Oscars 2015 Put Stats and Pundits to the Test

http://madmaxfuryroad2015.com/

Watch Mad Max Fury Road Online Free

Watch Mad Max Fury Road Movie Online

Download Mad Max Fury Road Movie Free

I love it

Waiting for oscars 2015 Live It will be televised in the United States on ABC. Actor Neil Patrick Harris will host the ceremony.

“Also, every organization that has had a chance to award a “Best Comedy” anything–the Globes, Critics Choice, and now the Ace Eddies–has gone for GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL.”

This can also be “explained away”, just like you can “explain away” the PGA and SAG wins (the way you do), or even Boyhood’s many precursor wins so far (by saying it’s the critics’ darling, but those only sometimes do as well with the industry). Even its ACE win (I already have, in another thread). Birdman is a dark drama with some comedic elements, whereas Budapest is a pure comedy with some dramatic elements. Of course Budapest is more likely to win “Best Comedy anything”! And Birdman is also probably the least edited movie of the year (which is why it got snubbed at the Oscars), so it was never going to win an award voted on by editors alone. What’s strange is that it even got nominated – and my guess is, had it not been a BP contender all the way, and had there not been a comedy category, it wouldn’t have been.

I’m not saying these are necessarily valid arguments – but then neither are those by people trying to “explain away” Birdman’s guild wins…

I think Actor can be looked at this way: Eddie Redmayne won the Globe, when the HFPA could also award Keaton; SAG went for Redmayne when they could include Keaton among the Ensemble. Keaton is the only non-biopic player among the five Best Actor nominees. I tend to think that the stars of the Academy’s allegedly favorite genre, will cancel each other out. I really think it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Keaton doesn’t win, especially given the popularity of BIRDMAN with the guilds.
BOYHOOD, BIRDMAN, or GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL–whichever won–would instantly go into the top ten of the 87 Best Picture winners. Looked at historically, 2014, which looked like a pitifully weak year for movies while it was going on, is going to appear a golden age! The medium of cinema wins no matter what.
Plus, AMERICAN SNIPER storms into the cultural conversation just as many of us were convinced that movies ceased “to matter,” that it had all gone to TV. I think AS is a flawed masterwork, an ambivalent and largely objective character study of a soldier created by “the War on Terror.” I recommend watching it in conjunction with THE WAR TAPES, Deborah Scranton’s great 2006 documentary, made from DV tapes taken on the helmets of four American soldiers in Iraq in 2004. Whatever possessed Clint Eastwood to make that appearance at the 2012 GOP Convention–when he had declared 20 years before that the Republicans had at that time moved too far to the right and that he voted for Ross Perot in that year’s election–he has paid the price in a perception of his filmmaking so warped that some viewers will probably never be persuaded that all of his films aren’t right-wing tracts (despite the fact that the likes of Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh attacked his UNFORGIVEN-through-MILLION DOLLAR BABY work.
Otherwise, THE IMITATION GAME, which plays Alan Turing as a non-homosexual gay man somewhere in the Sheldon Cooper range on the autistic spectrum, is the sort of travesty that gives biopics a bad name. The fact that it’s come up empty again and again this awards season demonstrates that audiences appreciate its ambition but sense something a little off (as well as formulaic) about it. How off is it ? Read this: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/.
Finally, yes, I am longing to see Alexandre Desplat finally win an Oscar, for his transcendent score of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL. While Desplat’s music can be little more than hackwork, which is why he has never won in seven previous nomination (Not that mediocrity always explains multiple Oscar losses (See Deakins, Roger). Desplat’s other nomination this year, for THE IMITATION GAME, is an unfortunate example of said hackwork. Desplat’s work with Wes Anderson has been inspired, never more so than in GRAND BUDAPEST. I would love to see his Anderson score win, over a notably weak field this year.

TO SASHA,etc when is awards daily starting it’s annual predict twinners contest???

Wow, Ryan, that’s the second time in 24 hours that we appear to agree on something!;)
My vote would go to Dick Pope as well.

”But I expect the Oscar tally to look like this: BOYHOOD 4 (Picture, Director, Supp. Actress, Editing), BIRDMAN 2 (Actor, Cinematography), GRAND BUDAPEST 4 or 5 (Orig. Screenplay, Costumes, Prod. Design, Makeup, and–I hope–Music Score), AMERICAN SNIPER 3 (Adapted Screenplay, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing). THE IMITATION GAME will be this year’s AMERICAN HUSTLE, an overrated and much-nominated movie that leaves on Oscar night empty-handed.”

I pretty much agree with this scenario, and I especially love the prediction that Alexander Desplat wins for his wonderful score to ”Grand Budapest.” But … there are a couple of variables: If Eddie Redmayne surges and overtakes Michael Keaton, that would give ”Theory of Everything” one Oscar. (Its other best shot is score.) It’s safe to assume that ”Selma” wins Best Song and J.K. Simmons wins Best Supporting Actor. And I still think ”Imitation Game” could take Adapted Screenplay. If this scenario comes to pass, each one of the eight Best Picture nominees will come away with at least one win. … But is it possible that ”Budapest” will win the most Oscars? Or that ”Birdman” could walk away with only cinematography? Hmmm …

Thanks, Julian! As always, you make so much sense!… So you’re saying even though you think its message isn’t what I would like it to be (deep, interesting, original), it doesn’t mean you’re right, necessarily, and it could be a result of your subjective approach. I can sort of live with that, even though I still find it very strange that the only people who are making any strong claims either way on this exact point are those who share your opinion. But, oh well… Sometimes one has to just accept one’s ignorance, I guess. Thanks for at least trying to make me understand! 🙂

Another great discussion, you guys. These days I’m remitting myself to read what (some) of you guys say on the comments sections and not participating in the least — though the question which sprung in my mind as I read the thread is how deep is BIRDMAN compared to the film GRAVITY. I’m the opinion that very little, and I mean of that brief specific arbitrary universe in which we’ll compare BIRDMAN to Cuaron’s GRAVITY — which I’m doing right now — I just hope that’s not the dying of the light that I’m seeing right now…and I or someone else can continue to elucidate BIRDMAN’s merits seen through the prism of “effects-driven” GRAVITY as the benchmark of profundity…father, mother…

This is so messed up… I’m going back to sleep for a bit, I feel exhausted.

Normally, I’d agree with you on that, Robert, but I’m having a particularly big problem getting past this one paragraph (because I don’t see how the claim it makes could ever be seen as “open to interpretation” – IS the message of the movie obvious and/or cliched, and not that interesting, or not? And, if not, then why should I believe you for saying so, instead of Julian, who has pretty much convinced me I don’t have a clue what’s challenging or deep?):

“Everything Inarritu says about modern life (the usual qualms of the contrarian) is so basic to invite only a shrug. He doesn’t say anything that I would consider challenging or deep. He says whatever is expected of the modern-day contrarian who views Hollywood with disdain and thinks social media have a corrosive influence on our everyday existence, our ability to be in sync with ourselves and the reality at hand. Whether he is right or not, is not really important. It doesn’t enhance the art, it only enhances his agenda.”

No, not really… 🙂

“The negative critique of Birdman that you posted above seems intelligent and pretty well-reasoned. Do I agree with it? Nope. Is it going to change my mind about the movie? Nope. Do I feel a need to have to offer a lengthy counter-argument to it? Again, no”

OK, but HOW can you not agree with it – it makes so much sense… The people who attack it give specific examples of things they thought were pretentious in it, like the comedic tone, the ugly/shallow message, the fact that it has nothing truly interesting to say (even though, to me, what it says is extremely interesting – but somebody has to be right, and, honestly, it doesn’t look as though it’s me), the unnecessary ambiguity etc.. None of which I agree is wrong or misused, but I still can’t find the words to explain it. And the thing is everybody is saying this, everybody that hates it is saying the exact same things, and I’ve not yet heard a rebuttal. Just SAYING it’s not so… is that really enough? Are there really no words to explain WHY, or HOW it’s not so?

What conclusion am I to draw from this, other than there’s nothing to actually say in the movie’s defense, when confronted with these very powerful arguments?

I have a strong feeling that this year, the PGA smashing with the Oscars Will be broken and that Boyhood Will win BP. I know the preferential ballot tells something and matchs most of the Time but I feel this year Will be an exception

“DGA was 100% from a different set years where PGA was not. So I think you’re picking and choosing the set of years where it favors Birdman.”

Lol, that’s a non-argument. The DGA has NOT had its conditions change in any way (like the PGA has), so you HAVE to consider all years, otherwise you’re ignoring evidence for absolutely no logical reason. You can’t just randomly choose 2007-2012 (for example) and ignore 2013, and all the years before 2006 – there’s NO LOGICAL BASIS for that. There is, however, a VERY logical basis for only considering the PGA results since the switch to preferential. You seem to understand that argument, so I won’t go over it again, though, the way you keep coming back to the same things, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d start questioning that one again too, despite the fact that we’ve agreed to disagree on this point.

So, no, I’m not picking years where it favors Birdman. I’m picking years where it’s ACTUALLY SIMILAR to this year (as in: also under the preferential ballot). Do you honestly think I’m dumb enough that if Boyhood had won the PGA instead, and Birdman only the SAG, I would still be predicting Birdman? (this is a reductive example, so you’ll see my point) Come on… Let’s not treat each other like toddlers, OK?!…

“But I still think it’s a leap of faith on your part to believe that the preferential ballot voting will always match with the Oscars.”

Thanks for completely misunderstanding!… I am obviously not saying that – would I not be saying Birdman is a lock then? Do you need me to give you percentages, to understand what I’m talking about? I am saying the PGA is MORE LIKELY (not necessarily A LOT more likely, but more likely nonetheless), after 5 years of doing so, to again match, than it is to not match (in the absence of any other information, this is beyond obvious – ask any bookie what THEY’D bet on if the had ONLY the PGA to go on -, but even when considering all of the other specific evidence for this year), meaning OVER 50%. Let’s say, 60% chances that it does (in which case Birdman, obviously, wins), 40% that it doesn’t (in which case either Boyhood, almost all of the time, or something else, wins).

I don’t want to sound rude, but you weren’t kidding about that ADD thing – I don’t get how you can misunderstand something so simple, when all I’ve ever said, in my 100 posts, or whatever, is that the race is SUPER-CLOSE and that Birdman is a SLIGHT FAVORITE (60% to 40% is NOT a big margin, as I’m sure you’re aware). So, no, man, no leap of faith… Why do you have to try and belittle me with these subtle jabs, like I won’t catch on, or something?! I thought we were having a nice conversation and treating each other with respect…

“The tie last year proves TO ME that it’s not the slam dunk as you like to believe. It can be tenuous.”

Like I said, this proves nothing ABOUT THIS YEAR (it only proves how close it was last year – there’s not yet any real evidence that, within the industry, it’s close between Birdman and Boyhood; the DGA win for Boyhood would be a bit of evidence, but, as we know from last year – and other years, given the DGA’s poor predicting record -, that could just mean it’s the favorite for Best Director, not necessarily picture), except for the fact that, since last year was so close, despite Gravity’s many statistical problems, it’s clear evidence that, since even Gravity could have won, with MULTIPLE snubs, then A SINGLE snub (the editing snub) is hardly enough evidence to take Birdman out of what, otherwise (meaning, had that snub not happened) everybody (except for you, with your 74% DGA stat) would agree is a significant lead for BP, almost a lock, at least until the DGA announcement, when, if Boyhood won, it would become a race, but still with Birdman well in the lead.

And I WOULD agree to disagree, if you stopped insulting my intelligence by misrepresenting what I say and ignoring the counter-arguments I give you. I tried to be 100% nice about it, but you keep doing it – I can only take so much. You probably think there’s a mess in my head and I’ll forget what arguments I’ve given before, and you want to take advantage of that, but you’re wasting your time (and, sadly, also mine) going down that road. I can assure you I’m perfectly clear on everything I’ve said, in any thread, at any given time this year or last year, with regards to the stats. Have you SEEN any evidence yet that this might not be so? Then, why repeat the same arguments?

Again: give me real arguments, tell me something I don’t know, or that haven’t already addressed, put things in a new light (I emphasize: a NEW light) and then we can have an interesting discussion once more!

“If Boyhood wins DGA, then it will be the similar scenario as LMS vs. The Departed.”

Except that it’s not, in any other way than the guild win distribution, and even that is questionable due to the preferential ballot switch happening in the meantime – would LMS have won under the preferential system? Would The Departed have won Best Picture under the preferential system? Maybe Babel would have – don’t remember many people hating that one, except for me :), and it had won the Globes, for example. There was no clear consensus that year, the major precursors were split pretty evenly.

And, apart from this one, debatable, similarity, the situation is different in almost every other way. Nomination count (which we KNOW is less important under the preferential ballot – stats prove it), lack of director nomination for Little Miss Sunshine (in addition to editing), Marty’s overdue factor (this year both Linklater and Inarritu are overdue, and Inarritu is more likely to be CONSIDERED overdue BY THE ACADEMY, as they’ve shown him far more love than Linklater in the past) etc. – can you name one more relevant similarity between the two? Maybe the fact that LMS and Birdman both competed in comedy at the Globes, and lost, and The Departed (who lost, by the way) and Boyhood in drama. But even this is not actually valid, because it could only be considered relevant due to the gender bias, which Birdman, however, has no reason to feel likely to be affected by, since it’s much more drama than comedy, which Little Miss Sunshine was not (it was more comedy than drama, and the tone was way less serious/grave). Honestly, to insist on comparing these two, extremely different cases (and movies/contenders – LMS and Birdman) seems like an irrational reaction to me, at best, and an attempt to win the argument at all costs, irrespective of the truth, at worst. I’m sure it’s the former, in your case – because you hadn’t considered it carefully -, because you seem like a very reasonable guy.

“If analysis of such a small sample is inconclusive, then at the same time I’d just wish people would stop bragging about the SAG & PGA winning combo.”

1. It’s NOT inconclusive, in general. It’s very useful as a guideline IF IT FITS THE PATTERN for the year you’re trying to predict. It’s just that 2006 simply does NOT fit this pattern. So far, 2010 fits it, almost perfectly. And there are actually a lot of other examples that fit it a lot better than 2006 – again, see my analysis.
2. You’re comparing a 1-item sample size to a 9-item sample size, happening over 18 years or so. I hardly think it’s the same thing. You CAN say a 9-item sample size is also not enough to be relevant mathematically, but I still disagree that it’s not relevant BECAUSE OF THAT (mathematical theory has its limitations), and think it’s not profitable in the long run to not take it into account. But I agree to disagree on this point, as I’ve said before. We can argue over it AGAIN, later (this is at least the second time), I won’t complain, I like our discussions, but I would prefer it if you’d remember this about me and my views, so I won’t have to repeat myself in the next thread where we debate who the favorite is… 🙂

“In the last 19 years the DGA predicts the winner 74% of the time, while PGA is 66%. Edge to DGA win.”

Again I have to repeat myself… The PGA’s record is 5/5 since 2009 (and 7/7 since 2007, actually), and only 60-65% before 2009 (or 2007). Clearly, something has changed, something very drastic. Just like something changed for the editing stat around the time it began its current run. You can say the PGA’s pattern changing is accidental, but it’s harder to argue with the editing stat’s pattern, because the streak since 1980 is just too long, and one kind of proves the other (since one isn’t accidental, it kind of follows that, most likely, no such changes are). So it’s actually EXTREMELY LIKELY that the switch to the preferential system HAS changed the PGA’s likelihood to predict the award, and much improved it, which is what the stats indicate, strongly. You can choose to ignore this, I believe, very powerful piece of evidence – I choose to embrace it. We can agree to disagree, yet again…

I choose to assign the PGA a very high probability of matching the Oscar for BP under the current circumstances, way closer to 100% (though, of course, not 100%, nothing is 100%) than the 60-65% it had before, and MOST DEFINITELY way more than the DGA’s lousy 74%, which is an extremely low accuracy rate for a BP stat. I don’t even consider anything under 80%, and under 90% I always try to combine them, to get better accuracy, even at the expense of a reduction of the sample size – as long as it’s not TOO much of a reduction, to something like under 4-5 items, which I know might seem arbitrary, but I like it, and I believe pretty much any combination meeting this requirement should be valid and very, very useful, if the percentages are also adequate – whenever the situation allows, like this year, combining PGA and SAG, to reach the higher percentages that the less obvious BP races (such as this year’s) require in order to find the favorite.

Of course, the trick would be to take into account ALL of the possible strong (and relevant) combinations, so that there’s no stat (again with at least 4-5 examples and a percentage over 80%, or, preferably, over 90%) that is even more accurate (has a better percentage), and NEGATES the conclusions drawn from your other stats. I think I’ve covered my bases (in my analysis above) for this year pretty well. I don’t know that there’s a stat like that going for Boyhood and against Birdman. I believe the sample size is reduced too much with all of the possible attempts, and the few precedents remaining differ in crucial ways from this year’s race. Maybe I’m wrong. I would LOVE IT if you pointed out such a combined stat to me, and I may very well change my prediction if I deem that stat more relevant than the stats that are making me predict Birdman at the moment. The editing stat is NOT that stat, though (and I’ve written whole pages on why, by now, I’m sure), it’s not strong enough and not relevant enough, in this particular case.

This is how I do things. You may think it’s stupid/ignorant, and I don’t even mind that, because I’m confident enough in my logical abilities, and I also know that even the smartest people in the world don’t know and understand everything. But, if you want to convince me (and others) that I’m wrong, you’re going to have to actually explain it to me with convincing arguments, not repeat stats with under 90% accuracy rates and beat a dead horse on the whole small sample size issue, and such, all of which I can assure you I’d already considered long before we first started debating this year’s race. You’re going to have to tell me something I don’t know, and convince me that it’s accurate. I’m confident enough to not be convinced by persistence alone, if not backed up by convincing arguments, but not inflexible enough to not be convinced by said arguments, if they are, indeed, presented. (Which, so far, has not been the case, at least in this particular debate.) At least I think – and hope – that I am.

“I think Claudiu your analysis is a little too Birdman-centric. How many ways can I come up with to make Birdman still the favorite.”

I knew people would think that, but they’re wrong, because I don’t ignore any of the arguments in favor of Boyhood either, and I don’t bend the arguments in favor of Birdman to make its chances look better than the pure stats indicate. I think this is obvious from my analysis. I know you don’t mean anything by it, believe me – I know you’re one of the good guys, not like Zooey 🙂 (sorry, Zooey, I can’t think of another example – I’m sure you’re not really that bad -, because everybody here is usually so nice and reasonable) -, but you’re accusing me of something I think you’d realize I’m not actually doing, if you took a careful look at my posts, in their entirety.

BELIEVE ME, it would make me A LOT sadder to pick the wrong favorite for the Oscars than if Birdman lost and I picked the right winner! A LOT… That’s my main obsession in life – I SIMPLY HATE making errors in judgement, they drive me crazy, they make me doubt myself beyond reason. You cannot possibly begin to fathom just how much I hate that. Birdman losing BP this year (especially to Boyhood, which would be a very good BP winner anyway) would mean NOTHING, literally nothing, to me, in comparison to that, as much as I love it. Which is why I’m so obsessed with the stats, when it comes to the BP race… Now, if American Sniper won… 🙂 THAT would really piss me off! But even that, nowhere near as much as if I got the winner wrong. If I get the winner wrong, you might see me give up on predicting altogether – or some other extreme reaction like that. And I’m aware of it, and I don’t want that AT ALL. So, you can rest assured, I’m taking every precaution against that that I can think of. I just truly believe, based on all I’ve read/analyzed/seen over the years, and this year, that Birdman is the safe bet (as Sasha put it) right now. Not A SAFE BET, but, if one MUST bet, then the SAFEST bet.

“the “Sniper Boyman” crowd could split to give Imitation Game and/or Grand Budapest Hotel a chance to sneak in there.”

I think it’s a lot harder to “sneak in” when it’s a preferential ballot where consensus will more likely prevail.

“Alan of NY, slumdog won SAG ensemble. The least loud, big name nominees of the bunch.”

I agree that it does not have the biggest names among Doubt, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Benjamin Button, but it does have a really huge cast. And its acting is not subdued by any stretch of imagination. Quite exuberant in comparison to the other nominees. When the acting/cast are equally large and “loud” among the five nominees, the clear BP frontrunner, which Slumdog was the only one, would most likely prevail.

I should also note that SAG has a sweet tooth for films that are both dramatic and comedic. True dramas wins SAG ensemble only 1/3 of the time, while the Oscar BP winners heavily favor dramatic movies. Looking at the nominees this year, like American Hustle last year, Birdman had it in the bag. In the 19 years of its existence, the SAG ensemble winners went on to win Oscar BP 47% of the time. Hardly a strong precursor.

Anyone who says anything is a “safe bet” at this point obviously hasn’t been paying attention to the Academy over the years.

Even if Birdman won PGA, SAG and DGA, I wouldn’t call it a safe bet. Putting aside the editing stat argument (which to me is pretty strong though not necessarily irrefutable), the quirky film simply doesn’t feel like the kind of movie the Academy picks. Some votes of passion, perhaps. But a consensus? Unlikely, I’d say.

The PGA may have gone for the film simply because it feels more polished as opposed to the somewhat experimental Boyhood. And Keaton losing at SAG is a strong sign that the film does not have complete support from the actors branch.

But both Boyhood and Birdman were SNUBBED by the Location Managers Guild!!!!

Outstanding Locations in a Contemporary Film
CHEF (Kei Rowan-Young)
GONE GIRL (Rick Schuler and Steve Mapel)
NIGHTCRAWLER (Curtis Collins and Mike Brewer)
THE GAMBLER (Chris Baugh)
WILD (Nancy Haecker)

Outstanding Locations in a Period Film
FURY (Russell Lodge and Lee Robertson)
INHERENT VICE (Larry Ring and Scott Fitzgerald)
SELMA (Wes Hagen and Leif Tilden)
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (Klaus Darrelmann)
THE IMITATION GAME (David Broder and Richard George)

“On a cursory glance, it looks like the Academy used to spread the wealth among a larger and more diverse collection of movies. I’d argue that Oscar campaigning has grown more intense in the past few decades, especially when such big bucks are at stake (in home video, DVD, worldwide sales) . And as it’s grown more competitive and expensive, I believe the pool of viable Oscar contenders has shrunk. By the end of the year, critics’ groups, pundits and studios narrow the field to about a dozen pictures. Few folks want to waste their votes on films that aren’t seen as legit competitors, so the nominations tend to concentrate on that dozen.”

That’s a very good explanation, probably better than mine.

“People make the correlation that a terrific movie is a well-edited one, but I don’t think the average Oscar voter (if there is such a thing) is as fixated or as obsessed with statistics as Oscar sites are.”

OK, but they (the voters) do make the correlation too. Why wouldn’t they? They’re people too. 🙂 And they don’t exclusively vote for what they like, because, like you said, they don’t want to waste their votes. Which is how the real BP contenders pretty much always make it in in this category. And why the stat is valid. 🙂

“Before the PGA, I’m sure there were statistics that would ”prove” why ”Boyhood” was certain to win, based on various precursors.”

Oh, I’m quite sure there wasn’t any 100% stat (or even close). There’s even a very recent, nearly identical exception, which I’m sure you know about – The Social Network. There are other similar examples in the past – see my analysis above! 🙂

“To me, it’s not a science. It’s a crapshoot. And that’s why there are upsets.”

As long as you can measure movies’ chances so accurately using only the stats (which, in BP, you can), I think it qualifies as science. Wikipedia definition (anybody feel free to correct me if this is an inaccurate definition) for science: “a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about” etc.
Sounds very familiar to me… It’s probability and statistics. It’s scientific in the approach (the stats-based approach, I mean, not the intuitive approach).

“Maybe Sasha’s “Boyman” term has really been a hint all along — Boyhood and Birdman will end up tied for Best Picture!”

Honestly, I feel like that would be the best outcome possible this year (because I feel like Birdman is the best movie of the year based on what’s actually on screen, but I feel sorry for Boyhood, which is also great, and it probably is the best achievement in cinema this year, so I’d totally be OK with a tie), but, sadly, it’s virtually impossible. The rules won’t allow for it. I guess it IS possible, technically, if both movies get the exact same number of 1st, 2nd, 3rd… 7th and 8th places, but the chances of that happening must be astronomical.

Thanks Sasha! Good luck

Well one stat that didn’t hold true this year was the NBR Best Film being a Best Picture nominee, but the BFCA score metric did hold true with all eight Best Pic nominees having a score of 85 or higher. It’s mostly been an unpredictable year though and I don’t see either Boyhood or Birdman winning.this; I see a 2010 redux occurring :p

Film Fatale, you might re-read what I wrote: ”If it were truly neck and neck, Redmayne might’ve at least won a few major Best Actor trophies along the way. It’s not like there’s been some seesawing battle between them.” I wrote ”a FEW major Best Actor trophies.” I didn’t say Redmayne hadn’t won ANY or ”zero.” Besides, we were talking about the battle between Keaton and Redmayne. They didn’t go head-to-head at the Globes. As opposed to the many awards where the critics CHOSE to honor Keaton over Redmayne. That’s why Redmayne’s SAG win was a surprise. It’s his first major victory over Keaton.

This year reminds me of 2005 when, at first, ‘Sideways’ was winning Best Picture awards left and right. But then, in comes the knockout punch from ‘Million Dollar Baby!’ That year, it was initially thought that Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Aviator’ would win it all – both Picture and Director. Surprise surprise! It didn’t win. To Sasha’s credit, when it comes to Oscar season, it really helps if you’re Clint Eastwood. If it hadn’t been for the phenomenal finale to Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy, ‘Mystic River’ would have won both Best Picture and Best Director that year; yet another masterful film by Mr. Eastwood. This year started out predictable, but now it has gone topsy turvy. I honestly don’t know how to call this one anymore. I think I’ll just sit back and enjoy the ride.

It’s statistically more likely to win Best Picture without an acting nomination (~12.8%) than without an editing nomination (~11.3%).

So go THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL!!!

Sasha, no it would not be funny if Clint won the DGA and America sniper won bp. I am a liberal who like American sniper but it would be 4th behind Boyhood, Birdman and Selma on my ballot if I could vote.
I love Birdman but Boyhood is clearly the best picture of the year and better than oscar winners no county and departed to name 2 .

“The season has offered up nothing but surprises do far, thrusting the pundits to run around the hen house like chickens with our heads cut off.”

Actually, the season has had only ONE (or two) surprises with regards the BP race. PGA picked Bird over Boy. Globes picked Budapest over Bird. Other than that, everything has been going as expected, especially Linklater sweeping. Yeah, if Clint wins DGA. That would be… Wow!