per rush attempt, and rushed for one touchdown. His passer rating for the season was 88.9.
In every statistic that is averaged out for the season Romo was the favorite and where Kitna’s numbers were higher it was mostly due to playing more games than Romo and being involved in an offense that had more spark under interim coach Garrett. To get an idea of how much more effective the offense was under Garrett than Wade Phillips, who each coached eight games apiece, Garrett got the team to score an average of 29.125 points per contest while Phillips scoring average was 20.125. One might argue that Garrett was the same guying leading the offense under both regimes, but it was clear to see that the team had given up under Wade Phillips and Garrett sparked a renewed fire inside of them once Phillips had been fired.
To take things a step further and look at two individual games from each quarterback under Wade Phillips, it is clear that on Romo’s worst days he was still a better option than Kitna. Regarding the only two games Kitna started for Phillips in weeks eight and nine, the team lost both games to Jacksonville and Green Bay by 18 and 38 points respectively. Against Jacksonville, Kitna three for 379 yards, went 34 for 49, had 12 rushing yards and was sacked only once. However, hit touchdown to interception ratio is what led to the 18-point thumping by Jacksonville, as he threw only one touchdown and four picks. In Green Bay he improved slightly in one area and faltered drastically in others. His touchdown/interception ration decreased to 1:2, but he only threw 19 completions on 30 attempts, amassed a measly 183 passing yards and was sacked four times.
Of the five full games Romo played, his worst two games were against Washington in week 1 and Minnesota in week 6. The team lost by a total of nine points combined. In Washington, Romo threw for 282 yards, with 31 completions on 47 attempts. He had one passing touchdown, no interceptions, and was sacked once. In Minnesota, he went 24 for 32 with 220 passing yards, 31 rushing yards, three touchdown throws and two picks.
Like my cousin, many Romo haters are going to dismiss the numbers in this article and either state that “stats are for losers” or claim that Romo should be benched over Kitna because of the way he wears his cap backwards. It is useless to argue with such people because until Romo wins three championships for the Dallas Cowboys he will never get his due.
I will preface this post by publicly declaring my undying fandom for Romo. I appreciate Kitna and think he was the second-best back-up quarterback in 2010, behind Michael Vick who really shouldn’t count but did technically start the season as second string. Obviously my bias for Romo is what has fueled this rant. Yet being the ex-journalist I am, I have gone into this with some objectivity and wanted to find out the true stats of each quarterback for the 2010 season.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this post, I want to prelude once more with some background information on each player. Romo only played five full games and part of a sixth. Kitna played the other portion of Romo’s sixth game, eight full games, and half of a game in week 16. It should also be noted that all of Romo’s statistics were attained under Wade Phillips, whereas Kitna played under both Phillips and interim coach Jason Garrett, which I think everyone can agree should be considered when comparing these two quarterbacks.
Beginning with Romo’s seasonal stats, after six games he finished the year with 1,605 passing yards, 11 touchdowns, and seven interceptions. He went 148 for 213, resulting in a 69.5 completion percentage and averaging 7.5 yards per pass attempt. He was sacked seven times and rushed for 38 yards, gaining 6.3 yards per rush. Romo had a QB rating of 94.9.
In the ten games Kitna was a part of, he passed for 2,365 yards, 16 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions. His completion percentage at the end of the season was 65.7, completing 209 of 318 passes and averaging 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Kitna was sacked 21 times, rushed for 147 yards, attained 4.7 yards per rush attempt, and rushed for one touchdown. His passer rating for the season was 88.9.
In every statistic that is averaged out for the season Romo was the favorite and where Kitna’s numbers were higher it was mostly due to playing more games than Romo and being involved in an offense that had more spark under interim coach Garrett. To get an idea of how much more effective the offense was under Garrett than Wade Phillips, who each coached eight games apiece, Garrett got the team to score an average of 29.125 points per contest while Phillips scoring average was 20.125. One might argue that Garrett was the same guying leading the offense under both regimes, but it was clear to see that the team had given up under Wade Phillips and Garrett sparked a renewed fire inside of them once Phillips had been fired.
To take things a step further and look at two individual games from each quarterback under Wade Phillips, it is clear that on Romo’s worst days he was still a better option than Kitna. Regarding the only two games Kitna started for Phillips in weeks eight and nine, the team lost both games to Jacksonville and Green Bay by 18 and 38 points respectively. Against Jacksonville, Kitna three for 379 yards, went 34 for 49, had 12 rushing yards and was sacked only once. However, hit touchdown to interception ratio is what led to the 18-point thumping by Jacksonville, as he threw only one touchdown and four picks. In Green Bay he improved slightly in one area and faltered drastically in others. His touchdown/interception ration decreased to 1:2, but he only threw 19 completions on 30 attempts, amassed a measly 183 passing yards and was sacked four times.
Of the five full games Romo played, his worst two games were against Washington in week 1 and Minnesota in week 6. The team lost by a total of nine points combined. In Washington, Romo threw for 282 yards, with 31 completions on 47 attempts. He had one passing touchdown, no interceptions, and was sacked once. In Minnesota, he went 24 for 32 with 220 passing yards, 31 rushing yards, three touchdown throws and two picks.
Like my cousin, many Romo haters are going to dismiss the numbers in this article and either state that “stats are for losers” or claim that Romo should be benched over Kitna because of the way he wears his cap backwards. It is useless to argue with such people because until Romo wins three championships for the Dallas Cowboys he will never get his due.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Digital Killed The Everything Star
What’s wrong with the right now?
My wife and friends are constantly getting on me for not progressing with technology and embracing the “next thing.” I don’t understand why I can’t keep what is available now and hang on to it for longer than a couple of years.
Take CDs of the 90s for example. They are smaller than records of the 70s, easier to manage than cassette tapes of the 80s, but people are abandoning it for digital music on iPods. I am fine with the iPod. My wife has one and I think it is great that you can listen to thousands of songs at random while doing literally anything in the world, from mowing the lawn and driving a car to sitting in your living room or cooking in the kitchen. That is great. But why do we have to turn our back on the previous source of technology? Why can’t I hang on to CDs and everything that entails, which includes browsing for them in music stores and holding the liner notes in my hand as I read about who the band is that made this album.
An argument I’ve heard against the CD is it takes up too much space. I have four folders full of CDs in my car for different genres of music and those cases take up less space than my daughter’s toys that are strewn across the backseat of the car. The same argument is made about DVDs and books that are on our shelves at home. Having movies and literature on our laptops is the future. Well I like having a bookshelf full of books. I enjoy standing in front of my DVD collection, wondering what movie I want to pick out.
I just don’t get why we have to be so attached to our computers for everything we do. My wife’s relentless reading of Facebook status updates and comments in the car drives me bonkers. How about you look out the window at the world going on around you instead of burying yourself in a digital world that is all about self-promotion and egotism? Amassing a small colony of Twitter followers and Facebook friends is the newest form of status symbol, like wearing Abercrombie & Fitch was in the new millennium or being a fat socialite in the early 18th century.
While I may seem to be against technology, that is not completely true. I am all for finding ways to make life easier, but having an electronic book is not easier. It is a parallel move from holding paper on your couch to holding a machine on your couch. That doesn’t improve our lifestyle in any way, so why do away with books.
What I really want is for the world around me to continue progressing with technology while preserving the older forms of things so that I can keep my CDs, books, DVDs and other stuff for more than five years at a time before upgrading to the next “latest and greatest thing.”
Oh, and I also don’t want 3D televisions to succeed. I think 3D is a stupid gimmick that should have died with disco music and Jim Morrison.
My wife and friends are constantly getting on me for not progressing with technology and embracing the “next thing.” I don’t understand why I can’t keep what is available now and hang on to it for longer than a couple of years.
Take CDs of the 90s for example. They are smaller than records of the 70s, easier to manage than cassette tapes of the 80s, but people are abandoning it for digital music on iPods. I am fine with the iPod. My wife has one and I think it is great that you can listen to thousands of songs at random while doing literally anything in the world, from mowing the lawn and driving a car to sitting in your living room or cooking in the kitchen. That is great. But why do we have to turn our back on the previous source of technology? Why can’t I hang on to CDs and everything that entails, which includes browsing for them in music stores and holding the liner notes in my hand as I read about who the band is that made this album.
An argument I’ve heard against the CD is it takes up too much space. I have four folders full of CDs in my car for different genres of music and those cases take up less space than my daughter’s toys that are strewn across the backseat of the car. The same argument is made about DVDs and books that are on our shelves at home. Having movies and literature on our laptops is the future. Well I like having a bookshelf full of books. I enjoy standing in front of my DVD collection, wondering what movie I want to pick out.
I just don’t get why we have to be so attached to our computers for everything we do. My wife’s relentless reading of Facebook status updates and comments in the car drives me bonkers. How about you look out the window at the world going on around you instead of burying yourself in a digital world that is all about self-promotion and egotism? Amassing a small colony of Twitter followers and Facebook friends is the newest form of status symbol, like wearing Abercrombie & Fitch was in the new millennium or being a fat socialite in the early 18th century.
While I may seem to be against technology, that is not completely true. I am all for finding ways to make life easier, but having an electronic book is not easier. It is a parallel move from holding paper on your couch to holding a machine on your couch. That doesn’t improve our lifestyle in any way, so why do away with books.
What I really want is for the world around me to continue progressing with technology while preserving the older forms of things so that I can keep my CDs, books, DVDs and other stuff for more than five years at a time before upgrading to the next “latest and greatest thing.”
Oh, and I also don’t want 3D televisions to succeed. I think 3D is a stupid gimmick that should have died with disco music and Jim Morrison.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thank You Nessa Roo
Since leaving the newspaper in 2009 I haven't done much writing. Outside of the occasional post on here or on my other blog about poker, my writings have been nonexistent. I have some ideas that I start an outline on or think up an entire plot in my head, but when it comes time to put those thoughts down on paper I lose steam.
Normally I tell myself that nobody is going to like what I am writing about or it isn't going to be good enough to get published. However, after reading a fellow blogger's post that revealed an excerpt from a book she had started last summer I decided I shouldn't care what others are going to think about my writings. I would be writing for myself. If I were to author a dozen books and none of them got published, then that is okay. At least I found an outlet for my ideas. Those ideas don't have to be critiqued and approved by the masses.
Should my children or grandchildren someday read any future books I finish then that would be fine, but I am not going write with the idea of becoming the next J.K. Rowling. I simply want to express myself in the best way I know how, and that is through writing.
Normally I tell myself that nobody is going to like what I am writing about or it isn't going to be good enough to get published. However, after reading a fellow blogger's post that revealed an excerpt from a book she had started last summer I decided I shouldn't care what others are going to think about my writings. I would be writing for myself. If I were to author a dozen books and none of them got published, then that is okay. At least I found an outlet for my ideas. Those ideas don't have to be critiqued and approved by the masses.
Should my children or grandchildren someday read any future books I finish then that would be fine, but I am not going write with the idea of becoming the next J.K. Rowling. I simply want to express myself in the best way I know how, and that is through writing.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
New Pixar Rankings
With Emery old enough to watch, and understand, all the Pixar movies I have been watching them a lot lately. At Christmas my 3-year-old daughter got Toy Story 3 and we have already watched it a couple of times. Since viewing the Pixar films I have a new order of the best to the worst, which the worst is still better than most animated movies ever released.
The Incredibles
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
Up
WALL-E
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.
Ratatouille
A Bug's Life
Cars
The Incredibles
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
Up
WALL-E
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.
Ratatouille
A Bug's Life
Cars
Friday, January 07, 2011
Can Jason Garrett Succeed As Head Coach And Offensive Coordinator?
After the official announcement yesterday that Jason Garrett would be getting the head coaching job full-time next season (if there is a next season), it has been repeatedly announced that Garrett planned on remaining the offensive coordinator despite the promotion. At first I was in agreement with most sports talk pundits that it was a bad idea to not hire an offensive coordinator as the head coaching position requires a lot of attention and responsibilities. I even did some research to see how many Super Bowl winning teams had a head coach and an offensive coordinator, which is something all the reporters in television, radio, and print had said was the case but I wanted to see for myself. After going as far back as the 1992 Dallas Cowboys I verified that in the past 18 seasons the team that won the Lombardi Trophy had split the jobs of head coach and offensive coordinator between two people.
However, then I started thinking about this season's playoff-bound teams and realized something. The New England Patriots, who many think are a favorite to win it all, don't have either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Now, they have people doing the job of those positions, but not the title. Head Coach Bill Belichick appointed himself defensive coordinator at the start of the season and the team's quarterbacks coach is the offensive play caller.
Now I am not saying Jason Garrett is as great as Belichick in that he can be the team's master and commander as well as call plays while on offense, but what I am saying is that it is possible to do both and achieve a high level of success. I am behind the Jason Garrett hire completely as he showed in the final eight games a fire and passion in the team that was lacking under Wade Phillips, but as for continuing to be the offensive coordinator I will wait on passing judgement until I see how things are rolling in 2011.
However, then I started thinking about this season's playoff-bound teams and realized something. The New England Patriots, who many think are a favorite to win it all, don't have either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Now, they have people doing the job of those positions, but not the title. Head Coach Bill Belichick appointed himself defensive coordinator at the start of the season and the team's quarterbacks coach is the offensive play caller.
Now I am not saying Jason Garrett is as great as Belichick in that he can be the team's master and commander as well as call plays while on offense, but what I am saying is that it is possible to do both and achieve a high level of success. I am behind the Jason Garrett hire completely as he showed in the final eight games a fire and passion in the team that was lacking under Wade Phillips, but as for continuing to be the offensive coordinator I will wait on passing judgement until I see how things are rolling in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)