Now that all of the films have been released and are making money, it’s time to once again tally up the scores. How much have they made? How much did they cost? How many negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes? Let’s take a quick look.
1. Rotten Tomatoes
The best way to measure critic reviews is not to look at the positive number at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. The reason is that the demographics and names on those sites keep changing. There isn’t any kind of consistency. We look at two things. Usually the negative number on Rotten Tomatoes is a pretty good indicator of how many people hated the movie. The more people who hated the movie, the higher the negative number, the less the chances for winning Best Picture on a preferential ballot.
Let’s look at the scores of the films since the Academy switched up to a preferential ballot.
2009 – The Hurt Locker 245/6
2010 – The King’s Speech 247/14
2011 – The Artist 267/7
2012 – Argo 287/13
2013 – 12 Years a Slave 280/11
2014 – Birdman 241/21
Birdman’s is the most divisive with 21, but even that isn’t that divisive, honestly, not with 241 in the can. If we look at the five films this year with a Best Director nomination we see:
Spotlight 184/6
Room 170/6
Mad Max: Fury Road 323/10
The Big Short 175/24
The Revenant 177/42
It really looks like Spotlight is in the sweet spot because it has both SAG Awards Ensemble nomination and PGA recognition. Room did not register with the PGA or DGA so if it won Best Picture it would be a surprise. The Big Short is sort of in the zone but pushing it. Mad Max is definitely in the zone but it, along with The Revenant, does not have a SAG Awards Ensemble nomination. But 42 negatives for a Best Picture winner would be unheard of. This could be the difference, though, between critic voters and the industry voters. They are very different animals. The critics were a tad resistant toward The Revenant for some reason, which could account for the elevated negative number. On the other hand, as you can see above, this is a pretty reliable stat.
Now let’s look at budget and box office, not that this matters as much anymore.
The Hurt Locker 14/15 million
The King’s Speech 14 million/138 million
The Artist 15 million/44 million
Argo 44 million / 136 million
12 Years a Slave 20 million / 56 million
Birdman 18 million / 42 million
As you can see, their preference for cost is pretty clear. You have to go back to 2006’s The Departed to find a film that cost a lot and earned a little back. The Departed cost 90 mil and made 132 mil. Its Rotten Tomatoes number was only 24 negatives against 238 reviews.
Box-office totals by the end of this weekend might look something like:
Spotlight 20 million / 35 million (est. and counting)
The Big Short 28 million / 50 million (est. and counting)
Mad Max Fury Road 150 million / 153 million
The Revenant 135 million / 90 million (est. and counting)
Box office won’t really be an issue with any film except perhaps Mad Max, which is in The Departed territory. The Revenant will continue to make money, all the way up to at least 150 mil and perhaps more.
Argo and The King’s Speech are really their favorite kind of Best Picture winner. Low budget, high return. In recent years, the Academy aren’t big fans of lots of money being spent, I’ve noticed, except in rare exceptions. They seem to like movies that cost between 15 and 25 million.
It is unfortunate that The Martian never got a chance because it really does do well on all of these markers. It cost $108 but made $226 and counting. It only has 20 negatives on Rotten Tomatoes up against 282 reviews. It is way in the zone. It would be very funny if it turned out to be the surprise winner, although with someone other than Ridley Scott winning Best Director, the way Argo went down. I don’t envision that happening because obviously the Martian has no SAG Awards nominations.
In the end, barring a great big surprise at the Producers Guild, I think we’re still down to Spotlight vs. The Big Short, the only two films with SAG Awards Ensemble, DGA, PGA, Oscar screenplay/editing/directing/acting. One film about a team of journalists exposing pedophile priests and the other about a team of Wall Street players discovering fraud on Wall Street, trying to warn someone before it was too late, and failing. And so it goes.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
Well said! 🙂
That’s why I put in the quotation marks. I don’t believe it is a safe sure bet. Though people like one, like The Revenant ATM, to bank on. Maybe The Revenant has one of those synthetic CDOs from The Big Short attached to it 😉
The Revenant is anything but a safe choice… (Though it might be the right choice, who knows?! We’ll find out in a few days’ time.)
The Globes shock element wins really gave The Revenant its steam as a contender. No one can deny that. Then the Oscars nominations happened. So with what I’m noticing is it’s the new ‘safe’ choice. It’s the new Spotlight. Still way too early to call just yet.
I’m simply not convinced that many people think of The Revenant as their #1 Best Picture. Getting a lot of nominations does not mean it is thought of as the best. I still think Spotlight is in the lead. Inarritu may win for director though if not George Miller.
But also… I seem to remember lots of folks agreeing that if Adam McKay got a Director nomination, then TBS should be considered the frontrunner for Picture. And then McKay was nominated and for some reason it wasn’t considered a great day for TBS. Only Sasha is holding on to it now. She may be right.
🙂
Me too. 🙂
You don’t. And it’s the correct decision, anyway. My enjoyment of awards season isn’t more important than all of the people’s I, apparently, genuinely bother with my stats comments. I get that. Had I known earlier, I would have done it earlier.
That’s what your parents said to me about your boyfriend. I tried to assure them he was only sponging off of you for your own good.
Don’t thank me for that. Now I feel bad.
I have no problems with those predictions, of course, but I didn’t mean you, anyway. There are others.
Thanks for helping (along with the other users that have forced me to take this decision) take half the fun out of Awards Season for me, which I expect will be the result of my not being allowed to debate over stats in the future! I guess I’ll just have to do it virtually, writing replies but never posting them. Thanks for helping to make me be even weirder than I already was!…
Actually, the debate wasn’t supposed to diminish the use of stats. It’s meant to be constructive.
Not sure who you’re referring to, but for the record, my predictions:
BP: SPOTLIGHT
BD: THE REVENANT
🙂 Sorry, I missed that one… I’ll check it out!
The people will get what they’ve asked for! I bow to the will of the people…
Anyway, I get it. I’m not allowed to talk about stats anymore. Fine. All I’ll ever say from now on is stuff like “in my opinion, the Revenant is highly unlikely to win because of the stats”, and when anybody asks me what those stats are, I’ll say “I’ve decided to withhold that information, by popular demand.” It’s easier for me too, you know?! You think I love wasting hours debating with such stubborn people? I do not… And I don’t enjoy vexing people either. I didn’t realize people couldn’t take it.
(You probably think I’m joking – you’ll see just how serious I am in the coming days. I’ll probably just use these exact phrases, unless I think of an even better way to put it.)
But I WILL also continue to update my database of people saying The Revenant will surely win, or that Spotlight can’t win, and I will make a big post after the Oscars calling all of those people out for their wrong predictions. Just as I will, if it turns out I was wrong, admit it publicly. I always do, when that happens. I’ve already promised it to others, you’re not the first one.
Or maybe I’m just pissed that no one laughed at my THE REVENANT gif in the comments higher up.
Good summary. I have the same habit – when I actually care about the outcome of the discussion. We might be in trouble here… 🙂
I have a bad habit of fighting for the last word.
Of course I have no mathematical proof; I don’t even have your prediction model. I just instigated a debate with you about the value of non-winners, you disagreed strongly, and we pursued. Then along the way, I started to doubt your reasoning (as well as my own of course). Like any debate, both sides had some condescending moments. But then it came to the boasting point… And now we’re here.
See, you probably thought I WASN’T aware that my stats probably aren’t strictly mathematically valid – you think I was born yesterday and that I didn’t already have this discussion with Marshall Flores. And you wanted to blow my mind… But, nope – I’ve heard nothing from you that I hadn’t heard before. Just because you don’t understand how pure math can be wrong about this particular aspect of reality (as it’s been, in history, many, many times, about many things, before being adjusted through new discoveries), it doesn’t mean it’s not the case.
“It gets exhausting to read same people with their stats over and over..”
Then don’t!
Exactly!
You realized (or at least pretended to) at least 4-5 messages ago that I was being ‘naive’ about it. So why keep arguing about it? Just say: ‘I’m satisfied you’re being naive and have no wish to waste my time on you any further,’ and the conversation will end, to the advantage of all (at least in your opinion.)
I believe you’re not sure at all, you have no mathematical proof that my stats are crap, that my success rate IS coincidence, and you sense it in your gut, but won’t admit it. That’s my contention.
You don’t think you’d already been condescending to me before I said all of those things? 🙂 Now who’s being naive?… I never boast unless provoked.
Because this all started with you disagreeing with this: “Yes, the winner stats should be weighted more, but the non-winner stats have non-zero weights as well.”
And I wanted to hear what your reasoning was. Now I know.
And my boasting comment was in response to things like this:
“Why do I make a big profit betting on the Oscars every year?” “because you don’t understand WHY it works” “It’ll make me look good when, yet again, the stats will give me the right winner. At some point, after enough years have passed and I’ve always gotten it right, though, don’t you think it kind of stops being a coincidence?… Maybe not. What can I tell you, then?! Nothing. Good for you!”
And tell all of the other pundits using them too! Write them emails and post screenshots here!
today i went for my 7th viewing of TFA ,think i’m done though starting to overdose on it hahaha
i saw trailer for spotlight and dear me whoever did the trailer should win an award because it comes off more lively than the actual movie that was pretty ho hum no salt or pepper
Also: if you feel so strongly about this, then tell Sasha her stats are worthless as well! She uses them too. Are you saying she’s also naive?
Also, consider this: if you were SO sure of yourself, of being right that my stats are worthless, would you really have wasted this much time/energy trying to convince me otherwise? To what end?
I’m not boasting about anything. You’re the one clearly trying to give off the impression you understand better than me things that nobody truly understands, because there are too many variables. I don’t try to understand them. I use them. That’s all.
Here’s a fun question to pose: If you had the power to decide ONE of the winners of all of this year’s current Oscar nominees, who would you pick? Mine would be George Miller for Director, just cos I’m afraid he’ll get shafted for Inarritu. Now you go.
Oh and the quantum physicist comment was again just another analogy. If you really want to talk about things that are impossible to quantify, they’re the ones to talk to…
I’m not dumping it on them; those guys do good work, they have real problems to solve.
Just sharing the sentiments of others here. Your use of “stats” should be taken with a grain of salt. And your emphasis/reliance on your “stats” and their “success rate” can often be unfounded. Not a bad thing at all. Just not something worth boasting about.
Not that easy, is it?!…
Don’t dump it on the quantum physicists. You do it! You tell me what all the variables are (or write a program that takes them all into consideration) and prove to me that my stats are worthless, using said variables! If you can’t do it, then you can’t prove I’m the one being naive here, and not you. I’ll even let you bring on a quantum physicist and get him to do it for you – but do it! Otherwise, what are we talking about?!
“(Or could it be that science actually CAN’T explain all of the things that go into the math generated by the Oscar stats, because there are millions of variables that are impossible to quantify?… Nah…)”
You should tell that to quantum physicists; I’m just glad they’re not settling for naive.
OK. Then I’m naive. I’d rather be naive and be right 7 times in a row than scientifically correct and right 5 out of 7. We’ll see how that works for me in the future – what more is there to say?
(Or could it be that science actually CAN’T explain all of the things that go into the math generated by the Oscar stats, because there are millions of variables that are impossible to quantify?… Nah…)
“20+ times in a row of getting the right result for BP isn’t coincidence anymore. ”
And engineers everywhere shake their heads in shame.
I don’t think it’s correct because it’s working right now. I think it’s correct because it works, retroactively, every year since basically forever, and it also has worked in the 6-7 years I’ve done it “live”. 20+ times in a row of getting the right result for BP isn’t coincidence anymore. Do you think it is? If you do, then I’ll agree with you that I’m being naive.
Never said you were childish. Just pointing out the analogy of how naive it is to think that “if it’s working right now, it’s obviously correct”.
🙂 You sound reductive and smug, because you don’t understand WHY it works, but, OK… If you want to think I’m childish, go ahead! I don’t even mind that…
You sound like a kid that just unwrapped a shiny new neural network for Christmas. You don’t quite know how to use it, but because the naive approach yields decent results already, you think you’re a pro.
And even for that interpretation process I did my best to be as objective as possible. I always do. If I didn’t succeed, well, then it’ll tell at some point. If I did (and it’s looking good so far), and I’m right in thinking the stats are as indicative as I think they are, then it won’t. At least not more than once or twice every 20 years or so…
The only thing that could change my overall interpretation would be a significant change in a certain stat’s percentage. But that’s not personal either. It’s an objective adjustment to the ‘algorithm’, if you will.
The only thing I use my own logic for is interpreting the stats. But I don’t change the way I interpret them with every new year. I have a consistent system. Which is why there’s no real confirmation bias beyond that initial interpretation.
🙂 No, they’re not. Because I don’t select something I think will win and just adjust the stats to that. I change my prediction whenever the stats situation changes. There’s no personal, subjective element there. You’re wrong if you think that. That’s the whole point of using the stats, for me.
Again, you may think the stats mean nothing. That’s good for me. It’ll make me look good when, yet again, the stats will give me the right winner. At some point, after enough years have passed and I’ve always gotten it right, though, don’t you think it kind of stops being a coincidence?… Maybe not. What can I tell you, then?! Nothing. Good for you! 🙂
“I don’t need to KNOW what the causality is. I know there is one. The numbers make me confident there is, and that’s good enough for me; and, again, it works. If you don’t believe I’m right about this, and you have no confidence in it, then just ignore me. Makes no difference to me whether you agree with my theories or not… :)”
This. This is why your estimate of the current frontrunner is just the same (potentially just as uneducated) as everyone else’s. If you are correct with BP in the end, you’ll say “hey, my stats work”. If you are incorrect, you’ll say “it’s an outlier year, but I was right about the frontrunner”. It sounds like you’re relying just as much on intuition as everybody else; your stats are simply there for confirmation bias. This isn’t a bad thing; it just sounds like stats are as useful to you as they are to everybody else.
This IS like betting on sports – because, while the precursor stats themselves are based on historical tendencies, the conclusions drawn from them are based on this year’s (season’s) results.
And, if it’s not like betting on sports, why do I make a big profit betting on the Oscars every year? With my irrelevant stats…
What makes them important is their percentage of correlation, yes. I understand that there’s, perhaps, no mathematical basis for this, but I don’t care. It’s self-evident, I’m sorry! If there was no causality, the math says there would be less correlation, percentage-wise. Since we’re talking about a number of stats, it’s clear that it’s not coincidental. With one stat, I could understand making that point… Not with dozens.
I don’t need to KNOW what the causality is. I know there is one. The numbers make me confident there is, and that’s good enough for me; and, again, it works. If you don’t believe I’m right about this, and you have no confidence in it, then just ignore me. Makes no difference to me whether you agree with my theories or not… 🙂
I should add that this isn’t like betting on sports. The players in Green Bay this year have significant overlap with the players in Green Bay last year. This isn’t the case for movies; the most effective stats come from this year.
This is exactly what I meant about chasing. “Important” groups? “Important” categories like BD, editing, screenplay? “Important” guilds? What makes them “important” in predicting BP? Because they just so happen to line up with BP in 87 (and even less) years? I have as much confidence in that as I do with the “THE” correlation.
The right way to use stats is to consider 1) the intersection of memberships between guilds and AMPAS, 2) the results of previous votes by these guilds/AMPAS in the same year (after all, nominations are essentially the result of short list voting), and 3) the reactions/comments of industry/AMPAS members. All of this amounts to one thing: what are they voting for this year?
I understand. I can’t build a bigger sample size. So I work with what I have. What sample size does going with my intuition (or even my arguments) over facts have? 1?
Also, keep in mind the stats used for BP prediction aren’t only used singularly, but in correlation with each other. So the margin for error is actually much, much smaller than if you consider it an 87 year sample size. We use clues from the 10-20 most important groups, which increases the chances of predicting the right result greatly. All of those are valid clues for predicting BP. That’s what most people don’t get. It’s not 87 years. It’s 87 years times 3 (for the 3 main Oscar stats – BD, Editing, Screenplay) – roughly -, plus the 20 years of SAG, the 25 years of the PGA, the n years of Golden Globe Best Director, the 25+ years of ACE, etc. – that’s a lot of years, a lot of clues, and eventually the more liked movie overall will emerge as the result of comparing all of them and correctly interpreting what they mean, together. The weaknesses and strengths will show somewhere, and in the right proportions. I don’t know if that’s scientific enough for you, but it works. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. You’ll see! It’s as simple as that. At least I have some palpable things to base my ‘you’ll see’ on, as opposed to the Revenant stans, who have their assumptions, which are about as likely to be right as not. (Not to mention confirmation bias, which the pundits, I’ve found, listening to many podcasts, reading many articles, in years past, and this year, are guilty of just as often as us ‘mere mortals’…)
“That has a very small sample size and no causality.”
And you think 87 past BP winners is not a small sample size? And it’s not up to you to say that a stat has no causality; the amount of “causality” is actually what your model should be trying to solve. And when you think about it, looking at past BP winners also has minimal causality intuitively; the set of nominees in 2016 is completely disjoint from the set of nominees in any prior year.
A pundit who goes to a gala/luncheon and has conversations with friends of friends can easily build up a larger sample size than 87 past BP winners.
That has a very small sample size and no causality. That’s why it’s not a stat. Because it’s random. Stats have to make sense. All of the stats I work with make sense.
And no, I don’t think we’re trying to establish what they’ll vote for, but what will get the most votes (preferential-style.) Which is the winner, and only the winner.
Pundits know what extremely small sample sizes will vote for, and that’s why they’re far from being as reliable as the precursor stats.
I hear ya’! And there’s still another month and a half to go until Oscar night …
“We’re trying to establish what will win, not what will ALMOST win.”
Actually no we’re not. Think Moneyball. We’re trying to establish what they’ll vote for; that’s a fundamentally different goal. Sure, this is far more difficult because we don’t actually know their individual votes, but we work with what we’ve got (pundits actually know what people vote for; that’s why their stats tend to be stronger than ours). Otherwise you’re gonna find yourself chasing useless stats (e.g., since the preferential ballot, only 2 BP winners didn’t have the word “THE” in their title; this means SPOTLIGHT has less chances of winning).
Gosh.. It gets exhausting to read same people with their stats over and over.. Which are all broken sooner or later. No intuition, no momentums, no exceptions, not going with the flow, just the stats people, the stats!! I can’t wait for Oscars day and see where all the stats about SAGs and screenplays and red carpet companions end up.
Are you telling me she’s never gotten the winner wrong before? I think I can actually prove otherwise, if you challenge me… (And I told you why even the best pundits sometimes predict against the stats – to disastrous effect, mind you, every time, at least in BP, but not only: because they don’t realize just how important they are, and how big a part of the story they actually tell. Which they should. Sasha knows it. She values the stats almost as much as I do, and that’s saying something, because nobody values them QUITE as much as I do. 🙂 I’m a fanatic, and I know it. But I also believe I’m right to be one, when it comes to predicting the Best Picture winner.)
🙂 I don’t. But I’m not just going to let him accuse me of stuff that’s untrue and get away with it, either. That’s one of the things I hate most in life. I know I have extreme reactions to it, but there it is… I always have.
Anne Thompson is predicting TR to win. She’s quite good. But some people hold on so tight to their stats.. Just let them be man. Too much bad energy, it gets exhausting argueing with them.
“Yes, the winner stats should be weighted more, but the non-winner stats have non-zero weights as well.”
Disagree. We’re trying to establish what will win, not what will ALMOST win. That’s not the same. Introducing the latter into the equation can only muddy the waters, if nothing else, for the simple reason that we don’t KNOW what was actually close. All that stuff you named is just circumstantial evidence. Even the PGA tie is. For all we know, Gravity could have finished DEAD LAST in the preferential that year with the Academy. Yes, even though it won 7 Oscars. It’s mathematically possible (and probably not even as unlikely as you would think.) It could EASILY have been a very distant 2nd or even 3rd.
Don’t mind him, Claudiu.
If it works, great.
“Almost won Best Picture” for GRAVITY simply means “won PGA, DGA and 7 Oscars including BD (plus other things that I don’t have time to write)”. That sounds like a good “stat” to me.
It’s not binary: you don’t just look at winners and deem everything else as a non-winner. Yes, the winner stats should be weighted more, but the non-winner stats have non-zero weights as well.
I’m sorry, but I never said or thought it would have made a difference. I just said I would have wished for it not to happen. Do you not understand what ‘rooting for’ something means? I’m not full of myself – you have poor reading skills and are highly paranoid, to boot, it would appear…
I think I know better IN THIS CASE, because they (I’ve heard this multiple times) don’t place as much emphasis on stats, and I think that’s wrong. Either they’re stubborn or they need to ignore the stats sometimes because it makes for more interesting writing for their site. I think it’s a combination of both, but mostly the latter. (I don’t think I know better IN MOST CASES – far from it; I rarely do, and in other categories I’m about as good at predicting as the average person, I would say, no better or worse, but BP is my specialty and I’ve done better than the pundits on numerous occasions in the past so, yeah, there I do believe I know better; I believe my interpretation is the correct one. If people never believed that, we’d all be fucking robots who thought the same thing the herd does every time.)
And because I’m a person and entitled to my own opinions, including sometimes thinking I’m right when many others are wrong. Are all of the other users who agree with me The Revenant is unlikely to win also full of themselves? Is your opinion on the subject (that it has a realistic chance) the only one anyone’s allowed to have without being considered arrogant?
Please get over yourself!…
When did I say it couldn’t happen? It’s unlikely and I’m confident it won’t, but it could still happen, in spite of the history and my intuition.
I can’t wait either – for the precedents to be confirmed! 🙂
Oops we have 2 Andrews here now.
As always, a person’s feelings for a film cloud analysis. I don’t remember reading so much about gravitys lack of SAG ensemble or screenplay nod. I think these factors make Revenant less likely, but don’t rule it out.
Just like best director didn’t rule Argo out, or editing didn’t rule Birdman out, there are plenty of examples.
What possible difference would your active rooting against Revenant have made? You are so full of yourself
gurus O’gold have Revenant up from 5th to 2nd for the BP win, so I don’t know why you think you know better.
I don’t think it’s the favourite at this point, it has a chance- unless you know better than all the experts
Just because something hasn’t happened before, doesn’t guarantee it won’t EVER happen.
America never had a black president for 2 centuries, and then Barack Obama was elected.
Records get broken. Precedents fall by the wayside. Geez, I can’t wait for Feb. 28 to come!
Well-said, Andrew. And I agree 1,000%. They vote based on their tastes, not the stats.
The real ending to THE REVENANT (animated gif)
It’s still box office numbers, so it still means close to nothing for Oscar voters, no matter whether they go up or down.
Also helping its case it’s second week box office numbers were not down that much.
it also mention that he was kidnapped by pirates and became one.
I figured that since you were sharing yours, I would share mine. Although my third sentence is not an opinion.
The Rotten Tomatoes negative number has become the stat of the moment until it’s disproven. The easiest explanation for this high negative number is that Birdman won Oscars galore last year against a movie that the critics preferred, and it’s an attempt to cut Inarritu down a few notches. Despite their efforts, the film is doing extremely well this awards season and in the box office. That said, it’s not a slam dunk. Spotlight is too bland to win. The Big Short is too gimmicky to win. Mad Max is too schizophrenic to win. I think by default Revenant takes it – but not director. They’ll give director probably to Miller.
It has a huge chance to win cinematography the movie sure was pretty and they are a big fan for big outdoor scenes.
The scenes with just scenery though pretty could have been edited.
I know – there are SO MANY arguments! The list is almost endless Which is why it bothers me so much when somebody posts a comment listing the 2-3 (and there aren’t many more than that) arguments that are actually in favor of The Revenant at this point, and just completely ignores all of the counter-arguments, both statistical and otherwise, and concludes that it’s down to The Revenant and The Big Short, or that The Revenant will definitely win… Had I known this was the sort of thing we were going to get, I would have actively rooted against The Revenant at the Globes and on Oscar nominations morning… (Even though I don’t hate the movie at all.)
“Divisive movies got eliminated no matter the level of support they get from branches.”
Exactly – doesn’t bode well for The Revenant’s BP chances either… (Not that I believe it has any particular chances, but others do.)
I have watched “Carol” a second time because I didn’t watch properly the first time. The direction of “Carol” is best with the exception of, maybe, the exception of MM: FR. Both performances of the lead actors are the best and better than the favourites for BA, Larson and Ronan. “Carol” is my joint favourite along with “Inside Out” film of 2015. It’s fascinating that both favourite films have the highest MC score. Made I have the same taste as the critics and I do generally enjoy films with MC score. “Carol” is cinematic art at its best. To be perfectly honest, I am absolutely embarrassed I didn’t watch “Carol” properly and appreciate it much sooner. I am not critic nor an Academy member but what were the Academy thinking snubbing “Carol” for BP and especially BD. The direction of “Carol” is one of the best I have seen for a long time and totally outclasses the competition. I was thinking that “Carol” would need to do “The Full Monty” in order to win BAFTA BP as that film was the last film not recognised by PGA to win BAFTA BP. Now I really hope it does that and BAFTA shoves it in the Academy’s face for their big misjudgement. Whether you liked the film and its theme or not, there’s no denying “Carol” is the most artistic film and should’ve been recognised for that alone. The best performances last year were been given by Blanchet and Mara and they would deserve to win BA and BSA. I thought BAFTA made a mistake by snubbing MM: FR but it turns out the Academy made an even bigger mistake by snubbing “Carol”. “Carol” should easily win Best Costume Design, Best Make Up and Hairstyling(Although it might go to TR for making Leo ugly), BSA for Mara(please, no more shocking snubs, Academy), score and Production design (It faces big competition from MM: FR but it could still win). “Carol” might win three Oscars and that wouldn’t be so bad in the end.
It’s clear that Mad Max HAS to win 🙂
According to Wikipedia: Glass did not have a wife during that journey in ”The Revenant,” but he later lived among the Pawnee and married a Pawnee woman. … Also, ”Glass was aided by friendly Native Americans who sewed a bear hide to his back to cover the exposed wounds and provided him with food and weapons.” And finally, ”Reportedly, Glass spared Fitzgerald’s life because of the penalty for killing a soldier in the U.S. Army.”
Half of the Actors roundtable represented performers of color, so at least the Hollywood Reporter made an effort to be more diverse. As opposed to its all-white Actress roundtable.
but Lubezki is again Deserving, and has perhaps topped himself here.
Wait what? Ur job? What’s ur job?
Yes. It looked like Carol had support in techs too which things like Brooklyn lacked and yet it could not make it into BP.
Their directors roundtable has been very off too. Only Innaritu made it in. Actress were better.
TV alert: Sundance Channel is airing today a Hollywood Reporter’s roundtable on actors, clearly timed for awards season. The participants are: Michael Caine, Benicio del Toro, Joel Edgerton, Samuel Jackson, Mark Ruffalo and Will Smith. What are the odds that Ruffalo turned out to be the only Oscar nominee of the six?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/watch-thrs-actor-roundtable-will-852520
My bet is that, when they do, that movie will crush precursors and miss none of the big nominations required for a statistically flawless BP win. Like The Return of the King did (the only problem I recall it having was no acting nominations, which was minor, and certainly much, much less important than the huge stats problems all of its fellow nominees had that year.)
Definitely feels that way. But we’ll see – eventually, they’ll award a big budget, big box office success again. Just not this year… 🙂 (Most likely.)
I agree, but all of these arguments translate to precursor wins and lack of snubs. For The Revenant, they simply haven’t, so far – the GG wins are the only thing it has going for it, in that respect, and not even those, because they’re such poor predictors (just about the worst, apart from critics’ groups). The Oscar nominations were really a failure, in my opinion, for The Revenant (and don’t explode just because this seems counter-intuitive to you), because, stats-wise, the screenplay snub is 1000 times more important than the number of nominations (which has been proven time and time again).
It needs to win PGA+DGA, simple as that… Otherwise, all this talk of momentum for The Revenant will have been obvious nonsense. You probably think that is almost sure to happen (even though, like I said, the “evidence” for this is weak, at best) – we’ll see! Nothing more to say besides that, at this point…
“Precursors awards and nom are just a vague hint about how voting members are reacting to the films in the race but the Oscars are just a statistic error. In my opinion.”
I disagree. If they were just a vague hint, they wouldn’t have accuracy rates anywhere near the 90-95% the strongest ones (and there are dozens) all have.
You can’t just simply not give it to Lubezki for this one. And no one would be even outraged, he’s just that good.
More to the point, Elk Dog of the Arikara tribe was looking for his daughter, Powaqa. Some trappers had kidnapped her. It’s pretty clear. It’s threaded throughout the movie.
”Seriously, I’ve never shouted ”What’s going on??” so many times at the screen. People in the theater actually groaned and wanted me to leave.”
Because that was rude … and you were spoiling the movie for those who were enjoying it.
Not even remotely. ”Revenant” won Drama at Globes; ”Crash” wasn’t even nominated. Etc., etc.
Didn’t know where else to post this (thought it was interesting):
“Carol becomes the Most Nominated Film in the modern expanded Best Picture field era to not receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The previous record was a three way tie between The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011), Skyfall (2012) and Foxcatcher (2014) which each received 5 nominations but were not included in Best Picture.” – From The Film Experience Blog.
Yes, and you’ve won. Congratulations!
I feel like that year somehow broke the Academy. Like they had to crown ROTK or the whole world would have rioted. They really didn’t have a choice. So it might be that they don’t want to feel like they’re catering to audiences anymore. Like they really need to be better than us.
every movie that ever won Best Picture won because of one thing: perception. The perception hollywood has of the movie in that specific timeframe when they vote. Perception and momentum are the key. It is sometimes about the theme of the movie, sometimes about the star, the director, the idea, the gimmick… it is sometimes that people just don’t want the perceived probable winner to win and they find the most valuable option to beat what they hate. The pattern is not a pattern, every year the actors are different. That is why the campaigns are often about throwing mud to other nominees, to change perception. Precursors awards and nom are just a vague hint about how voting members are reacting to the films in the race but the Oscars are just a statistic error. In my opinion.
It’s winning.
Yes, but there are clues for what they’ll vote for. Big clues. The stats. That’s precisely what they reflect – voting tendencies throughout the years (and whether or not they’re likely to change, based on recent patterns.)
That’s good information. Thanks.
“You might even be suffering from the early signs of alzheimer’s disease, because you’re displaying erratic and forgetful behavioral traits.”
What an asshole.
As for the other thing, I quote Dane M: “Still, if you made the “almost won Best Picture” argument, you would have no stats left with which to work.”
How many since Return of the King? (Which includes several non-preferential years, anyway.)
I posted that already in the other thread:
“History speaks for itself – how many nominations leaders (no matter how many tech nominations and across-the-board support they had) have won BP over the past 10-15 years or so? 50% since the switch to preferential (and two of the 3 that did were only co-leaders, whereas AH & Gravity both lost in 2013), 4 out of the last 11, for a measly 36%, and you have to go back all the way to American Beauty’s year before it’s at 50% again (8/16) – so, yeah, false evidence, indeed, since these percentages only prove that number of nominations proves nothing other than that sometimes that movie wins (not to mention the fact that all of those 8 movies to have won in the last 16 years had screenplay and SAG Ensemble nominations, of course – The Revenant has NEITHER.) So why are we giving any credence to the (barely) 50%-since-1999 stat over the two 100%-since-1999 stats?…
[The same stat for all movies with at least 12 nominations: still 50% since the switch to preferential (1/2), and the same (3/6) since the American Beauty year (ceremony held in 2000.)]”
What did you think the numbers were? I bet you didn’t think they were this bad!…
Two BP winners in a row picked against the critics would be AWESOME. But it won’t happen.
YES – thank you! They’d love that, the ‘momentum’ crowd…
Exactly. ‘Good luck with that!’ is the correct comment… 🙂
And now we’ll be told for days that The Revenant has the momentum… (Until it stops.)
Nothing’s won without SAG Ensemble AND screenplay.
There are abolsutely no signs that they feel remorse. Everyone is saying that the crafts guilds pushed Mad Max to the BP nominations but i doubt craft guilds can make you win.
I loved The Revenant but the last shot was definitely awkward and unnecessary.
It’s winning. They are both winning. I have a good feeling about this. DGA and PGA will go for MMFR.
Preach!
I was thinking about it yesterday and the only way they can go for it is because the #Oscarssowhite narrative. i mean, mad max has the feminist angle and is the only movie in the race where the public saw some political agenda, even if the movie itself don’t meant it. The Revenant has the natives but the movie is not exactly about them, and i don’t think people care so much about Spotlight (the topic is important but the movie is boring). Mad Max winning could make a lot of people happy with the academy again.
Why would the Arikawa attack the trappers? Really? You don’t know American history I guess.
Mad Max, like the Revenant, no doubt, took some time to sink in and find an audience. I know a lot of people, myself included, fhought it was just an empty overly loud action thing. On more viewings, I now conclude its a helluva lot more. I can’t wait to watch Revenant again to see if it makes a bigger impression.
A list which seems more confusing every year.
But really we only know the very slightest facts about Glass. Punke’s novel plays with truth as well. He survived the bear attack but was killed by the Arikawa several years later.
All historical films veer from the truth. We always inject our current perceptions and especially the further away a particular time and place existed.
Couldn’t stand Braveheart. Different strokes for different folks.
Are you ADD or something? People have forgotten how to savor a film. It’s too much ” where’s the action”.
No! What didn’t you understand? It was pretty obvious to me.
The revenant will still be watched some years from now while the big short will be largely forgotten. It kind of falls into the shining territory. Not a bad place to fall.
Well, next week we’ll know, won’t we?
Good analysis and I hope you are right.
But, if I was going to bet more than I could afford, I’d put my money on the alpha dog, Revenant. Steak-eaters love vintage testosterone.
The Peeves within is rooting for Busby Berkeley (Mad Max).
The Shining was nommed for the Razzies, I believe. As was Dressed to Kill. So much for reviews and scores
I knew you were going to write this post.
Still, if you made the “almost won Best Picture” argument, you would have no stats left with which to work.
Quite a bit. He never had a wife and son when this had all happened, for example. A native American did not help him during his 7 weeks alone in the frontier. And finally, Hardy’s character successfully escaped and enlisted, which means he could not be killed. So Glass never got revenge.
Mad Max is winning because it’s the right thing to do. After AMPAS chickened out of awarding Gravity, they won’t make such mistake that this time around. There are many signs that point out that they feel remorse. So, yeah, the best movie will win together with its director.
The most important here is: voters vote for whoever they like best. We obsess over every precursor & stat. Whom ever the mostly older mostly men vote for, wins.
Is there an Oscar for silliest post this season?
If the Revenant wins, it will be Crash all over again.
I didn’t like the revenant either.
Mad Max Fury Road is winning this all the way.
You’re completely out of line to swear at me dear, I’m just doing my job here.
DiCaprio is a lock for the Oscar. He’s getting the raves of his career, and anyone saying otherwise- like yourself- is just in denial. You might even be suffering from the early signs of alzheimer’s disease, because you’re displaying erratic and forgetful behavioral traits. DiCaprio wasn’t the only guy not nominated for Titanic. Billy Zane also failed to be recognize, as did the underrated Bill Paxton in those amazing opening 20 minutes where he interviews the old Rose and you can see in his eyes – he cares about the old hag, and the diamond. Titanic only got nominated for the women.
The Revenant has a higher score then you state. And again- scores don’t mean anything. Critics change their minds all the time. The Shining got terrible reviews when it came out in 1980. It’s now regarded as a horror classic. I was in theaters then the movie came out, and I remember a psychic leaned over to me and said “this will be remembered years from now as the best Kubrick film of all time.” I brushed her off because I was shivering in my heels, but you get the idea.
I dont know what you are talking about with regard to scale and all…but what i am saying is with respect to rotten tomatoes..its has 76 in metacritic and they dont like Leo that much…TBH he was the only guy not nominated for best actor oscar for titanic….so its pretty clear..he is too much a diva for oscars and right fully so…acting my a$$ he is more overacting..dont bring spiritual bull$hit into conversation…its fking annoying
Both films were based on true stories. I know just how far Braveheart veers from the historical truth (light years), and I’m now wondering just how far The Revenant does.
I enjoyed The Revenant, admired Inarritu’s direction and DiCaprio’s acting – plus a bunch of other things. But I do agree about the ending and I love this…”There’s taking yourself too seriously, there’s being pretentious and then there’s that.” Yes indeed : )
I usually don’t talk about scoring, because I believe in spiritual forces vs. plain logic. But I’ll enlighten you.
There are different variables when going strictly on scores. In my Midwest Group Meeting room there is a board with the scores for the top films that the psychics ranked.
Revenant has 92% but that’s based strictly on a sliding scale. When we scored the film, the first ballots listed it at 90- then it was bumped 2% on the third round. The prognosis is that seventy percent of the voters in our group preferred Spotlight, which got a 93- but then in the fourth round it slipped to an 89. Big Short came in third with 88, but 1/4 of the women voters over 50 opted to check their ballots twice and gave Brooklyn number one placements, thus increasing it’s increment to a 91.
It gets more confusing after that. The bottom line is that scores don’t mean anything. They are only talked about by bloggers who feel they have to justify why a film cannot prevail simply because it doesn’t have an A in the class. It doesn’t matter. Voters choose what they want. You’re all nerds in their eyes.
pedophiles it will not…wallstreet may be because this is not like wolf of wallstreet..its more about economy and corruption…revenant is too violent and they dont like mexicans thats much..alejandro getting 6 oscars is like a non american having more oscars than americans….so its too much…rotten tomatoes its at 80% so thats pretty low agreement level for best picture in general
I liked it more than I thought I would since I really did not care for Birdman. It did drag somewhat they could have easily shorten scenes were no action was taking place.
OMG! I love me some fresh Danish (late teens/early 20’s)! And I don’t mean the pastries, you perverts 😉
The Revenant is unlike Braveheart in a lot of ways though, for example, what you brought up yourself about the plot. Braveheart had a very clear storyline. Also, Braveheart wasn’t a solo story entirely and at least in my opinion, was a much more emotional movie. The Revenant was a little cold for me, pun intended 😉
Editing is way more than the change of roll. With Birdman, the editing was laughable with the cheesy fast came pan or the use of darkness to his the transitions. Gravity used tons of continual tracking shots, and it won the Oscar for editing, despite its relatively low number of cuts. Gravity’s editing was sublime; Birdman’s was clunky.
He didn’t die at the end, he was breathing funny and was hallucinating. Seeing his dead wife.
The Revenant was the most confusing movie I saw last year. Again, why would Indians attack the Frontiersman?? If Leo was the father of a Native American, what was the battle about? That part was a real question mark. And I thought David O Russell movies made no sense. Seriously, I’ve never shouted “What’s going on??” so many times at the screen. People in the theater actually groaned and wanted me to leave.
Also people keep saying The Revenant would be the first movie since Braveheart to win Best Picture with no SAG Ensemble nod. Uh, first of all the 90s is not a good comparison for the SAGs. They gave The Birdcage their Best Ensemble award, and that movie didn’t even get up for best picture or any acting awards. Secondly, The Revenant is just like Braveheart in many ways. Sweeping epics, about a man out for revenge in the wilderness. Lots of violence and bow and arrows flying everywhere. It’s redundant. People don’t like change. Why do you think we keep seeing the same movies over and over again? Recycled concepts, A rebooted Full House show, Whoopi saying she’s an American not African-American (she says that every year). There’s no originality left in Hollywood. It’s all the same.
Have you heard of danish pastries? Or is the word ignoramus next to your picture in the dictionary…
So let me get this straight. You went to a shop where they bake moms and pops and they specifically offered you Danish ones? a) That’s sick. b) It really doesn’t sound that diverse.
I didn’t like THE REVENANT but I didn’t hate it either but that ending. The very last 10 seconds made me tell that movie to go F itself. I mean I sat they’re thinking, “Nah he’s not going to…. that would be so ridic…. OMG lolololol” If that’s resentment then that would explain it. There’s taking yourself too seriously, there’s being pretentious and then there’s that.
Also was not on AFI list.
Not buying the high cost argument (pun intended).
It’s not that rare (albeit, less frequent) for them to pick high budget movies: LOTR: ROTK, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, GLADIATOR, TITANIC, BRAVEHEART, FORREST GUMP, to name a few. Unlike your first argument, this has nothing to do with the preferential ballot, so we should be looking beyond the recent years. Plus, as others have mentioned, GRAVITY ought to be considered a semi-winner, since that race was ridiculously close.
Be good to see some analysis of number of noms/most noms with BP winner
PGA I think will be most instructive. Killed the Birdman was too divisive argument. Of course the anti Birdman crowd said it still wouldn’t win.
I still think Spotlight is most likely. But I think it’s a three way race with TBS & The Revenant right now. In fact the Gurus O’Gold have Revenant second now.
I think you meant Titanic won without Screenplay nom.
Keep dreaming.
Gravity didn’t have either of those, and it easily would’ve have won if 12 years didn’t have the historic narrative behind it (I mean, 12 years was worthy as well, but Gravity came so damn close)
We were told for months Birdman was too divisive to win.
We were told for months Hurt Lockers box office was too low.
Birdman won without Editing
Argo won without Director
Titanic won without SAG ensemble
AMPAS votes for who they want to. Whilst it’s useful to look for trends, they are only that
And this anecdote about one person liking that movie is somehow relevant to its chances of winning Best Picture? Or was that just satire?
There’s one movie that I think might win best picture that nobody is predicting. I’ll clue you in –
Last week I had the pleasure of going to a mom and pop bakery on the corner of a crowded but diverse New York City neighborhood. The owner came out and asked me if I wanted fresh Danish. I said of course and then told him that I wrote about films for a living. The owner paused, looked down and then back at me – and suddenly began to cry.
“What’s the matter dear?” I asked.
“I just saw a movie that changed my life. I’m originally from Ireland. And my family now has a chance to start over here – in America. And it’s all because of where we live now.”
I was also emotional at this point, and as I fought back the tears I said : “And where do you love now?”
He leaned over the counter and cried out in a whisper : “Brooklyn.”
I still need to watch The Revenant, but without considering that movie, Mad Max is by far the best film nominated. I hope it can win.
Very nice analysis of the box office stuff! Indeed, one more reason why we’re down to TBS and Spotlight, most likely…