He listed his commentary...Awesome.
He outlined the awards...Awesome.
His commentary was listed in the order of the screenings (at least for the first 12 films, of which SCU "High as a Kite" was in)...Awesome.
But the screening order (if Dan's blog is in proper order) has "Saving Face"(side note: which was an amazing story and film) as the last movie shown in the "Best of DC" 9:30pm screening. Yet, the 2nd-to-last film "Shovel Ready" won (sidenote: also an amazing story and film, deserving of the win).
So once again, my hypothesis was wrong. I'm not completely off base, but like Mark Ruppert said to us at the drop-off, it's not "scientific".
I do wish that the 48HFP committee would just post official rankings at the end of the contest. Our team is COMPETITIVE and we want to know how we did each year. We based our 2009 appearance as "18th out of 110 films" based on where we screened in the "Best of DC" round. This year we dropped to "22nd" (if we followed my very UN-scientific meanderings).
I know that publishing rankings and data would probably ruin the whole spirit of this amazing competition.
But, Mister Mark Ruppert, if you find this blog one dark and dreary night in the middle of a February blizzard...enquiring minds want to know...why do you give such scantily clad details on the results of this contest?
1 comment:
My blog does list them in the exact screening order. I don't think it would be much fun if the last film shown was always the winner, but on the other hand it's more fun if some of the best films are shown last. So I think it's semi-random but with some of the best stuff saved for the end.
I would like to see the score sheets or rankings submitted by the judges for each film, though. Getting really accurate feedback would help a lot of teams improve! We Jungle Rules are pretty competitive too!
Post a Comment