>not the hosting, that was awesome. sandra bullock's
>presenter speech was especially hilarious.

I was about to say, "THIS motherfucker..." lol

>but if hailee steinfeld had won an oscar for best actress over
>portman or williams, it would have been a travesty. likewise
>if colin firth had lost best actor to anyone. the rest of it,
>we either fell in line with the academy or awarded films
>(inception) that were equal to the ones that won (king's
>speech). the only significant upgrade was nolan in the
>director category. overall, our nominees were better than the
>academy's, but our winners were way worse.

I had Steinfeld above Portman on my personal list, and had Franco at #1 to Firth at #2 on my personal list, so those I don't mind.

It's hard being the tally guy, because you see while tallying how close the races are. How awesome would a Dale Dickey upset have been? And look how fucking close it came to happening. That's the category that disappointed me most.

And Inception screenplay over The King's Speech-- come on, the screenplay is probably the weakest part of Inception. I would've preferred a Pic/Director split too, just for parity's sake... but it seemed destined to be an Inception-heavy year, so I couldn't be TOO mad.

Usually, I like our list more... but this year, I did like The Oscars more, mostly because I think The King's Speech is definitely a better film than Inception. Winter's Bone winning ANYTHING would've made me see it differently though, and it came so close... it had easily the highest point average per nominee. People like Bale would get at least a 3 on everything, but Hawkes was basically a 5 on EVERYONE'S ballot who had him. That's why this scoring system isn't really perfect because, like the Oscars, it still benefits that which has been the most seen.

But maybe that's just how it should be, and I should stop being so fucking snooty. *shrug*