Talk:80th Academy Awards nominees and winners

Notable nominations
I don't see how this section is not trivia. What it lists is how old are the nominees in comparison with the nominees from before. ''Her nomination displaces Bonita Granville (age 14) from the # 7 position on the list. It also displaces from the list altogether Patty Duke (age 16), who had been on the Top Ten list since 1963.'' This is not encyclopedic, it is maybe interesting for fans but certainy not for an encyclopedia. What could be notable... . maybe Halle Berry becoming the first African-American woman to receive a Best Actress Academy Award, but this is already winning. Or maybe Keisha Castle-Hughes being the youngest to be nominated for that award. But by no means, being the 7th youngest. As well, one could say George Clooney is the 64th youngest actor to be nominated (I made this one up) and it wouldn't be particulary notable. So I strongly suggest removing the section, eventually keeping the oldest nominee and the shortest presentation for a nomination. --Tone 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point, Tone. I agree with your comments, and feel free to remove the unnecessary information; I don't think there will be much opposition.  For those of you who don't know why this is bad, please see here.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly a good point. In fact, you actually made no (relevent) points at all ... much less, good ones.  The title of this Article is 80th Academy Awards nominees and winners.  The title of this Section is nominations that are notable.  If a nominee becomes one of the oldest or youngest in the history of the Academy Awards, that is certainly notable.  And, using a "Top 10" is a generally acceptable cut-off point for the upper and lower bounds of notability.  Hence, your (albeit hypothetical) point about George Clooney being the 64th youngest nominee is a red herring and has nothing to do with generally accepted bounds of notability.  That is to say, to be ranked #64 is not notable ... and I doubt there'd be dispute on that issue.  To be ranked among the Top 10 (of anything, essentially ... Academy Awards or otherwise) is, generally speaking, notable. Uhhhh ... have you ever heard the phrase "top ten" ...?  If not, it's a rather common usage ... and generally applicable to nearly any- and everything, Academy Awards included.  Furthermore ... what in the world does Halle Berry have to do with the 80th Academy Awards nominees and winners?  (PS:  Did you notice the actual title of this article?)  Similarly, what in the world does Keisha Castle-Hughes have to do with the 80th Academy Awards nominees and winners?  (Ditto on the previous PS.)  All three of your arguments are clearly non-sensical.  (1) To include the 64th youngest.  (2) To add in a woman who has nothing to do with the 80th ceremony (which is, by the way, the title of the article).  (3) To add in a child who has nothing to do with the 80th ceremony.  All three of those non-sensical arguments do not in any way address the real issue here.  Notable nominations.  I believe that being in the Top 10 (from an 80-year-long history) is indeed notable.  All of these indisputable facts are nominations, are notable, and are related to the topic of the article (the 80th Annual's nominees and winners).  Thus, the "points" that you made are not even points at all.  Or at least, they are points not in any way relevent to the subject at hand ... that is, nominations that are notable from among the 80th Annual nominees.  Halley Berry, Keisha Castle-Hughes, and the hypothetical George Clooney are 100% irrelevent to the argument at hand.  Stripping away those three red herrings from your "argument" leaves ... uhhhhh ... no argument left at all.  The items listed in the Notable Nominations Section are indeed nominations that are indeed notable and are indeed related / relevent to the 80th Ceremony.  If indeed you want me to "cut and paste" and place these facts at various points, interspersed throughout the article, fine.  I assume that will look messier and detract from the "neat" and aesthetic listing format.  But, I can live with that.  To me, it makes more sense to keep all the notable nominations in one overall section.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Furthermore ... this information is not trivia. So, the above reference to Trivia sections is not applicable.  And, even if it were applicable (which it is not), the very section you cite states, quote: "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed."  Which flies in the face of Fleetflame's suggestion to "feel free to remove the unnecessary information" (impliedly, at will).  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Sorry but I think you don't get my point. The 3 examples given were to show why someone's nomination (or win) is more notable than the others and the one about George Clooney is why a nomination is not notable as such. Almost all the cases in the section are acording to the top 10 list. You can always find a good notability argument for every nomination. For example (mostly made-up): Persepolis - was criticized by Iranian government, Elizabeth: The Golden Age - a sequel (as sequels don't get nominated for acting so often - except for Godfather and maybe more), Marion Cotillard - actress in a French film nominated among English-language films, Janusz Kamiński - his ??th nomination and we could go on. What I'm saying, those cases are nothing special so I am removing them. --Tone 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Not to mention that it's pretty much irrelevant who kicks whom from the top 10 list. At least for this article.) --Tone 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Similarly, you do not get my point. Anyone can create esoteric non-sensical arguments.  (The film most criticized by the Iranian government, etc.)  If those are the only straws at which you can grasp, you'd need to rethink the validity of your argument.  To respond in kind: What I'm saying, those cases are indeed special so I am un-removing them. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree with Tone's approach. Holbrook's and Dee's nominations are worth mentioning here, as they set new "records" so to speak. The rest aren't. The "Top Ten" business is too much. Mike R (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Joseph, all you have done here is take three hypothetical arguments of Tone's and pointed out how they don't belong here (which is obvious) and then simply stated your viewpoints as if they were facts. This is not and never should be grounds for reverting an edit.  Please do not revert simply because you disagree with the way it is--wait until we reach consensus.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh .... hold on. Is that the pot or the black kettle?  Seems to me that someone else (not I) did exactly what you are accusing me of.  That is, this other person (not I) did indeed "revert simply because [he] disagree[s] with the way it is" (quoting you) ... and this other person (again, not I) also indeed did not "wait until we reach consensus" (again, quoting you).  Please point out to me exactly when and where I did what you are accusing me of.  Thanks.  In fact ... let's re-read your very post above.  You state, quote, " ... feel free to remove the unnecessary information; I don't think there will be much opposition ..." when you responded to the post of Tone.  Did you not?  (See above.)  How does that reconcile with your reply to me that states, quote, "This is not and never should be grounds for reverting an edit.  Please do not revert simply because you disagree with the way it is--wait until we reach consensus" ...?  Is not that a complete contradiction?  Is not that speaking out of both sides of your mouth?  (1) You are accusing me of something that I did not do.  (2) You are directing me to refrain from doing something which I did not even do.  (3)  And in the very same breath, you advocate to Tone that he do exactly what you just told me not to do --- because it is unacceptable and should never be done.  Do I have all that correct?  Hence ... my original question ... Is this the pot or the black kettle?  Please clarify.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I did not accuse you of reverting, I simply asked you not to. If you check the edit history, you will also see that he removed most of that information before even bringing it up on this page (therefore, if anyone is not waiting for consensus, it is he).  If you continue to look through the history, you will see that Tone never reverted anything, so I was not telling you not to do something he did.  I do not think it is good to make controversial changes like these (although who knew they would be so contested?) without attempting to reach consensus, but it is much worse to revert a good faith edit simply because you disagree with the editor.  Also, your pot and kettle analogy does not work because I am not joining Tone in editing out these comments.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to chime in on the side of Joseph. I agree that it is notable that Jason Reitman's nomination, at age 30, ranks him among the youngest nominees ever for Best Director in the history of the Academy Awards. Specifically, Reitman becomes the seventh youngest nominee ever."  However, I also agree with Tone that it is trivial  that "his nomination displaces Spike Jonze (age 30), who previously held [the] distinction [of being the seventh youngest nominee]".  However, it would be notable to list the six younger directors who have been nominated.  Likewise regarding the nomination of Saoirse Ronan. I disagree with Mike's assessment that a top ten list is too much.  After 80 years and maybe 400 nominations in each category, I think a top ten list is just right. -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hallelujah! Are my eyes deceiving me ... or do I really sense that there is actually some sense out here in Wiki Land?  I guess that, indeed, hope springs eternal.  Thank you, Erin.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC))


 * By the way, I am not necessarily married to the idea of keeping the "Spike Jonze was displaced" concept. But, I am married to the fact that Reitman being in the Top Ten is noteworthy and deserves mention and should be kept.  As you stated, being in the Top Ten (at Number 7) over an 80 year history and a 400 member nomination list is nothing to sneeze at.  Nonetheless, when one person breaks another person's record, I myself am always interested to know whose previous record was broken.  So, for example, when Ben Hur broke the record for winning the most Academy Awards in history (11) in 1959 ... I, for one, am interested to know which film held the record before that ... and which film was it that Ben Hur broke the record of.  That's all.  (The answer is, the year before -- in 1958 -- Gigi held the record with 9 Awards ... until Ben-Hur broke that record with 11 Awards.)  In this 2007 year, Hal Holbrook became the oldest ever (that is, Rank # 1) nominee for Best Supporting Actor.  I myself am interested to know who held that record before Hal Holbrook broke it, and hence, who Holbrook displaced when he won/broke the record.  (The answer is Ralph Richardson, Best Supporting Actor for Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes ... who held the "oldest nominee" title for the past 24 years ... since 1984.)  So, I guess what I am saying is that -- to me -- it is relevant (not to mention, interesting) as to whose record gets broken when another person breaks a record.  It provides historical context.  It allows us to see how long the prior record stood before Holbrook or Ben-Hur (for example) broke it ...  and indeed by just how much of a margin was it broken.  In the examples I gave you, Gigi's record stood for only one year and Ben-Hur broke it by a relatively large margin (2 extra Awards ... 11 versus 9).  Ralph Richardson's record stood for a long, long time (almost 25 years, which is 1/3 of the entire history of the Academy Awards) ... and Holbrook's margin of beating Richardson was that Holbrook was older by about 10 months.  So, yes, I think that context is important when a record is broken: what the old record, who held it, and for how long ... is equally important as what the new record is, who broke it, and by how much.  I have registered my 2 cents on this issue.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree that it is notable to know who just got knocked out of the top spot, how long they were there and by how much they were knocked out, but I still think its trivial to know who got knocked out of the number seven spot. A brief run down of the top ten would be notable.  For example if the ten youngest directors were all between the ages of 30 and 31, then that means something different than if the top six are all less than 20 years old. -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the "entire" Top Ten list is notable. However, I think (in this particular article) that it would be "too much" to list the entire Top Ten for Best Director, the entire Top Ten for Best Actor, the entire Top Ten for Best Actress, etc., etc., etc.  That is why, along with each Notable Nomination, I included a Wikipedia link that brings the reader directly to the article List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees.  This way, once the reader gets to that article, they can see all of the Top Ten lists for all of the categories.  Likewise, if a reader of this article is not so inclined to be interested in the entire Top Ten list, then he/she need not click the Wiki link.  But, ultimately, to include (and repeat) all of that Top Ten info in this article would (inappropriately) overshadow this article.  So, the link is a good compromise.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Now that the Oscars have new owners, I will addres this topic once more. While it is maybe notable that someone is 4th youngest/oldest/whatever nominee or winner, it is irrelevant for this specific article who was 4th before( and besides, there is a list of top 10, so it is easy to deduce that the 5th guy was previously 4th). My opinion is, still, that being 4th youngest is still not so notable for this article but it is interesting to mention it eg. on Ellen Page's page. However, I am happy that some notability criteria other than age have appeared since the last talk, such as Blanchett being nominated for the same role in 2 movies. Still, what are Fay Bainter, Teresa Wright, Barry Fitzgerald, Jessica Lange, Sigourney Weaver, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson, Holly Hunter, Julianne Moore, and Jamie Foxx doing in this article? They have perfectly no connection to it. Please, make a link to multiple osacr nominees article and put them out of this one. --Tone 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, now that the new Oscars are awarded ... it is easier to reread this page with a clearer perspective. I agree that the list of Fay Bainter (etc.) needs no specific mention here, and should be removed.  I also personally think that, when a record is broken, it's interesting to mention whose record was broken.  (As I explained more fully in one of the above posts.)  In any event, I will be editing some of these notable nominations.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Much better now. I am happy we solved it out. --Tone 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Major Awards and Other Awards
How did someone decide that the screenplay awards are major awards? The other six didn't surprise me, but I never figured the screenplay awards as major awards in the same class as the actor, director and producer awards. I'm curious where this distinction came from. Thanks in advance for the clarification. -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. That would be me.  The prior edit had an extremely arbitrary category listing.  Things like: acting categories, non-acting categories, film categories, music and sound effects and visual categories, etc.  I can see why the prior editor did that ... to try to make some sense of the rather long, long listing.  But, there were a few problems with his system.  One --- a "biggie" award (like Best Director, for example) was haphazardly mixed in with this very generic "non-acting" category --- almost as an afterthought because it really didn't "fit" anywhere else.  No offense, but we need to give these Best Directors some respect.  They don't just get clumped in with the (relatively meaningless) generic "non-acting" awards.  Two --- under that prior arbitrary category listing ... a lot of the "big" awards (the ones that everyone actually cares about) were buried somewhere way down deep in the middle / end of the list.  Thus, the result was ... we would see things like Best Animated Short, and then Best Documentary Short, and then Best Documentary Feature and on and on and on ( ... that is, many, many, many, many awards that no one cares about ... ) ... and then, finally, somewhere buried way down deep in the middle / bottom of the list were things like Best Actor, Best Director, etc ... the stuff that everyone cares about.  So, I basically decided to put the "Big" awards at the top of the list, and the rest of the awards alphabetically below the "biggies".  Also, just as an FYI ... I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that it is pretty common knowledge that Best Writing is indeed one of the "biggies".  You have Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Acting, and Best Writing.  Those are pretty much deemed the "biggies".  I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's commonly accepted.  In fact, see this article that (coincidentally), I spent a lot of time on today: List of "Big Five" Academy Award winners and nominees.  It discusses the "Big Five" awards ... which are ... Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Writing.  The "Big Five" distinction of Awards has been around since 1934 --- for nearly 75 years!  So, then, that was my reasoning when I created the split --- Major Awards versus "Other" Awards.  I thought it was a vast improvement over the prior arbitrary categories ... which buried the important awards and haphazardly placed awards in various, odd, generic categories.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I had never heard of the Big Five, that's very interesting. I do understand that some awards are more prestigious than other, but I always imagined the supporting actor and actress categories as more prestigious than the writing categories.  I suppose the reason for this assumption is that people will buy a movie ticket if their friend says it s a good movie, or if it advertises a favorite director or actor, but I don't know of anyone who goes to see a movie because they love the work of one particular screenwriter.  It's a shame.  Actors and directors are rarely able to overcome poor writing.  Writers should be given more esteem, which is part of the reason the writers have to go on strike every now and then, so I’m pleased to see them at the top of the list.  Thanks again for the explanation.-ErinHowarth (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Best Writing is certainly one of the "biggie" awards. It has been around since Day 1 ... whereas Supporting Acting Awards did not even exist in the first 8 or 9 years of the Academy Awards.  So, acting awards -- in general -- are "equally" prestigious as writing awards.  But, of course, within acting ... the leading awards are more prestigious than the supporting awards.  By nature and by definition.  So, that's why the "Big Five" includes the Lead Actor/Actress ... and not the Supporting Actor/Actress categories.  Also, remember --- the actors are all very much in front of the camera ... and have wide public appeal and exposure.  Writers are very much behind the scenes ... with little to no public appeal or exposure.  (Generally speaking.)  But - regardless of this fact - one needs great writing and great writers to make a great film.  As you state, the actors -- as great as they may be at the craft of acting -- don't get there on their own.  They need great material from which to act.  Meaning, the film needs great writers to write for great actors who will be directed by great directors ... if indeed we want a great film.  So, of course, it is the marriage of all of the contributing factors (collaboration of all various areas working well with each other) that, in unison, all contribute to making a film great.  The general public only "sees" the actors ... and (knowing little about actual film-making) thinks that the actors (due to their wide public exposure) are the main and the "only" ingredient to make a great film great.  I am sure that the behind-the-scenes personnel are equally, if not more, vital to a film's success.  And, of course, when an actor wins an award ... they are always thanking these behind-the-scenes people as contributing to the actor's win.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I didn't explain the categories - I placed items together that make sense: Acting categories, Non-acting, writing, music & sound & effects, writing, and film categories. I can see the "Big Five" being listed, as many members of the media and the public will talk about those awards and forget the others - Director, Picture, Actor & Actress, and Screenplay (either adapted or original counts). Silence of the Lambs, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and It Happened One Night are often cited as the only films to win the set.  My main reason to attempt a further breakdown was for readability purposes - while previous listings are - appropriately - lists, one simple long list kindof bleeds together to me. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I accidentaly reverted to the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.40.212 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility: Use BOTH content and style
Same as last year, winners are indicated using only "bold" and no textual content provided. Form should follow function and ideally style adds to the context rather than being the content or itself having meaning. Relying on bold only isn't as crystal clear as it could be and doesn't keep things simple for non-obvious software (anything besides a web browser using default themes). Think for example of something as simple as users who use a larger than default Text Zoom - possible visually impared users - where the difference between bold and large text is even less clear than it is at the default level. Writing something, anything, even something as simple as "(Winner)" after each entry would stand out even more clearly than the bold alone and make matters much simpler for people skim reading the page. Please reconsider the formatting. Thanks to all who put the content on the page, don't let your good work down by using a sub-optimal style. -- Horkana (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about listing the winner FIRST as well as bold-facing, and so-stating that in the explanation? Let's not make things too complicated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. The "bold" is barely distinguishable ... especially when the winners' names are mixed in with many, many category titles (headings and sub-headings) that are also bold.  Thus, the winners' status -- even though bold -- really does get lost in the mix and does not stand out, as intended.  I suggest a format that mirrors the other Academy Award pages ... this (below) for example ... from the Academy Award for Best Actor article.  The winner is both first and bold, as Baseball Bugs suggested, and is rather easily distinguishable from the other nominees.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * 2007  Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood as "Daniel Plainview"
 * George Clooney - Michael Clayton as "Michael Clayton"
 * Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street as "Sweeney Todd"
 * Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah as "Hank Deerfield"
 * Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises as "Nikolai Luzhin"


 * I edited the article to reformat the Winners. The names of winners are now listed first, in bold face, and indented differently than the names of nominees.  This should help.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

the counterfeiters
the counterfeiters is not an only austrian but an an austrian/german production. This is not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatacc (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Academy officially lists it only as Austria. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC))