but seriously, don't do it. you've done enough work already. but like you said, all awards are skewed by people just not being able to see all the films. it's somewhat balanced out by the people who have seen small films (like winter's bone or 127 hours) and know they'll get overlooked by the masses so they get extra passionate, often overly passionate about them. aka the hurt locker syndrome.

it's possible that bale's point per was so low because everyone who nominated him figured he'd be a shoo-in and felt comfortable pimping other actors in their top spots. while everyone who loved hawkes's performance knew he'd need the juice to beat bale, and made him a five. maybe that's how it went down. i just ranked mine from my favorite on down, but i'm sure a lot of people were being more slick with their points.

but yeah, the lattes desperately needed an upset in one of the supporting categories, if not both. and if we're gonna have upsets in the lead categories, how about rewarding michelle williams for a brilliant performance that she didn't win a single award for, thanks to the (somewhat deserved, but come on) portman train. but steinfeld? probably another case of not a lot of people seeing blue valentine versus pretty much everyone seeing true grit. and i'm guessing williams's point per was higher than steinfeld's, but probably not as high as jennifer lawrence's. whatever. franco was a solid pick though. i disagree, strongly, but in retrospect it's a respectable pick.

i also disagree that inception's screenplay wasn't the equal of the king's speech. i put TKS higher on my list, but inception was a pretty brilliant film whose issues were entirely due to pacing and perhaps a miscast ingenue. the blueprint was superb though.