Not with Murphy to the end
In Contention's Kris Tapley wants it understood that he wasn't with Eddie Murphy "to the last," even though the last Gurus of Gold listing shows him having voted for Murphy as his #1 choice. That chart, however, is dated 2.16.07, he tells me, so as of today it's ten days old. (All I did this morning was simply reference the last Gurus of Gold and Buzzmeter charts.) Kris's final In Contention calls, in which he predicted Arkin to win, is dated 2.23. He also claims he was the first guy on the block to say the award was Arkin's to lose, immediately after the nominations.
Did Murphy bolt?<< previous
|
next >>Sourpusses
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 26, 2007 at 11:57 AM
comment #1
Craig Kennedy
says ...
What Jeff, are you compiling some kind of Naughty and Nice list now so when you're ready for 'HE's Final Solution' you'll know who to come after first?
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at February 26, 2007 12:38 PM
comment #2
gruver1
says ...
Wells to cjKennedy: Just trying to clarify. The Gurus of Gold chart (i.e., the most recent one being ten days old) said one thing, and Kris's own predictions on his site said something else. Would you rather I didn't clarify? Is it better to allow misleading impressions to just sit there?
Posted by gruver1
at February 26, 2007 12:45 PM
comment #3
Craig Kennedy
says ...
I appreciate you were responding to Tapley's concern but I can assure him no one considers him to be tainted by your campaign of terror and I'm sure his regular readers know exactly where he stands as far as his predictions go.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at February 26, 2007 12:57 PM
comment #4
Noah
says ...
The Departed couldn't have won Best Picture! It didn't play at Toronto!!!
Posted by Noah
at February 26, 2007 12:59 PM
comment #5
jeffmcm
says ...
Tapley clearly made a last minute change sometime between Feb. 19 and Feb. 23. SO?
Posted by jeffmcm
at February 26, 2007 1:10 PM
comment #6
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
I heart Jeff McMahon.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at February 26, 2007 1:23 PM
comment #7
Chris Molanphy
says ...
Senator Wells: "Sir, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Murphy For Supporting Actor party?"
Oscar Blogerati: "I respectfully refuse to answer that question, Senator..."
Senator Wells: "I will ask you again. We have evidence that you backed Murphy on the date of February the 16th. Do you deny that you have been involved with the party supporting Murphy and other un-American activities...?"
[repeat ad nauseum]
Posted by Chris Molanphy
at February 26, 2007 1:44 PM
comment #8
rocco
says ...
Who the hell is Kris Tapley? I know we all create spheres of importance around ourselves, but most of us realize that people outside our little bubble worlds don't give a damn...
Posted by rocco
at February 26, 2007 1:53 PM
comment #9
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Yeah. Yeah!
yeah
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at February 26, 2007 1:59 PM
comment #10
EDouglas
says ...
"Tapley clearly made a last minute change sometime between Feb. 19 and Feb. 23. SO?"
Personally, I wouldn't trust an Oscar prognosticator who makes that kind of sudden change in decision at the last minute like that. Absolutely nothing changed in the field between 2/16 and 2/23 that he should have gone differently and if wants any kind of credibility, he should have just stuck with Murphy and been wrong like the rest of us. Heck, I've barely changed my predictions since early December.. the only difference being when Dreamgirls was no longer in the BP category and when the four "longshots" for Best Supporting Actor all got nominated over what I thought were the frontrunners (but I stuck to my guns on Murphy even as the journalists followed the naysayers like sheep, judging him on his attitude/personality rather than his performance)
But I tell ya... it's people like Wells and Tapley who made this year's Oscar race so tedious, so you guys might want to find something else to write about for the next 30-40 weeks rather than constantly recap what happened on Sunday.
Posted by EDouglas
at February 27, 2007 4:26 AM