They're no longer the People's Choice Awards
Call the kudos cops! Something's bogus about the People's Choice Awards! You've heard that before, eh? Well, believe it or not, the prizes had, up until last year, a claim to legitimacy since winners were determined by a Gallup Poll of workaday Americans. Sure, the people sometimes opt for populist choices like "E.T." for best picture, but many Oscarologists consider that film's loss to "Gandhi" at the 1982 Oscars to be one of the academy's biggest goofs. People's Choice voters have often given away their best picture awards (they have two or three in some years, just one in others) to the same films that Oscar voters end up picking — "Rain Man," "The Sting," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Titanic," among them. And when they disagreed over equally worthy movies — like "Star Wars" versus "Annie Hall" in 1977 — the alternative points of view were refreshing.
Last year the voting was changed to a much less expensive — and far less scientific — means of opinion-gathering. An Internet research company now taps a sample number of pop culture fans to choose the nominees, then voting is thrown open to all Internet users who wish to assert their opinions online at pcavote.com.
As a result, this year certain peculiarities have emerged among the nominees, which were announced late last week. Take Faith Hill, for example. Her relevancy declined so much within the country music industry that she wasn't nominated for female vocalist of the year at the CMA Awards, but she's the only country artist among the contenders for the equivalent prize at the People's Choice.
But that's mere quibbling. The real issue is who wins and last year there were some doozies in the lineup. Sure, it was easy to understand the masses going for "The Passion of the Christ" for favorite movie drama. "Passion" probably would've won under the old voting system, too, come to think of it — and not just because there are so many devout moviegoers. People's Choice voters have always treated Mel Gibson like God, giving him top awards in years when he didn't even have a new movie out.
The biggest oddity of all was last year's award for favorite motion picture, which went to "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was arguably a worthy choice, but come on, such a polarizing pic never would've won under the old Gallup Poll system. Which raises the question: Was it really the people's choice? No. It was the choice of the people who dominate cyberspace: young men, who, biologically speaking, have a hormonal need to rebel against authority.
Producers of the awardscast loved the vote result because it made for great TV, especially when they had the trophy bestowed on Michael Moore by TV's liberal president, Martin Sheen of "The West Wing." Moore was so excited about receiving the honor that, when producers tipped him off ahead of time, he ditched plans to attend the awards gala of the New York Film Critics Circle, which was held the same weekend on a different coast. After all, the critics only planned to give him a trophy for best nonfiction film. Moore ended up sending a stand-in who's never been shy about accepting awards: Harvey Weinstein.
This year the People's Choice Awards will be telecast on Jan. 10 (CBS, 9 p.m. EST/PST).
i agree with andrew about the courageous michael moore. wait until his film. SICKO is released. he may have to hide for his life.
Posted by: teri | November 22, 2005 at 08:51 PM
You must be kidding right? Internet research company? This is getting more laughable by the moment. Why still call it the People's Choice Awards then? Something tells me this will end up being just as bad, or even worse than the Emmy Awards, which are absolutely ludicrous. The same people winning in the same categories, year after year, after year. What a bummer.
Posted by: Jeanne M. | November 17, 2005 at 05:31 AM
Marlon Brando was right about the Hollywood Jews!
Posted by: Howard Parker | November 15, 2005 at 08:28 PM
The article was about the potential for inaccuracies and fraud in internet voting. The first two comments were from people that were not confused by what they read. They actually contributed to the dialog. After that, the comments became moronic from individuals that can't read, spell or get their facts straight.
Posted by: Jallens | November 15, 2005 at 04:01 PM
It's almost funny to watch you people who can't stand the Michael Moores of the world speaking the uncomfortable truth, trying to explain away his popularity, convince people that his work is not as highly regarded and popular as it really is, pull out any sad fact, no matter how trivial or deceptive (or blatantly false) it may be, in order to disccredit this man whose statements you fear so much, you don't want anyone to hear them. To call it a "fictional" film, when NO ONE has managed to find ONE FALSE ASSERTION in the whole thing, no one even willing to try disputing its conclusions, except to repeat the word, "Propaganda!" as if that settles it, is a sad testimony to the intellectual rigor of your side, and quite frankly stinks of fearful fascism. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the most popular documentary ever made BY FAR, and the most topically important. That's why it won the PCAs, and all your whining won't change that, and just shows how terrified of the truth you are.
Posted by: Andrew | November 15, 2005 at 03:34 PM
It's almost funny to watch you people who can't stand the Michael Moores of the world speaking the uncomfortable truth, trying to explain away his popularity, convince people that his work is not as highly regarded and popular as it really is, pull out any sad fact, no matter how trivial or deceptive (or blatantly false) it may be, in order to disccredit this man whose statements you fear so much, you don't want anyone to hear them. To call it a "fictional" film, when NO ONE has managed to find ONE FALSE ASSERTION in the whole thing, no one even willing to try disputing its conclusions, except to repeat the word, "Propaganda!" as if that settles it, is a sad testimony to the intellectual rigor of your side, and quite frankly stinks of fearful fascism. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the most popular documentary ever made BY FAR, and the most topically important. That's why it won the PCAs, and all your whining won't change that, and just shows how terrified of the truth you are.
Posted by: Andrew | November 15, 2005 at 03:33 PM
Must be a typo - '... planned to give him a trophy for best nonfiction film.' There was very little non-fiction present in F911.
Posted by: c.ecker | November 15, 2005 at 02:49 PM
Their may have been doubts about the legitimacy of the whole thing before, but when Michal Moore took an award, any remaining shred of credibility was lost for good. It can't be long before Osama Binlauden (sp?) wins an award with the beheadding films he keeps sending to Al-Jazera (sp?)
Posted by: Cpaske | November 15, 2005 at 02:37 PM
I know. Fahrenheit 911 would have been a great movie had it not been for all the politics.
There have ALWAYS been political films and outspoken political actors. Don't pretend there weren't.
Oh, and in the movies, they say "The End", not "End of story".
Posted by: cc | November 15, 2005 at 02:36 PM
I'm not even 40 years old yet, and I still remember when I could go see a movie without my (or the movie actors' and movie maker's) politics interfering with the experience.
I wish all of you movie people(actors and moviemakers alike) would make up your minds as to whether to make movies or run for office. End of story, as they say in the movies.
Posted by: Brian weir | November 15, 2005 at 01:10 PM
Micheal moore deserved that award, and i may be male but am long gone from hormonal decisiosns thank you
Posted by: arinia | November 15, 2005 at 09:20 AM
I have voted in this popularity poll for a few years and was VERY SURPRISED when I went to vote this year. Not only were MOST of the nominees laughable, there was no option to even opt-out of a particular catagory if your movie-going-soul couldn't justify a vote for anyone nominated. If you tried to proceed without voting for a catagory, you could not advance in the process! You only choice was to sell your soul for an unworthy nominee, or get out of the ballot and not vote for anyone at all in any catagory! SO REDICULOUS! I know I will no longer take any of the People's Choice Awards even semi-seriously!
Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2005 at 05:09 AM
www.urbanterrorists.com the peoples choice
Posted by: urban | November 15, 2005 at 04:58 AM
Those young man also are not shy of using proxy servers to vote. So in the future you might see some really strange winners..
Posted by: Bidera | November 15, 2005 at 02:18 AM