The Oscar Squad continues with the latest update. You can find some of our squad members at their own sites – like Robin Write’s Filmotomy, Jordan Ruimy’s World of Reel, and Paddy Mulholland’s Screen on Screen.
Our update reflects, for the most part, the general consensus we’ve all agreed upon as we head into the last week before Oscar voting ends. There are a few categories where there might be upsets. As of now, Best Picture and Original Screenplay remain up in the air. Probably it’s down to Three Billboards vs. Get Out – they could split as well. Here are our best guesses in the main categories.
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Original Screenplay
Editing
Is there some sort of consipiracy against 3B? I don’t understand, I mean, I hated the movie and I guess you can still make an argument for SOW being just as viable, but not having 3B at least in the top 2 seems strange at this point.
I kinda miss Russell Crowe’s big movie star turns (e.g., Gladiator, Master and Commander, 3:10 to Yuma). Nowadays we only have these nancy bois. Mediocrity all around.
Is there some sort of consipiracy against 3B? I don’t understand, I mean, I hated the movie and I guess you can still make an argument for SOW being just as viable, but not having 3B at least in the top 2 seems strange at this point.
The low position of Three Billboards in those two categories is just horrendous punting, pre or post BAFTAs. Standards have dropped in this “close race”.
No short film predictions? If it is your job, you will find the time.
That chart was completed before the BAFTAs. The Squad was thinking (hoping?) that Nolan’s movie would sweep there and turn the race on its head. That’s the only rational reason why Dunkirk is ranked higher than 3BB. Though maybe only fierce denial explains 3BB placing lower than LB in the Original Screenplay chart.
Tell me if you feel differently, but I can’t really fathom TB winning Best Picture without a script win, especially given the Director snub. Many of us made this mistake predicting Birdman to take Picture and Director but Budapest to win a consolation prize in Screenplay. It happens, but statistically isn’t the most likely outcome, especially with a script-/dialogue-driven film in something of a two-horse race. Given that I unfortunately don’t feel a Shape of Water Best Picture win, I do feel that the screenplay winner between TB and Get Out will take Picture.
You guys should make an article on the Picture/Screenplay correlation. How many memorable splits have there been?
Million Dollar Baby/Sideways
The Artist/Midnight in Paris
Chicago/The Pianist
Gladiator/Almost Famous (not Best Pic nominee)
Titanic (not nom)/Good Will Hunting/LA Confidential
The English Patient/Sling Blade (not nominated)
Unforgiven/The Crying Game
Platoon/Hannah and Her Sisters
I stopped at 1980. I see a few different scenarios for a split:
-Screenplay is a passion pick/consolation prize, where the Best Picture’s Director is already winning (Unforgiven, MDB, Titanic, English Patient, Artist)—not as common today with the preferential ballot, but can still theoretically happen if the Best Picture is wins Director and a major tech or sweeps (Unforgiven won editing; MDB had two acting wins)
-Best Picture is going to a film that isn’t your typical Screenplay winner (Artist, Chicago, even Gladiator)
-Truly wonky, competitive year (Gladiator)
Gladiator is the weirdest example above because, though it lost to a film that wasn’t up for Best Picture and wasn’t really seen as a Screenplay-driven film, it didn’t win the most important Oscars to drive its Best Picture win. It won the most Oscars, with Pic, Actor, Visual Effects, Sound, and Costumes, but lost some key techs. Traffic, though bleak, had the actors’ support and won Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actor, and Editing, similar to how the more “important” late-breaking The Pianist won the most above-the-line awards outside of the top prize. Would these downer films have won on a preferential ballot up against more populist fare? Hard to say, but maybe unlikely if they couldn’t win a pure popular vote despite the actors’ and writers’ support.
What I am feeling though is that Shape of Water doesn’t have enough above-the-line support to pull this off. For example, a Sally Hawkins upset, especially over Frances in TB, would’ve been enough.
And it’s hard to justify Billboards losing Screenplay to Get Out but winning Best Picture without a Director nomination. Two acting awards is a lot, but Picture champs in similar situations still won the most awards on a major or mini-tech sweep, or by virtue of taking Director as well.
Summmary: if you are predicting Billboards to win Picture, it doesn’t make sense to predict a Get Out consolation prize in Screenplay, given that Billboards is Screenplay-driven, won’t win any techs, and can’t win Director. If you are predicting Shape to win Picture, you could predict Billboards to win three Oscars, but you should still predict an upset by Shape In one of the more open-ended tech categories like Cinematography or Sound Mixing, because Score and Production Design aren’t going to be enough to drive a Best Picture win for a tech-driven film with only one other above-the-line win.
Screenplay winner will also win the BP prize.
TB vs. Get Out
Yeah, you’re probably right (there are even some stats that have been discussed that support some of the points you’re making), but it has happened often enough (if you go beyond the last 10 years or so), so it’s possible. 🙂 I’m not predicting the BP/screenplay split, as I think 3B is the stats favorite to win screenplay, but I can see it happening, with Get Out. Not to mention that the Shape/3B split is possible – but that is a more typical one.
Have you watched the DGA feature film nominees symposium moderated by Jeremy Kagan?
I strongly advise to watch it if you haven’t yet. It was fun.
Cool! Had no idea that was a thing. Thanks for the tip!
It is long almost 2.5 hours but you get to know what the directors look like. Jeremy Kagan himself is a also director and has been the DGA special projects coordinator for almost 25 years.
You may also find the previous years on tube too. My favorite is 2015 with Adam McKay and George Miller participating !!
[Multiple postings of this, too, seem pretty inevitable…]
OK, finally found the time to look into the new stats situation, after Sunday’s results. It does look like The Shape of Water’s hurdles multiplied, though there’s nothing new to overcome that’s necessarily enormous, of course. And Three Billboards’ case was strengthened at the same time, obviously. Get Out’s stayed about the same, for also obvious reasons. Lady Bird and Dunkirk dropped a bit, too. Voting starts today, is that right? In any case, I’m probably not going to launch my preferential ballot simulation until tomorrow, or the day after that…
A whole bunch of new stats, based on the BAFTA results:
All six movies to have won both the Golden Globe and BAFTA for screenplay in the BFCA era that were eligible for the WGA (Django is the seventh, which wasn’t eligible, but still won the Oscar) won there. However, all (seven) also won the Critics Choice, so this is not quite the same as this year’s situation, as Three Billboards didn’t. Still, one has to deduce that Golden Globe and BAFTA wins for screenplay, put together, are a pretty powerful combo, to say the least, as far as predicting the WGA results goes. By comparison, the only movie that won the Critics Choice but lost both at the Globes (it was snubbed there, in fact, just like Get Out) and at BAFTA, but still won the WGA, was Arrival. (There are about eight such movies, by my count, so that’s very low.) Of course, Arrival lost the Globe and BAFTA to different movies (La La Land and Lion – none of which it beat for that WGA win, because La La Land was in the other category and Lion, by my recollection, was ineligible), unlike Get Out, and went on to also lose the Oscar to Moonlight, so that’s not a very promising precedent for Peele’s movie, anyway. But it does open the door for a hypothetical WGA win for Get Out over Three Billboards, had they faced each other there. So it’s pretty clear that winning only the Critics Choice simply isn’t enough, almost ever, to lead to a WGA win, especially if the movies said contender lost screenplay to at the Globes and BAFTA are also eligible there. Which says, to me, like that Globe snub stat does as well, that Three Billboards would have been a pretty clear favorite to win the WGA, had it been allowed to compete there, and that Get Out is also more likely than not to lose the Oscar.
Since 2000, when BAFTA has split film and director, the movie that won Best Film went on to repeat in the same category at the Oscars 4/5 times, and only once was it the movie that won for direction (No Country for Old Men) that claimed Best Picture instead. And that wasn’t with the preferential ballot. (Twice, neither of the two won Best Picture.) In the preferential era, whenever there have been splits at either BAFTA, the Golden Globes or the Critics Choice, the movie that won director but not also picture always lost BP at the Oscars as well, to the movie that won picture instead (or one of the movies that won picture, in the case of the Globes). 12 Years a Slave and Gravity split at all three. At the Critics Choice, Spotlight is the only other picture winner to not also win director in these eight years – it split with Mad Max: Fury Road. At BAFTA, the only other split is, of course, The King’s Speech vs. The Social Network, which also went in favor of the former for BP at the Oscars. Things used to be different – when one or more of these split (and sometimes they split in very contradictory ways, not like in 2013), the win used to go about as often to the directing winner as it did the picture winner, if any of them won BP. This all strongly suggests Three Billboards is the more likely Best Picture Oscar winner than The Shape of Water, since it has now twice won picture vs. the latter’s director, in a split, at one of these three major precursors.
Five of the seven movies that have won both Best Film and Best British Film at BAFTA AND were also nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars won that award – most famously, The King’s Speech, which is also the only one to have won those two BAFTA prizes since 1967. Another stat: only one of the eleven movies since 2000 that won for direction at BAFTA but lost for cinematography won Best Picture at the Oscars (Argo), as opposed to four out of seven for those that won both director and cinematography at BAFTA. (The Artist, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire and No Country for Old Men.) So, that defeat might prove relevant as well, who knows?!
Five out of the six movies to have won for both film and screenplay at BAFTA since 2000 went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. Two of those five also lost for direction at BAFTA – The King’s Speech, of course, but also The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King! So, all of BAFTA’s disagreements with AMPAS on best picture (including the very famous last three – La La Land, The Revenant and Boyhood) since 2000 were movies that did not also win the screenplay award from the British Academy – except for Brokeback Mountain, but, even then, Best Picture at the Oscars went to the other BAFTA screenplay winner, Crash. The two had shared screenplay wins that season, including the only two times there was a single screenplay category (at the Globes – BBM – and Critics Choice – Crash), meaning it’s far from inconceivable that, had they again been in the same category, Crash would have beaten Brokeback Mountain for screenplay at BAFTA. Needless to say, Three Billboards has won both Best Film and Best Original Screenplay, beating The Shape of Water for both.
No Best Picture winner since 2000 has had fewer than three BAFTA nominations. (Million Dollar Baby had zero, because it wasn’t seen in time.) Spotlight had three, winning one, and Moonlight had four and lost all of them. Those are the lowest. Get Out had two, and lost both of them. (Daniel Kaluuya’s win for Rising Star, though, might be counted as a third, as it’s probably entirely due to his performance in Get Out, and he had some competition for the award, so it probably does mean something that he won.) Moonlight and The Departed are the only BP winners in this period of time to win no BAFTA’s – that had any nominations. Spotlight and Birdman won one each, which hadn’t happened before, so there is definitely a better chance of this happening when the Oscar winner is decided via preferential voting. Funnily enough, none since 2000 have won exactly five – Three Billboards’ tally… That’s the only number of BAFTA wins between zero and seven wins not represented among BP winners since the date change, so I guess it’d be a nice little bit of “evening out” for that movie to win BP.
Moonlight and Birdman are also the only two Best Picture winners since 2000 to have won neither film, screenplay or acting awards at BAFTA. Moonlight, of course, was in a different category than at the Oscars, where it was a big favorite to win for screenplay, and would have probably won at BAFTA, too, had it been in that category, though one can’t be certain. And Birdman won the Oscar for screenplay (among others), after also winning the Globe and Critics Choice, despite losing to The Grand Budapest Hotel in that category at BAFTA. Birdman also won for cinematography. The Shape of Water lost film, screenplay and both of its acting bids at BAFTA this year, as well as cinematography to Deakins, and has no significant screenplay precursors, so it doesn’t really fit in with any of the other BP winners since 2000, according to this stat. Nor does Get Out, of course. (Million Dollar Baby, had it been seen by voters in time, very likely would have won for at least lead actress, as Swank swept the other precursors that year.)
Since 1993, the only movie to be nominations leader at BAFTA and lose Best Film, but still go on to win Best Picture at the Oscars, is Chicago (2002). It won supporting actress and one other award. This is The Shape of Water’s situation, but with a directing win standing in for the acting win, and two techs instead of one. Also, the only movies to win at least four BAFTA’s and not win at least three Oscars, since 2000, were La vie en rose (2007), which won four BAFTA’s (so still one fewer than Three Billboards) and only two Oscars – and had only three Oscar nominations, compared to seven at BAFTA (it wasn’t nominated for best film/picture at either) and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which also won four BAFTA’s, but only two Oscars. So, Three Billboards is unlikely to win fewer than three Oscars, and, therefore, unless it picks up a weird one in addition to the two acting locks, it’s unlikely to not win either screenplay or picture, or both. (And it’s not very easy to imagine it winning screenplay and the two acting awards, and not winning picture, though it remains plausible, mostly due to The Shape of Water. I’d say this is bad news for Get Out, a lot more than it is for The Shape of Water, because the former very likely needs that screenplay win in order to challenge for Best Picture, and this stat says it probably can’t get both.)
Finally, losing the Golden Globe and BAFTA, in addition to SAG Ensemble, isn’t quite enough to eliminate a movie from the Best Picture conversation, but it’s definitely a big handicap. The Departed and Million Dollar Baby are the only ones since 2000 to have won without any of those wins on their resumes – M$B was basically ineligible at BAFTA, but, the way that season went, you have to imagine it would have lost Best Film there even had it been nominated. Braveheart also had neither, though then BAFTA was post-Oscars. But, again, seems unlikely it could have won there, regardless. Three exceptions in 22 years are enough, but barely…
And a few that aren’t (mostly) based on BAFTA:
Of the five movies to sweep the four major directing precursors (DGA, BAFTA, Critics Choice, Golden Globe) since 2000, when BAFTA began to be held before the Oscars, four also won for film/picture at the PGA, BAFTA, the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice (Gravity only tied for the PGA win, and lost the others) – also, the only two of those five that ended up winning Best Picture at the Oscars also won SAG Ensemble. (Argo and Slumdog Millionaire) The other three (La La Land, Gravity and Brokeback Mountain) all lost (or weren’t even nominated for) that award. (For the record, Titanic lost for directing at BAFTA, after the Oscars, and Braveheart lost the DGA. The English Patient lost the Globe – and BAFTA. American Beauty and Saving Private Ryan lost BAFTA.) Brokeback Mountain is the only one of the five that won the WGA, but didn’t also win Best Picture. As mentioned earlier, Crash also won the WGA, in the other category. Of course, I’m giving this stat in relation to The Shape of Water’s directing wins at all four major ceremonies so far. Since it lost both SAG and the WGA, it seems to fit in perfectly with the group that loses Best Picture at the Oscars. La La Land even won BAFTA and the Globe for picture, and still couldn’t pull it off…
There are, for comparison, plenty of movies whose directors, like McDonagh, didn’t win anywhere major, but that still ended up winning Best Picture at the Oscars. Moonlight, Spotlight and 12 Years a Slave under the preferential ballot, then Crash and Gladiator, then, before 2000, Shakespeare in Love and Driving Miss Daisy (no Critics Choice back then, but it wasn’t winning there, anyway, given that Beresford was snubbed at both the DGA and the Globes), since 1990. All of those either won (5) or were ineligible for (2) the WGA. Only 12 Years a Slave, Gladiator and Driving Miss Daisy won the PGA, among them. None of them won the DGA – obviously, given the premise of this stat. Spotlight, Crash and Shakespeare in Love also won SAG Ensemble. Moonlight is the only one that won the WGA alone, among the big four guilds. (Which I guess we can now call the “Grand Slam”, since it’s become even clearer that the PGA, DGA and SAG aren’t sufficient to clarify things. Doesn’t sound as nice as the “Triple Crown”, though…) Of relevance to Get Out’s situation might be that all of these won either the Golden Globe (five of them) or the Critics Choice (Spotlight) for best film, or SAG Ensemble (Crash). Another 100% stat for it to overcome…
Finally, I also wanted to say that I think now, after BAFTA, the best precedent for this year’s race, in terms of precursor wins trajectories, has become the Shakespeare in Love/Saving Private Ryan year. The major difference being, of course, that those two had no major snubs – but, if you think, like me, that the Oscar snub for directing and the SAG snub for ensemble are, as the percentages also seem to indicate, probably roughly equivalent in terms of importance, it all amounts to about the same thing, and the similarities are many: Like Three Billboards, Shakespeare in Love won SAG Ensemble, the Golden Globe (for comedy/musical, in its case) and BAFTA (after the Oscars, but one has to imagine a movie with that subject and several big British actors might’ve won there anyway, regardless of when the ceremony was held), and lost the PGA, DGA and Critics Choice to Saving Private Ryan, which was also dominating the directing wins (it only lost that prize at BAFTA, to The Truman Show) and, in addition, won the Globe for drama, and then lost the WGA, like The Shape of Water, to Shakespeare in Love. (The difference being, of course, that Shape didn’t lose to Three Billboards, which was ineligible, but rather to Get Out. Which is in no way better.)
Of course, Shakespeare in Love was the nominations leader, with 13 nods to Ryan’s 11, at the Oscars, but it was a costume/period movie, so it had the advantage there, explaining its nods for production design, costumes and makeup, at least, which would be very hard to get (even one of them) for a movie like Three Billboards, no matter how good it was. Take out those three, and Saving Private Ryan becomes the nominations leader, albeit not as clear of a leader as Shape. Shakespeare in Love also had three acting nods, and won two of those bids, for lead and supporting actress (Ryan had only one, and Hanks lost), in addition to picture, screenplay, score, production design and costumes – all very similar to Three Billboards’ situation, minus the extra tech nods and wins. Ryan’s wins, apart from directing and maybe cinematography, were very different from what Shape is likely to get, but that was a war film, and that slot is filled by Dunkirk this year, which is expected to win the other three categories SPR won. Overall, I’d say Ryan was probably in slightly better shape than Shape. 🙂 And it lost.
P.S.: Updated percentages for the Best Picture win, almost definitely final:
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – 48% (After a recount of the various precedents, with BAFTA now factored in. Seems very reasonable, keeping it under 50%…)
The Shape of Water ——————————— 36% (Some might argue this is too high, some might argue it’s too low… It depends on too many unclear things to be sure.)
Get Out ————————————————— 9% (I don’t see enough reason to either raise or lower this figure. Lowering it might be better, but I’m not convinced…)
Lady Bird ———————————————— 4%
Dunkirk ————————————————– 2%
All the rest ———————————————– 1% total. (Which might be generous – but might also be too low.)
So thorough! Thanks for this.
Yeah – that’s why it actually wasn’t trivial to find time to do it all. 🙂 There was a long list of things I wanted to check, ideas I got based on what went down at BAFTA, and the possibilities it opened up…
Hey Claudiu, can you check your email if you have a minute? Thanks!
Good work. You were especially marvellous this season and you really did all the homework for us.
HFPA and BAFTA performance of Get Out sort of designed my/your verdict on the race. I am a little bit worried on this.
Thank you! 🙂 It’s not my doing, really, though – the season itself has managed to become so interesting and so twisted in its logic and outcomes, that it’s been easy to find a billion interesting things to say about the BP race, and an equally large amount of stats to analyze that could actually be relevant to what happens on the 4th. I’ve enjoyed it, no matter the outcome. (Even though I’ll obviously enjoy it even more if it’s not the undesirable outcome, as far as I’m concerned.)
But that’s the thing, it’s not just its HFPA and BAFTA performances. Those contribute to its not being favorite for screenplay but, even if it was, simply Oscar and guild stats are enough to still not make it the favorite for picture. No Triple Crown wins means it would have to pull a Braveheart/Moonlight, which is rare. No editing nod is obviously another, equally important stat it has to overcome. And no top 5 for nominations means it’ll have to do something unprecedented in order to win Best Picture. None of those have anything to do with BAFTA or the Globes voters. You know I don’t factor those into my official BP predictions…
So the best picture race is sort of over for us now with 48%..!!
Yeah, our job is done. Now it’s the voters’ turn. 🙂
Please help, I think there is something wrong with me.
I am totally agreeing with Claudiu!!
“All six movies to have won both the Golden Globe and BAFTA for screenplay in the BFCA era that were eligible for the WGA (Django is the seventh, which wasn’t eligible, but still won the Oscar) won there. However, all (seven) also won the Critics Choice, so this is not quite the same as this year’s situation, as Three Billboards didn’t.”
Remember you said if Three Billboards was eligible for WGA it would’ve won it and when you look at that stats it looks like you could be right. But hang on a minute. What have we here? The same seven also won at the BFCA? This is incontrovertible proof that Three Billboards bucks that trend. It also suggest that it would probably have lost WGA since it lost the bigger stat at the BFCA. By all logic, Three Billboards should’ve won the BFCA screenplay but it didn’t. It’s unusual defeat gives a glimpse of how it would’ve gone at the WGA. Three Billboards breaks the trend and is looking to break the stats. This is the reason I have been telling that in order to overcome WGA ineligibility you must win BFCA to show real strength.
“By comparison, the only movie that won the Critics Choice but lost both at the Globes (it was snubbed there, in fact, just like Get Out) and at BAFTA, but still won the WGA, was Arrival.”
Stop trying to use such defunct anomaly like “Arrival” which was never expected to win and only did so because of the category confusing about “Moonlight”. It’s completely useless!
“So it’s pretty clear that winning only the Critics Choice simply isn’t enough, almost ever, to lead to a WGA win, especially if the movies said contender lost screenplay to at the Globes and BAFTA are also eligible there. ”
Technically, “Get Out” didn’t lose at the GG since it wasn’t even nominated there. I think it might even be the first movie to win BFCA that wasn’t nominated at the GG. This says more about GG than “Get Out”, I believe. I mean, why on earth did they nominate “Molly’s Game” and “The Post” instead? It boggles the mind! Anyway, the way you’ve looked at it is very subjective because if you just look at your own stat it clearly says a film which has won GG and BAFTA would very likely win WGA BUT would also win BFCA. You can’t move the stat around just to suit your argument. Three Billboard should’ve won BFCA based on that stat but it didn’t. Therefore, it very likely would’ve lost WGA too.
“Which says, to me, like that Globe snub stat does as well, that Three Billboards would have been a pretty clear favorite to win the WGA, had it been allowed to compete there, and that Get Out is also more likely than not to lose the Oscar”
It’s not clear at all. I am very convinced “Get Out” would still win just like I was convinced LLL wasn’t going to win WGA despite its screenplay wins at GG and BFCA. It’s just so clear because it’s a critics darling and so superior to the competition. I wasn’t surprised by “Get Out”‘s underperformance at the GG. Why do you think it missed screenplay there? Was it because they put it in the wrong category or what? I don’t know but I didn’t think it would do there or at BAFTA. I said there is a divide and US industry would be for “Get Out” and LB and both hit everything that they were expected to get.
“But hang on a minute. What have we here? The same seven also won at the BFCA? This is incontrovertible proof that Three Billboards bucks that trend.”
No, because we don’t have any precedents for that, as you can see. No BAFTA+GG winner has lost the BFCA before. So we can’t know what happens then. Logic dictates it’s a closer race, but not that the BFCA winner is the favorite. Definitely not. It’s like that thing with saying Argo “needed” to win all it did to overcome the directing snub. That’s a fallacy, I believe. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. Maybe winning the PGA alone would have been enough. Maybe SLP wins SAG instead, but has the DGA snub, and Life of Pi wins DGA (the most plausible alternatives, given how that season panned out), but it’s got the SAG snub, and even then both are still underdogs to Argo, and the latter still wins, because Lincoln loses all three, plus the WGA, which it did anyway, so it’s not the favorite either. So, Argo could have been the stats favorite, like Three Billboards, like Driving Miss Daisy, without needing to win half as much as it did. Or, if we want it to resemble this year’s situation even more, Argo wins SAG+WGA and SLP – or even, more plausibly, ZDT (BD and SAG snubs) – wins the PGA. And Argo loses the BFCA to ZDT. See how easy it is to make it an almost perfect precedent for Three Billboards, and still have it be the favorite for picture, despite the directing snub? That’s how weak competition was that year – same as this year, at least stats-wise. So, no, we can’t at all be sure the BAFTA+GG winner NEEDS to also win the BFCA for screenplay to be the favorite. That combo losing the BFCA is simply in that “no precedent zone”, between winners and losers. We literally have no clue which of the two it’s closest to, but the other stats suggest it’s the former.
“It also suggest that it would probably have lost WGA since it lost the bigger stat at the BFCA.”
But why do we say the BFCA is the bigger stat? That’s what I can’t find evidence for – I mean, sure, overall, including cases where the Globe/BAFTA winners were weak movies, or not even nominated for the Oscar, or movies from the other category, in the HFPA’s case… maybe it comes out on top. But that’s misleading. What matters when there’s so much dilution of the sample, and the situation is THAT different, are the precedents. The ones that actually resemble this year’s situation closely enough. And those don’t make the BFCA look very good. Definitely not when compared to a GG+BAFTA winner.
“Stop trying to use such defunct anomaly like “Arrival” which was never expected to win and only did so because of the category confusing about “Moonlight”. It’s completely useless!”
Yes, exactly! That’s literally what I’m also saying. That’s the only precedent of a movie to win the Critics Choice and lost both Globe and BAFTA awards for screenplay, and still win the WGA, and it’s completely useless, for that and other reasons. So, there’s no precedent for Get Out winning the WGA without the help of having its main competition removed, which left Lady Bird, a movie the BFCA, BAFTA and the industry have all given zero awards (the Globes gave it two for comedy), and The Shape of Water with its one critic award win for screenplay. That’s the kind of competition Get Out beat at the WGA…
“Three Billboard should’ve won BFCA based on that stat but it didn’t. Therefore, it very likely would’ve lost WGA too.”
I don’t see the logical connection between those two statements.
“I think it might even be the first movie to win BFCA that wasn’t nominated at the GG.”
It’s not. A Simple Plan (1998), The Green Mile (1999), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) – this one did only tie for the BFCA -, Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Arrival (2016). Little Miss Sunshine is the only one in original, and also the only one that won, and it remains one of Get Out’s best precedents for a legitimate WGA win/Oscar win, but that one also won BAFTA, so, again, that’s really just not the same thing. So, no, I don’t necessarily think it says more about the GG that Get Out was snubbed. It might mean genuine overall weakness for the movie/screenplay, as far as voter perception is concerned. We just can’t be sure. The pure numbers suggest it matters, and there’s no irrefutable argument that says it doesn’t, which is enough to make it impossible to ignore, if one wants to be both thorough and objective.
“Anyway, the way you’ve looked at it is very subjective because if you just look at your own stat it clearly says a film which has won GG and BAFTA would very likely win WGA BUT would also win BFCA. You can’t move the stat around just to suit your argument.”
That’s not the main reason I say Get Out isn’t the Oscar favorite. (Nor was it the WGA favorite.) It was the fact that 7/9 BFCA winners that didn’t win either the Golden Globe or BAFTA – since the date change in 2000 – (same as Get Out) went on to lose the Oscar. NONE of which, by the way, were up against a Globe+BAFTA winner, so they lost to arguably even weaker opposition. They are Memento (original), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (adapted, and snubbed by AMPAS), In America (original), Inglorious Basterds (original), Moneyball (adapted), Lincoln (adapted) and Gone Girl (adapted, and snubbed by AMPAS), the only exceptions being 12 Years a Slave (adapted, and WGA-ineligible) and Arrival (adapted) – so none in original. All original scripts that won the Critics Choice but lost the Globe and BAFTA were also nominated for, and lost, the Oscar. 3/3. This is the main thing going against Get Out for the original screenplay win at the Oscars. It doesn’t even have more Oscar nominations than the average number those got – not by a long shot!
“Technically, “Get Out” didn’t lose at the GG since it wasn’t even nominated there.”
This is true, and it’s a bit of a concern. One of the reasons I’m not calling Three Billboards some big stats favorite to win screenplay at the Oscars, or the hypothetical all-inclusive WGA. Just the favorite.
“It’s just so clear because it’s a critics darling and so superior to the competition.”
Those are literally two things that are almost never decisive when the industry votes. 🙂 They only happen to result in wins often enough because there are other reasons to vote for those movies. Like Moonlight or 12 Years a Slave, perhaps. (And Argo won the WGA, even though it was SO not the most deserving. There was just more reason to vote for it than Lincoln and the others. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. This kind of thing happens very often. But this reply is long enough as it is.) And there are no more reasons to vote for Get Out than there are for Three Billboards. If we’re being objective about what the Academy is likely to support, that is.
“just like I was convinced LLL wasn’t going to win WGA despite its screenplay wins at GG and BFCA.”
As you saw in one of my recent replies, I was too, by the end. 🙂 Also, that was a little different – La La Land won the Globe but only tied the BFCA. It lost the industry predictor, BAFTA, and couldn’t even win the second-best predictor outright. It wasn’t in as good of a position as Three Billboards, no way!
“I said there is a divide and US industry would be for “Get Out” and LB and both hit everything that they were expected to get.”
Actually, I and others expected Get Out to hit editing. It got in at ACE, after all, and had some precursor support for that. Had it been such a strong BP player, it really should’ve made it in at least there. I also expected it to contend for the SAG win, which maybe it did, but we’ll never know. Maybe it didn’t. Had it won, we would have known. Also, I don’t think anybody who thought it was strong in the race thought it would only get 4 nominations. That was unexpected. It did hit the DGA, but that’s about it. It was expected to hit either there or at the Oscars, but probably not both places. That’s the one thing it hit it wasn’t expected to hit, and it missed more than that. No editing, no extra nod for anything – supporting actress, production design, nothing. It wasn’t expected to get all of those, but one seemed possible. Point is, there’s a disconnect, but it’s actually not a big disconnect. It was among the ten that got picture nods at the Globes, and among the 9 that got them at the Oscars. It got Daniel Kaluuya in both places, and one has to imagine he would have been in had there been a single category, too, given that he didn’t miss anywhere, even at BAFTA (which is industry, by the way, and still only really gave Get Out two nods). It missed at the Globes for screenplay because they loved The Post and it wasn’t strong enough to get in with the Adapted contenders also in the running – Molly’s Game did, instead. And it missed director there, which was hardly unexpected. Only two differences. It won zero there, it’ll probably win zero at the Oscars, as unfortunate as that is. Sure, it’s not clear cut, because there is a difference, but I don’t think there’s enough of a difference for us to assume the screenplay snub there means less than it did for all of the other movies that didn’t have it and lost the Oscar the last 7 years.
“The Descendants” won the WGA and BFCA and then the Oscar despite losing GG and BAFTA. Granted it lost GG to “Midnight in Paris” which was dominant itself and in different category too. 12 Years won BFCA screenplay(not to mention the US Scripter in place of WGA) as well as winning BP everywhere yet somehow still lost to “Philomena” at BAFTA. How did that happen? The same happened to “The Descendants” and “Midnight in Paris” who won everything yet still lost BAFTA. The curveball here is GG which has only five slots and this year didn’t nominate the two early frontrunners for the screenplays (“Get Out” and “Call Me By Your Name”). How in the world did they nominate “Molly’s Game” and “The Post” ahead of those two?
BAFTA has disagreed with the WGA and BFCA on Adapted 11 times since 1996 and none of those won the Oscar. BAFTA went against WGA and BFCA 8 times out of 9 Original screenplay, the only exception is “Talk to Her” which was not nominated anywhere.
GG has disagreed with both BFCA and WGA on FOUR occasions(“Steve Jobs”, “The Queen”, “About Schmidt” and “The People vs. Larry Flynt”) and none of them won Oscar screenplay. “About Schmidt” doesn’t matter because none of them got it right that year as “The Pianist” came from nowhere to win Adapted. The same kind of thin happened in BOS too with “Talk to Her”, but it did win BAFTA.
Both GG and BAFTA disagreeing with WGA and BFCA has never happened. The closest it’s come was “The Queen” winning GG and looking likely to repeat at BAFTA, especially considering it won BP. That was avoided because BAFTA had two chances to reward Peter Morgan who wrote “The Queen” and co-wrote “The Last King of Scotland”, and they rewarded him for the latter.
The BFCA went head to head against BAFTA and GG three times and won all three times: “Spotlight”(“The Revenant” won BAFTA and GG), “No Country For Old Men” (“Atonement” won BAFTA and GG)” and “The Departed”(“The Queen” won BAFTA while “Babel” won GG).
The thing is, I am very convinced that “Get Out” would still have won WGA even if Three Billboard had eligible but I am not as convinced it would still certain to win the Oscar even then. The stats would be more favourable but I’d still not be as convinced as I of WGA. The Oscar screenplay is about BP, I feel, while WGA is mostly about screenplay. There a slight difference and 3B has the edge in terms of BP. The thing that is giving me the biggest believe is that I believe there is a divide between GG and US industry/critics. GG and BAFTA are on 3B’s side while DGA-PGA, BFCA and majority of critics have gone against it. Only SAG has bucked the trend which is not so surprising since 3B is such an actor’s movie. That and the fact that Peele is nominated THREE times and so that might factor in their mind as well as being worthy winner. To be honest, my biggest hope is that 3B doesn’t win BP. I’ll be okay with McDonagh winning BOS as long as 3B doesn’t win BP.
But that’s never going to happen ; if 3 Bills wins BSP then it wins BP
They’re very likely to give BSP to McDonagh as a substitute for the BD snub ; and that’s why the BD snub is not critical for 3 Bills chances for BP
It can clearly win without it
“”The Descendants” won the WGA and BFCA and then the Oscar despite losing GG and BAFTA. Granted it lost GG to “Midnight in Paris” which was dominant itself and in different category too. 12 Years won BFCA screenplay(not to mention the US Scripter in place of WGA) as well as winning BP everywhere yet somehow still lost to “Philomena” at BAFTA. How did that happen? The same happened to “The Descendants” and “Midnight in Paris” who won everything yet still lost BAFTA.”
Of course it’s important Midnight in Paris was from the other category. Not the case this year, so that can’t be relevant. And 12 Years a Slave wasn’t eligible at the WGA, so that’s also irrelevant to me, because I was interested in predicting the WGA, which is a BP precursor, not the Oscar for screenplay. It’s relevant for the Oscars, maybe. Though Philomena only won BAFTA, not also the Golden Globe, so it’s not even relevant for that.
“BAFTA has disagreed with the WGA and BFCA on Adapted 11 times since 1996 and none of those won the Oscar.”
You literally just said days ago the stats for original and adapted were completely different, for reasons nobody could explain. 🙂 Also, again, I’m not predicting the Oscar. If 3B wins the WGA, it’s enough for me to make it the favorite for BP. It doesn’t absolutely need to win screenplay at the Oscars, and I’ve said this many times. And, even if we do pit those two and try to predict the screenplay Oscar (instead of the WGA), the only times BAFTA and the BFCA have disagreed since 2000, with both nominated in the same category at both those two and the Oscars, and the Oscar has not gone to a THIRD movie (which is the only relevant outcome, since we’re comparing only 3B and GO’s chances), are:
– The Hurt Locker vs. Inglorious Basterds, which The Hurt Locker won at the Oscars. 1-0 to BAFTA. And The Hurt Locker didn’t even win the Globe, like Three Billboards, and it still won.
– Midnight in Paris vs. The Artist, which Midnight in Paris won at the Oscars. Alas, it also won the Globe, unlike Get Out, so it’s a wash, because that makes it clearly stronger than a movie snubbed there.
– 12 Years a Slave vs. Philomena, which 12 Years a Slave won at the Oscars. 1-1, let’s say!… BUT this was in Adapted, which, again, you say is different. So, whether you accept this as BFCA’s only precedent, or Midnight in Paris (I think both is too optimistic), it’s 1-1, regardless, between the two.
And that’s it. Even comparing lone BFCA/BAFTA-winning precedents for original screenplay, and thus ignoring 3B’s obviously relevant Golden Globe win, Get Out still doesn’t come out as the favorite for the Oscar. As for Talk to Her, it’s relevant. The BFCA didn’t even nominate it, nor did the HFPA, therefore it was clearly weaker than Three Billboards in that category, precursor-wise, and it still won BAFTA and the Oscar.
“BAFTA went against WGA and BFCA 8 times out of 9 Original screenplay”
How many of those times was the BAFTA winner not eligible for the WGA that went to the Critics Choice winner, like this year? Also, of course: how many times did it also win the Globe?
“GG has disagreed with both BFCA and WGA on FOUR occasions(“Steve Jobs”, “The Queen”, “About Schmidt” and “The People vs. Larry Flynt”) and none of them won Oscar screenplay.”
The Queen is the only one of those that is relevant. The other three (Steve Jobs included) were snubbed for the Oscar, so they couldn’t win. (Making them obviously weaker than Three Billboards, in addition to the many other ways in which they’re weaker.) The People vs. Larry Flynt, like About Schmidt also didn’t lose to the BFCA winner, by being snubbed, so it’s doubly irrelevant (The English Patient didn’t win screenplay, at least according to Wikipedia.)
“The BFCA went head to head against BAFTA and GG three times and won all three times: “Spotlight”(“The Revenant” won BAFTA and GG), “No Country For Old Men” (“Atonement” won BAFTA and GG)” and “The Departed”(“The Queen” won BAFTA while “Babel” won GG).”
Oh, you mean for picture. 🙂
First, going up against DIFFERENT BAFTA and GG winners is in no way the same thing, so that’s 2/2, not 3/3. Neither The Queen, nor Babel, were as strong as 3B. They lost the Triple Crown. Even at 2/2, this is, indeed, a small point of concern I have over not predicting Shape. I’m not 100% indifferent to this 2-0 score. It’s a part of why I still think it’s close. But, ultimately, The Revenant had Oscar screenplay, WGA and SAG snubs, which are both at least as bad as the directing snub, and it had all three of them, so it’s not even remotely the same thing. Spotlight’s ACE snub is WAY less predictive than any of those four. And Spotlight won SAG+WGA, the most important combo, whereas Shape has won neither of those. As for Atonement, it had the following snubs: Oscar directing and editing, DGA, PGA (100% stat), SAG ensemble, ACE and WGA, probably the latter due to being ineligible. Not sure. Anyway, how that’s even remotely comparable to Three Billboards’ situation, I just don’t see…
“The thing is, I am very convinced that “Get Out” would still have won WGA even if Three Billboard had eligible”
Again, I’m not saying this is necessarily not the case. You may be right. The stats don’t always win, and I respect strong intuitive feelings quite a bit, actually. Don’t think it doesn’t worry me that you’re still so sure, even knowing all of the arguments! But I just don’t think the stats case for that is there. It is for Three Billboards winning… And I have to go with the stats, as always. (My intuition is also telling me 3B would have won the WGA, and will prrrobably win the Oscar, too.)
“The thing that is giving me the biggest believe is that I believe there is a divide between GG and US industry/critics. GG and BAFTA are on 3B’s side while DGA-PGA, BFCA and majority of critics have gone against it.”
BAFTA and SAG are both industry. 3B is easily the strongest BP contender to win BAFTA since Argo. It’s not AS strong as Argo, but it’s the strongest since then, and you know yourself how good of a predictor BAFTA was for BP in the years leading up to Boyhood vs. Birdman! Boyhood, The Revenant and La La Land all lost BAFTA screenplay, neither won SAG, the latter two even being snubbed there. The Shape of Water is very much also in that situation. Minus the BAFTA and Globe wins, so even worse. The directing snub is the only real argument it has, apart from the suspect PGA win argument (I’ve already said why I think that’s suspect – the demonstrable, and understandable, bias towards flashier productions, compared to AMPAS.)
“To be honest, my biggest hope is that 3B doesn’t win BP. I’ll be okay with McDonagh winning BOS as long as 3B doesn’t win BP.”
Personally, I’d much rather it won BP than screenplay, if it’s a choice between the two. Get Out deserves screenplay so much more over it! In picture, it’s less clear, for me.
Excuse me, but the stat shows that Three Billboards is the exception rather than the rule. We can’t know for sure but the fact that it lost BFCA which was seven out seven for GG-BAFTA winners. The stats never said “Argo” had to because there was no precedence for that. Three Billboards is doing worse than any previous precedence in the same situation. That cannot be good. “Get Out” already beat its main competition at the BFCA which “Arrival” didn’t. How can you still be using it after that fact? There is a clear difference between the two so why using it as an example? That is driving me crazy!
There’s no precedent for GG-BAFTA winner losing either at WGA or BFCA but there’s plenty of WGA-BFCA winners losing at BAFTA or GG. What’s never happened is both combinations against each other.
Well, duh! Because they also won the BFCA. Do you get it now? They didn’t do it without at least the BFCA? You just keep moving the stat to say what you want. Those GG-BAFTA winners NEVER won without BFCA. That is the bloody point! 6/7 of GG-BAFTA winners won WGA(Django was inelegible) while all seven winners have won BFCA too. In other words GG-BAFTA are never by themselves and must also have WGA and BFCA and almost always both. However, the reverse is not the case as GG and especially BAFTA have differred with WGA and BFCA combination numerous.
“If 3B wins the WGA, it’s enough for me to make it the favorite for BP. It doesn’t absolutely need to win screenplay at the Oscars, and I’ve said this many times.” Well, if it had won the WGA then it would definitely be a favourite and perhaps a huge favourite.
“As for Talk to Her, it’s relevant. The BFCA didn’t even nominate it, nor did the HFPA, therefore it was clearly weaker than Three Billboards in that category, precursor-wise, and it still won BAFTA and the Oscar.”
There’s no precedent for BAFTA-GG V WGA-BFCA so we have too look at individual races in order to have an idea which combo is more likely to be right. Individually, WGA and BFCA have a much better record of matching the Oscar screenplay than GG and BAFTA individually. WGA-BFCA combo have only be wrong once which also happens to be the BAFTA-GG combo have been wrong too. However, WGA-BFCA combo have been right even when BAFTA or GG don’t agree with their choice while BAFTA-GG combo have never been right without WGA-BFCA agreeing with their choice. Conversely, I am sure there are at least a few films which also didn’t get nominated by either GG or BAFTA and win either or both the WGA and BFCA but still won the Oscar screenplay. Also you must remember that BFCA didn’t have two categories when “Talk To Her” won and didn’t even have five nominations. I think it was only three in 2003. So you must be careful when you are comparing different situations.
“How many of those times was the BAFTA winner not eligible for the WGA that went to the Critics Choice winner, like this year? Also, of course: how many times did it also win the Globe?”
I think you know very well the answer to that. There is no precedent for BAFTA-GG winner against WGA and BFCA winner. Most of those BAFTA winners weren’t even nominated elsewhere. Also, a few of them came before BAFTA moved its ceremony to before the Oscars.
“Oscar directing and editing, DGA, PGA (100% stat), SAG ensemble, ACE and WGA, probably the latter due to being ineligible. Not sure. Anyway, how that’s even remotely comparable to Three Billboards’ situation, I just don’t see…”
But that’s what I mean. A film like that would almost never win BP at the Oscars or BFCA or any of the main guilds but they’ve done quite a few times at GG and BAFTA. It doesn’t say anything about Three Billboards chances, but it does say a lot about awards shows that would give BP to such a film. While you just look at the stats each indivudual has I look at the reliability of precursors too. Some precursors have much better stats than others, which I feel can be very helful when the stats are so clear. The more reliable precursor is the more likely their pick is going to be right unless there’s a clear sign that they are likely to be wrong. WGA and BFCA are the most reliable precursors for screenplay and even better when they are together(notwithstanding legibility. Although that has never stopped them from wiining but then they never faced BAFTA-GG combo either). WGA-BFCA is great for BP too, especially the latter. I said that domination of LLL was not really to me and I thought they’ve gone overboard in rewarding because they held their show too early. I believe the reason they got BP wrong was because they held their ceremony too early and love tof LLL was too much, from both GG and BFCA.
“3B is easily the strongest BP contender to win BAFTA since Argo.”
What, stronger than “Boyhood” or “La La Land”? Is it even stronger than “12 Years a Slave”? None of those films were missing a big stat like BD except LLL, which missed SAG but still swept the precursors and looked likely winner until “Moonlight” won BP despite not winning any except WGA(not counting GG because LLL due to category difference and we know who would’ve won if they were in the same category) and toppled a few big stats itself.
“What matters when there’s so much dilution of the sample, and the situation is THAT different, are the precedents. The ones that actually resemble this year’s situation closely enough. And those don’t make the BFCA look very good. Definitely not when compared to a GG+BAFTA winner.”
You see it as BAFTA-GG against BFCA on its own. But I see it as WGA-BFCA V BAFTA-GG. “Get Out” won BFCA beating Three Billboards and it is the award the closely resembles the WGA, while the other two are more of a European affair and unsurprisingly went with the more European film. The thing I find very frustrating is there’s no way to really know. I am so convinced though. I called all the screenplays easily without any hesitations because I could see where each of them stood. It wasn’t difficult to predict them and the WGA isn’t either. If anyone of them went differently then I might question my opinion of WGA.
Get Out would have won WGA no matter what, imho. I take BFCA as a more reliable precursor than both the Globe and BAFTA. That is why I have placed Get Out second behind TB and in front of Shape with a good chance for winning both the screenplay and bp. Claudiu simply does not think that Get Out could have won the WGA. He sort of outclassified the WGA.
I don’t know about it’s BP which are very low , but WGA was certain to go “Get Out”. But even if it did beat Three Billboard there, I still wouldn’t be certain of Oscar. Claudiu says Three Billboards needs WGA more to clear favourite for BP than BOS, but I think that even if Three Billboards lost I don’t thin it would affected its chances because TSOW also lost there. “Get Out” should win BOS but I am not sure it will.
“What, stronger than “Boyhood” or “La La Land”? Is it even stronger than “12 Years a Slave”?”
You’re right, I don’t know what I was thinking when I made that statement. I probably had some idea in mind, but I can’t figure out what it was anymore, so maybe it wasn’t that great, anyway… 🙂
On to screenplay:
“Excuse me, but the stat shows that Three Billboards is the exception rather than the rule. We can’t know for sure but the fact that it lost BFCA which was seven out seven for GG-BAFTA winners.”
It shows that it’s the exception to winning the BFCA. Since there is no precedent to that, we can’t know whether it means enough to make it lose or not. We can’t know which of the two it’s closer to – just like I said.
“Those GG-BAFTA winners NEVER won without BFCA. That is the bloody point!”
No, that’s NOT the point, because those GG-BAFTA winners also NEVER LOST without BFCA, to provide even one precedent that says that NOT winning the BFCA means they would. Because it’s never come up.
“Well, duh! Because they also won the BFCA. Do you get it now? They didn’t do it without at least the BFCA?”
But none that lost the BFCA (because there are none) have lost due to that, either, to prove that NOT winning the BFCA means they wouldn’t.
“Individually, WGA and BFCA have a much better record of matching the Oscar screenplay than GG and BAFTA individually.”
But they’re NOT individual this year, because the Globe winner has also won BAFTA. (In addition to not even losing the WGA.) And the WGA/BFCA winner has lost both.
(The WGA cannot be taken individually because Three Billboards wasn’t eligible. Stop talking about the WGA’s record – it’s irrelevant this year!) Also, BFCA vs. BAFTA is 4-2 only, which is one away from 50%. So even that is simply entirely unconvincing. As for BFCA vs. GG, going back all the way, when the two have disagreed (the Globe winner not winning either of the BFCA screenplay awards), the BFCA has been right three times, two of which are super-questionable, to say the least (Manchester by the Sea, sort of, because it did only tie the Globe winner, The Big Short, but Steve Jobs wasn’t nominated for the Oscar, making that very different from this year’s situation, and Little Miss Sunshine), while the Globe winner won over the BFCA winner twice (Lost in Translation, and A Beautiful Mind winning when Memento lost in the other category to Gosford Park) – I wouldn’t call that “better” at all, to be honest…
“BAFTA-GG combo have never been right without WGA-BFCA agreeing with their choice.”
But that’s only because THEY NEVER HAVE both disagreed with their choice before. How is that relevant, then?
“There’s no precedent for GG-BAFTA winner losing either at WGA or BFCA but there’s plenty of WGA-BFCA winners losing at BAFTA or GG. What’s never happened is both combinations against each other.”
None of these things means anything in relation to anything. No precedents = no evidence. What is left to say beyond that?
And, by the way, what WGA+BFCA winners have won the Oscar without winning either the Globe or BAFTA? NONE. ZERO. Same as GG+BAFTA. By your logic, they all needed to win BAFTA as well, to prove they were good enough to win the Oscar. (Unless we start making unfounded assumptions about which is more relevant, which aren’t born out by either the numbers or the logic.) So Get Out can’t win the Oscar.
“WGA-BFCA combo have only be wrong once”
Yes, exactly, with Arrival, which also happens to be THE ONLY TIME the WGA+BFCA winner LOST BOTH THE GLOBE AND BAFTA, LIKE THIS YEAR.
“Three Billboards is doing worse than any previous precedence in the same situation.”
But there are no precedents in the same situation, a.k.a. WGA-ineligible. So, no, it’s not doing worse than anything. Nor better.
“”Get Out” already beat its main competition at the BFCA which “Arrival” didn’t.”
No, actually that’s not true. It did beat its main competition for the WGA (where it wasn’t competing against Moonlight) at the BFCA. And didn’t lose the BAFTA or the Globe to its main competition for either the Oscars or the WGA, like Get Out has. Simple as that. It’s much more of a valid precedent than you seem to think.
“Conversely, I am sure there are at least a few films which also didn’t get nominated by either GG or BAFTA and win either or both the WGA and BFCA but still won the Oscar screenplay.”
OK, you’ve found something relevant here. Milk was snubbed for the Globes and lost BAFTA, then won the WGA and the Oscar over BAFTA winner In Bruges. There are also Precious and The Pianist – which didn’t win the BFCA or WGA either, though, so those seems like worthless precedents… But that’s it. One relevant precedent. If you think that’s enough to make some sort of point, fine – I don’t!
“Also you must remember that BFCA didn’t have two categories when “Talk To Her” won and didn’t even have five nominations.”
Talk to Her wasn’t even among the four movies nominated that year for the BFCA. I think it’s quite safe to assume it wasn’t winning even had there been two categories.
“You see it as BAFTA-GG against BFCA on its own. But I see it as WGA-BFCA V BAFTA-GG.”
Which is completely unjustified. Get Out only won the BFCA in competition with Three Billboards. You keep refusing to treat this as what it is. How can I then think you’re being objective about anything, if you can’t be objective about this?!
“and it is the award the closely resembles the WGA”
Actually, since 2009, when the BFCA and BAFTA winners were different in either original or adapted, and one of those won the WGA, twice it was the BFCA winner (Her and Midnight in Paris) and twice the BAFTA winner (The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Hurt Locker). There are no other years that apply since 2000. So there is literally zero numerical evidence that supports your claim that the WGA is closer to the BFCA than BAFTA for screenplay.
“You just keep moving the stat to say what you want.”
No, that’s what you keep doing. 🙂 I’m keeping the stats fair. You’re fitting them to your point. Over and over. And refusing to listen to reason. If you’re going to keep giving me stats that have small samples or are based on the WGA results, or impressions about which of the three remaining precursors has a better record or is more relevant, which the numbers don’t even support, I really think we should stop this discussion, because we’re just wasting time. A lot of it, too, unfortunately.
What I think the key difference between our two approaches to stats, maybe in general, as well, but most definitely when it comes to what we’ve been discussing for the past few days, is this:
I never make assumptions about this or that precursor or result that I can’t back up exclusively with numbers. You, on the other hand, make a lot of assumptions which can be sustained (as well as countered, just as easily, which is what I’ve been doing) only on the basis of logic, which is too subjective for my tastes. (Some of them can also be counterd by the numbers, which don’t add up.) This is why I disagree with so many of your stats.
You say stuff like “Apollo 13 lost because the directing stat was stronger than the SAG stat”, which we just DO NOT KNOW – nor do we have enough reason to assume it. There are several other ways of explaining that outcome: the “WGA loss + 1” rule (that’s what I’m calling it from now on, the other way is just too long), which is the way I explain it, and which in no way depends on a comparison between the SAG and directing snub stats; Apollo 13’s lacklustre performance in “best film” precursors, matched by Braveheart, sure, but that one was at least winning director everywhere, before the guilds, and won screenplay at the WGA – Apollo 13 won way less above the line; the DGA win potentially being a fluke due to Howard’s Oscar snub and voters’ wish to make up for that – again, Braveheart won the major directing prizes that year -, which would make Braveheart the favorite, had it won that instead, as is normal, since the DGA winner is almost never an Oscar-snubbed director; the SAG snub being a fluke due to first-year weirdness, which is definitely a thing, as I’ve often illustrated. There might be other ways, too. These are only the main ones. Numbers don’t back up the theory that the directing snub trumps the SAG snub. Those are equal in percentage. Sample size isn’t enough of a reason to just assume the directing snub is more important. 89 isn’t a massive sample either, and 22 is large enough to make it almost as reliable. Enough for it to simply not be clear whether one is superior to the other. The same principle applies to Argo “needing” to win as much as it did to compensate for the directing snub. This, too, isn’t supported by numbers – and, in my opinion, is very questionable logically, as well. I won’t go into details there again – we already discussed that. Same goes for the GG+BAFTA screenplay winner “needing” to also win the BFCA. Again, not supported by any numbers or precedents. Hard to say whether it’s a correct assumption or not. We’ll get our first clue about that this year, but it won’t be more than that – a clue.
You also assume the BFCA is stronger than BAFTA as an individual screenplay predictor – which I just showed you isn’t supported by pure numbers, in my previous message. It’s only 4-2 up (4-3, even, if you count the fact that the BFCA tied between Manchester and La La Land, and BAFTA picked the Oscar winner only), which just isn’t enough to even logically assume it’s better, let alone statistically. You clearly assume this because recent cases have gone its way, for the most part, more so than in the past. But has anything changed that would suggest this being a new trend, as opposed to random variance? I don’t see it. You, likewise, assume the WGA is closer to the BFCA than BAFTA – which I again proved is no more than speculation. It’s 2-2 when the two have differed in predicting the WGA. Or that the Globes snubbing “Get Out” for screenplay is just “weird” and “out of tune”, and can be ignored because of that. (Which is, again, supported by nothing – the correlation is there, even though the Globes are not the American industry, so the stat exists, and that’s all there is to it. Otherwise, why are we taking the BFCA stats seriously at all? Because they’re American? So are the people voting for those internet polls, and they’d give Best Picture to Call Me By Your Name.) The examples are many… Almost every stat and argument you offer up is based on one or more of these assumptions, and that’s always what I address when I make my point-by-point objections.
Now, again I will say: I’m not trying to tell you you’re wrong. Far from it! I genuinely believe it’s possible (though unlikely) you are right about even a majority of these, that your subjective thoughts might trump what the numbers say – which is that it’s completely unclear. I do think it’s likely you’re right in at least a few of your assumptions, and I’m sure you’ll win some more “prediction battles” between us in the future due to that. I’m not going to keep count of who wins more, overall, because that seems silly to me, but, if you like, and you think it means anything, you can. I won’t mind. Point is, all I’m trying to say is that my opinion about those assumptions you’re making is different from yours, and, as long as the stats you try to refute my arguments with will largely be based on those assumptions, or others similar to them, it’s going to be very hard for us to ever see eye to eye on anything, if the numbers don’t also back up what you’re saying. Which, so far, they really haven’t, save for 2-3 minor cases (always very small sample stats, and not based on industry awards alone), in all of which I acknowledged you were potentially on to something, even numbers-wise, unlike with the others. There’s one in my most recent reply, too.
All of my stats are based on numbers. And, if I use a small-sampled stat to make a point, it will always have at least an 80% success rate at predicting whatever it is I’m using it to predict, not 4/6 – and a questionable 4/6, at that -, which is 66%. I work with high percentages (at least for Best Picture, and anything I’m trying to predict that directly influences my Best Picture prediction, as is the case with the WGA/Oscar for original screenplay this year), even when it comes to small-sample stats. When it comes to stats with a sample size of at least ten years/instances, I need 90%, no less, to give it any kind of attention. So, in order to convince me of anything, or prove me wrong on anything, you will simply have to come up with not only stuff like “X stat is superior to Y stat, because this and that assumption”, but with actual numbers, percentages and decent samples, to back up said assumptions. And no subjectively excluding exceptions! You have to set fair rules for all contenders to meet (like I believe I do), and then every exception to that (like Arrival, if you define a stat to say it’s included, which you have, often, and that’s the only reason I’ve kept mentioning it) is just an exception. Period. That’s the only way you’ll ever get me to say “I was wrong about this”, if you prove to me that there’s some unbiased (= fair) way of looking at things that means I’ve been looking at them wrong, and that leads to the numbers skewing strongly in favor of your argument. And that’s not 4-2…
What’s been so frustrating is that I know 90% of the stats in every one of your replies is going to be based on this or that assumption, like I just described, and I will then, when I inevitably (and usually very quickly) figure out what bias that assumption is based on, be forced to do the research to prove to you that the numbers don’t add up and don’t support the claim you’re making. I’ve done this for so many replies in a row, and wasted so much time, learning little I didn’t already know about the screenplay or picture races, or precursor strength (as described by percentages), from previous years of similar research – some things, here or there, but nowhere near enough to justify the effort put in -, that it’s just hard to motivate myself to keep doing it. And it’s not fair for you to just take what are almost shots in the dark, based on 2-3 examples you know went your way, and then for me to have to look at the whole sample myself and point out the ones that didn’t, which are usually just as many or more than the former, which you of course didn’t mention or weren’t aware of, and which you will then try to explain away with more unfounded assumptions. Or to do the same to prove that some assumption you made based on your general impressions was either clearly biased in favor of one movie’s situation, over the others, or just didn’t correspond with the facts.
It takes you infinitely less time to come up with these things, I’m sure, because it’s easy, and I could do it to, very quickly, that’s how easy it is, but it’s just not relevant to the real situation, so I don’t want to resort to that kind of arguing, where I’m just trying to win the argument at all costs. I don’t see the value in it. I don’t want to lie to myself or others. I’m trying to make actually valid points, instead. And it takes me ages, because it involves actual, unbiased, demanding research (which takes five times as long as just quickly going through a list of results, with no regard to logical soundness or circumstances, or listing examples off the top of your head, and then claiming, for instance, that, among others, Steve Jobs, which wasn’t even nominated for screenplay at the Oscars, nor did it win BAFTA or the WGA, is somehow relevant to the Globes winner not being as likely to win for screenplay as the BFCA winner, and should therefore be included in a list of precedents for Three Billboards not winning – it clearly should not, yet one of your recent stats was based on a count that included it), studying tables, checking my objectivity, my numbers, my logic, and so on.
Does this sound fair to you? I’m convinced you haven’t put anywhere near as much work into this argument over screenplay and the WGA as I have. Meaning hours upon hours… You’re a reasonable person. Please, please stop making me pay my “daily john smith tribute time” toll :), researching things I know will turn out my way (because it’s obvious your assumption is biased, and I have a good rough idea of how previous races went down and what the exceptions might be for every kind of stat), just so I can give actual numbers and list exceptions, to support my own counter-claims – and do instead try to, from now on, stick only to those arguments you can make that you can actually support with strong, high-percentage stats, or precedent lists that aren’t biased (meaning, they don’t ignore some key bit of information, like WGA eligibility, neglect to factor in what won the other major precursors, whether the contenders in question were nominated at the Oscars, and so on), are all relevant to this year’s situation and are at least on 2/2 results favoring your point, and none favoring the opposite! You’ve made two or three such points, and I acknowledged all of those, and stated my opinions on them without ever arguing that they were biased. They weren’t, at least as far as I could tell after a couple minutes’ thought.
Although, honestly, given how many times you’ve made me go through my screenplay tables (which I only compiled due to your replies in the first place, because it was taking too long researching so many screenplay winners and nominees from so many precursor awards every single time) these last few days, I don’t really think such stats exist, that support your points about screenplay, because I would have spotted them by now. But, hey, I’m human, so I could easily be wrong. EASILY. It’s not an exaggeration. But, please, stick to those, because I do have a breaking point, there’s only so much mandatory research I can perform, and I’m getting near that limit! So I really can’t take anymore stats based on subjective assumptions that can’t be supported by numbers. Please, no more! 🙂 And I don’t just mean this year. In general, when we debate stats, please try to keep in mind that anything you say that isn’t backed up by a high-percentage stat, I WILL contest, and it will probably take me a ton of time to do so, in order to be able to give you the exact numbers that back up said objections.
And, for the love of God, please don’t take any of this personally!!! 🙂 I literally am just trying to stop an endless and, by now, pointless (since we’re working under different assumptions about what is a valid stats argument and what isn’t) debate before I lose my mind. I have the utmost respect for your intuition, which you’ve proven many times is spot-on (though you’ve been wrong too, as have we all), and for your extensive knowledge of the stats and precedents. But I do very much disagree with your approach to interpreting them (something about which I fully recognize I could just as easily be wrong as right), like I said, and it leads to endless arguments like this one, which can’t possibly lead anywhere productive.
We need to agree to disagree about the fundamentals of how Oscar stats should work, and just move on, but also keep this disagreement in mind for future discussions we have, so that we don’t drive each other mad trying to prove to one another that it was, in fact, the chicken that came before the egg – or vice-versa!… 🙂
Anyway, Moonlight wasn’t a stats favorite to win the WGA, either. La La Land was perhaps a stats favorite to lose it, but if you were going to predict anything to win there, based on stats, it had to be Manchester, no? Moonlight had no major screenplay wins, only critic wins, and, like Three Billboards vs. Get Out, it had fewer of them than Manchester by the Sea.
Manchester was the favorite for the WGA, statistically. Moonlight had already lost the Globe, BFCA and BAFTA.
Moonlight had got the steam towards end of the BP race and WGA sort of signalled (confirmed) the big win for Moonlight !!
Yup. It was pretty weird.
That’s why that WGA win was so telling for BP… Not the same as with Get Out’s, which has been dominating the critic screenplay wins, a la Manchester, but even more so, and, of course, has the BFCA win, unlike Moonlight.
You weren’t certain that Three Billboards was going win BAFTA screenplay, but I saw nothing else. Some people thought LB might win screenplay at BFCA despite losing the GG and not winning many critics awards for screenplay. They still thought it could win WGA even after it lost BFCA. Some still think , or more likely hope, that it could still win the Oscar screenplay. Not going to happen. There was only one film which was going to win BFCA WGA and it won both. I was more confident about it winning those two than I am about the Oscar. I feel the Oscar could the way they like and could lean more toward the bigger BP film, especially when it’s won BAFTA and GG.
Do you honestly believe the fact you’ve been right the last few times about screenplay (even if it’s ten or something, it doesn’t matter) means you can’t be wrong this time? 🙂 I used to think like that, to some extent – when I was younger. Not anymore…
About your The Descendants argument, that lost absolutely nowhere relevant. The writers of BAFTA awarded Tinker Tailor but we have no idea what the whole of the association would have awarded and it lost the Globe to the original screenplay winner
I kinda miss Russell Crowe’s big movie star turns (e.g., Gladiator, Master and Commander, 3:10 to Yuma). Nowadays we only have these nancy bois. Mediocrity all around.
The low position of Three Billboards in those two categories is just horrendous punting, pre or post BAFTAs. Standards have dropped in this “close race”.
Off topic: Does anyone know when the Awards Daily Daily Awards ballots will open? Oscar voting begins today.
No short film predictions? If it is your job, you will find the time.
Tell me if you feel differently, but I can’t really fathom TB winning Best Picture without a script win, especially given the Director snub. Many of us made this mistake predicting Birdman to take Picture and Director but Budapest to win a consolation prize in Screenplay. It happens, but statistically isn’t the most likely outcome, especially with a script-/dialogue-driven film in something of a two-horse race. Given that I unfortunately don’t feel a Shape of Water Best Picture win, I do feel that the screenplay winner between TB and Get Out will take Picture.
You guys should make an article on the Picture/Screenplay correlation. How many memorable splits have there been?
Million Dollar Baby/Sideways
The Artist/Midnight in Paris
Chicago/The Pianist
Gladiator/Almost Famous (not Best Pic nominee)
Titanic (not nom)/Good Will Hunting/LA Confidential
The English Patient/Sling Blade (not nominated)
Unforgiven/The Crying Game
Platoon/Hannah and Her Sisters
I stopped at 1980. I see a few different scenarios for a split:
-Screenplay is a passion pick/consolation prize, where the Best Picture’s Director is already winning (Unforgiven, MDB, Titanic, English Patient, Artist)—not as common today with the preferential ballot, but can still theoretically happen if the Best Picture is wins Director and a major tech or sweeps (Unforgiven won editing; MDB had two acting wins)
-Best Picture is going to a film that isn’t your typical Screenplay winner (Artist, Chicago, even Gladiator)
-Truly wonky, competitive year (Gladiator)
Gladiator is the weirdest example above because, though it lost to a film that wasn’t up for Best Picture and wasn’t really seen as a Screenplay-driven film, it didn’t win the most important Oscars to drive its Best Picture win. It won the most Oscars, with Pic, Actor, Visual Effects, Sound, and Costumes, but lost some key techs. Traffic, though bleak, had the actors’ support and won Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actor, and Editing, similar to how the more “important” late-breaking The Pianist won the most above-the-line awards outside of the top prize. Would these downer films have won on a preferential ballot up against more populist fare? Hard to say, but maybe unlikely if they couldn’t win a pure popular vote despite the actors’ and writers’ support.
What I am feeling though is that Shape of Water doesn’t have enough above-the-line support to pull this off. For example, a Sally Hawkins upset, especially over Frances in TB, would’ve been enough.
And it’s hard to justify Billboards losing Screenplay to Get Out but winning Best Picture without a Director nomination. Two acting awards is a lot, but Picture champs in similar situations still won the most awards on a major or mini-tech sweep, or by virtue of taking Director as well.
Summmary: if you are predicting Billboards to win Picture, it doesn’t make sense to predict a Get Out consolation prize in Screenplay, given that Billboards is Screenplay-driven, won’t win any techs, and can’t win Director. If you are predicting Shape to win Picture, you could predict Billboards to win three Oscars, but you should still predict an upset by Shape In one of the more open-ended tech categories like Cinematography or Sound Mixing, because Score and Production Design aren’t going to be enough to drive a Best Picture win for a tech-driven film with only one other above-the-line win.
Yeah, you’re probably right (there are even some stats that have been discussed that support some of the points you’re making), but it has happened often enough (if you go beyond the last 10 years or so), so it’s possible. 🙂 I’m not predicting the BP/screenplay split, as I think 3B is the stats favorite to win screenplay, but I can see it happening, with Get Out. Not to mention that the Shape/3B split is possible – but that is a more typical one.
[Multiple postings of this, too, seem pretty inevitable…]
OK, finally found the time to look into the new stats situation, after Sunday’s results. It does look like The Shape of Water’s hurdles multiplied, though there’s nothing new to overcome that’s necessarily enormous, of course. And Three Billboards’ case was strengthened at the same time, obviously. Get Out’s stayed about the same, for also obvious reasons. Lady Bird and Dunkirk dropped a bit, too. Voting starts today, is that right? In any case, I’m probably not going to launch my preferential ballot simulation until tomorrow, or the day after that…
A whole bunch of new stats, based on the BAFTA results:
All six movies to have won both the Golden Globe and BAFTA for screenplay in the BFCA era that were eligible for the WGA (Django is the seventh, which wasn’t eligible, but still won the Oscar) won there. However, all (seven) also won the Critics Choice, so this is not quite the same as this year’s situation, as Three Billboards didn’t. Still, one has to deduce that Golden Globe and BAFTA wins for screenplay, put together, are a pretty powerful combo, to say the least, as far as predicting the WGA results goes. By comparison, the only movie that won the Critics Choice but lost both at the Globes (it was snubbed there, in fact, just like Get Out) and at BAFTA, but still won the WGA, was Arrival. (There are about eight such movies, by my count, so that’s very low.) Of course, Arrival lost the Globe and BAFTA to different movies (La La Land and Lion – none of which it beat for that WGA win, because La La Land was in the other category and Lion, by my recollection, was ineligible), unlike Get Out, and went on to also lose the Oscar to Moonlight, so that’s not a very promising precedent for Peele’s movie, anyway. But it does open the door for a hypothetical WGA win for Get Out over Three Billboards, had they faced each other there. So it’s pretty clear that winning only the Critics Choice simply isn’t enough, almost ever, to lead to a WGA win, especially if the movies said contender lost screenplay to at the Globes and BAFTA are also eligible there. Which says, to me, like that Globe snub stat does as well, that Three Billboards would have been a pretty clear favorite to win the WGA, had it been allowed to compete there, and that Get Out is also more likely than not to lose the Oscar.
Since 2000, when BAFTA has split film and director, the movie that won Best Film went on to repeat in the same category at the Oscars 4/5 times, and only once was it the movie that won for direction (No Country for Old Men) that claimed Best Picture instead. And that wasn’t with the preferential ballot. (Twice, neither of the two won Best Picture.) In the preferential era, whenever there have been splits at either BAFTA, the Golden Globes or the Critics Choice, the movie that won director but not also picture always lost BP at the Oscars as well, to the movie that won picture instead (or one of the movies that won picture, in the case of the Globes). 12 Years a Slave and Gravity split at all three. At the Critics Choice, Spotlight is the only other picture winner to not also win director in these eight years – it split with Mad Max: Fury Road. At BAFTA, the only other split is, of course, The King’s Speech vs. The Social Network, which also went in favor of the former for BP at the Oscars. Things used to be different – when one or more of these split (and sometimes they split in very contradictory ways, not like in 2013), the win used to go about as often to the directing winner as it did the picture winner, if any of them won BP. This all strongly suggests Three Billboards is the more likely Best Picture Oscar winner than The Shape of Water, since it has now twice won picture vs. the latter’s director, in a split, at one of these three major precursors.
Five of the seven movies that have won both Best Film and Best British Film at BAFTA AND were also nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars won that award – most famously, The King’s Speech, which is also the only one to have won those two BAFTA prizes since 1967. Another stat: only one of the eleven movies since 2000 that won for direction at BAFTA but lost for cinematography won Best Picture at the Oscars (Argo), as opposed to four out of seven for those that won both director and cinematography at BAFTA. (The Artist, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire and No Country for Old Men.) So, that defeat might prove relevant as well, who knows?!
Five out of the six movies to have won for both film and screenplay at BAFTA since 2000 went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. Two of those five also lost for direction at BAFTA – The King’s Speech, of course, but also The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King! So, all of BAFTA’s disagreements with AMPAS on best picture (including the very famous last three – La La Land, The Revenant and Boyhood) since 2000 were movies that did not also win the screenplay award from the British Academy – except for Brokeback Mountain, but, even then, Best Picture at the Oscars went to the other BAFTA screenplay winner, Crash. The two had shared screenplay wins that season, including the only two times there was a single screenplay category (at the Globes – BBM – and Critics Choice – Crash), meaning it’s far from inconceivable that, had they again been in the same category, Crash would have beaten Brokeback Mountain for screenplay at BAFTA. Needless to say, Three Billboards has won both Best Film and Best Original Screenplay, beating The Shape of Water for both.
No Best Picture winner since 2000 has had fewer than three BAFTA nominations. (Million Dollar Baby had zero, because it wasn’t seen in time.) Spotlight had three, winning one, and Moonlight had four and lost all of them. Those are the lowest. Get Out had two, and lost both of them. (Daniel Kaluuya’s win for Rising Star, though, might be counted as a third, as it’s probably entirely due to his performance in Get Out, and he had some competition for the award, so it probably does mean something that he won.) Moonlight and The Departed are the only BP winners in this period of time to win no BAFTA’s – that had any nominations. Spotlight and Birdman won one each, which hadn’t happened before, so there is definitely a better chance of this happening when the Oscar winner is decided via preferential voting. Funnily enough, none since 2000 have won exactly five – Three Billboards’ tally… That’s the only number of BAFTA wins between zero and seven wins not represented among BP winners since the date change, so I guess it’d be a nice little bit of “evening out” for that movie to win BP.
Moonlight and Birdman are also the only two Best Picture winners since 2000 to have won neither film, screenplay or acting awards at BAFTA. Moonlight, of course, was in a different category than at the Oscars, where it was a big favorite to win for screenplay, and would have probably won at BAFTA, too, had it been in that category, though one can’t be certain. And Birdman won the Oscar for screenplay (among others), after also winning the Globe and Critics Choice, despite losing to The Grand Budapest Hotel in that category at BAFTA. Birdman also won for cinematography. The Shape of Water lost film, screenplay and both of its acting bids at BAFTA this year, as well as cinematography to Deakins, and has no significant screenplay precursors, so it doesn’t really fit in with any of the other BP winners since 2000, according to this stat. Nor does Get Out, of course. (Million Dollar Baby, had it been seen by voters in time, very likely would have won for at least lead actress, as Swank swept the other precursors that year.)
Since 1993, the only movie to be nominations leader at BAFTA and lose Best Film, but still go on to win Best Picture at the Oscars, is Chicago (2002). It won supporting actress and one other award. This is The Shape of Water’s situation, but with a directing win standing in for the acting win, and two techs instead of one. Also, the only movies to win at least four BAFTA’s and not win at least three Oscars, since 2000, were La vie en rose (2007), which won four BAFTA’s (so still one fewer than Three Billboards) and only two Oscars – and had only three Oscar nominations, compared to seven at BAFTA (it wasn’t nominated for best film/picture at either) and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which also won four BAFTA’s, but only two Oscars. So, Three Billboards is unlikely to win fewer than three Oscars, and, therefore, unless it picks up a weird one in addition to the two acting locks, it’s unlikely to not win either screenplay or picture, or both. (And it’s not very easy to imagine it winning screenplay and the two acting awards, and not winning picture, though it remains plausible, mostly due to The Shape of Water. I’d say this is bad news for Get Out, a lot more than it is for The Shape of Water, because the former very likely needs that screenplay win in order to challenge for Best Picture, and this stat says it probably can’t get both.)
Finally, losing the Golden Globe and BAFTA, in addition to SAG Ensemble, isn’t quite enough to eliminate a movie from the Best Picture conversation, but it’s definitely a big handicap. The Departed and Million Dollar Baby are the only ones since 2000 to have won without any of those wins on their resumes – M$B was basically ineligible at BAFTA, but, the way that season went, you have to imagine it would have lost Best Film there even had it been nominated. Braveheart also had neither, though then BAFTA was post-Oscars. But, again, seems unlikely it could have won there, regardless. Three exceptions in 22 years are enough, but barely…
And a few that aren’t (mostly) based on BAFTA:
Of the five movies to sweep the four major directing precursors (DGA, BAFTA, Critics Choice, Golden Globe) since 2000, when BAFTA began to be held before the Oscars, four also won for film/picture at the PGA, BAFTA, the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice (Gravity only tied for the PGA win, and lost the others) – also, the only two of those five that ended up winning Best Picture at the Oscars also won SAG Ensemble. (Argo and Slumdog Millionaire) The other three (La La Land, Gravity and Brokeback Mountain) all lost (or weren’t even nominated for) that award. (For the record, Titanic lost for directing at BAFTA, after the Oscars, and Braveheart lost the DGA. The English Patient lost the Globe – and BAFTA. American Beauty and Saving Private Ryan lost BAFTA.) Brokeback Mountain is the only one of the five that won the WGA, but didn’t also win Best Picture. As mentioned earlier, Crash also won the WGA, in the other category. Of course, I’m giving this stat in relation to The Shape of Water’s directing wins at all four major ceremonies so far. Since it lost both SAG and the WGA, it seems to fit in perfectly with the group that loses Best Picture at the Oscars. La La Land even won BAFTA and the Globe for picture, and still couldn’t pull it off…
There are, for comparison, plenty of movies whose directors, like McDonagh, didn’t win anywhere major, but that still ended up winning Best Picture at the Oscars. Moonlight, Spotlight and 12 Years a Slave under the preferential ballot, then Crash and Gladiator, then, before 2000, Shakespeare in Love and Driving Miss Daisy (no Critics Choice back then, but it wasn’t winning there, anyway, given that Beresford was snubbed at both the DGA and the Globes), since 1990. All of those either won (5) or were ineligible for (2) the WGA. Only 12 Years a Slave, Gladiator and Driving Miss Daisy won the PGA, among them. None of them won the DGA – obviously, given the premise of this stat. Spotlight, Crash and Shakespeare in Love also won SAG Ensemble. Moonlight is the only one that won the WGA alone, among the big four guilds. (Which I guess we can now call the “Grand Slam”, since it’s become even clearer that the PGA, DGA and SAG aren’t sufficient to clarify things. Doesn’t sound as nice as the “Triple Crown”, though…) Of relevance to Get Out’s situation might be that all of these won either the Golden Globe (five of them) or the Critics Choice (Spotlight) for best film, or SAG Ensemble (Crash). Another 100% stat for it to overcome…
Finally, I also wanted to say that I think now, after BAFTA, the best precedent for this year’s race, in terms of precursor wins trajectories, has become the Shakespeare in Love/Saving Private Ryan year. The major difference being, of course, that those two had no major snubs – but, if you think, like me, that the Oscar snub for directing and the SAG snub for ensemble are, as the percentages also seem to indicate, probably roughly equivalent in terms of importance, it all amounts to about the same thing, and the similarities are many: Like Three Billboards, Shakespeare in Love won SAG Ensemble, the Golden Globe (for comedy/musical, in its case) and BAFTA (after the Oscars, but one has to imagine a movie with that subject and several big British actors might’ve won there anyway, regardless of when the ceremony was held), and lost the PGA, DGA and Critics Choice to Saving Private Ryan, which was also dominating the directing wins (it only lost that prize at BAFTA, to The Truman Show) and, in addition, won the Globe for drama, and then lost the WGA, like The Shape of Water, to Shakespeare in Love. (The difference being, of course, that Shape didn’t lose to Three Billboards, which was ineligible, but rather to Get Out. Which is in no way better.)
Of course, Shakespeare in Love was the nominations leader, with 13 nods to Ryan’s 11, at the Oscars, but it was a costume/period movie, so it had the advantage there, explaining its nods for production design, costumes and makeup, at least, which would be very hard to get (even one of them) for a movie like Three Billboards, no matter how good it was. Take out those three, and Saving Private Ryan becomes the nominations leader, albeit not as clear of a leader as Shape. Shakespeare in Love also had three acting nods, and won two of those bids, for lead and supporting actress (Ryan had only one, and Hanks lost), in addition to picture, screenplay, score, production design and costumes – all very similar to Three Billboards’ situation, minus the extra tech nods and wins. Ryan’s wins, apart from directing and maybe cinematography, were very different from what Shape is likely to get, but that was a war film, and that slot is filled by Dunkirk this year, which is expected to win the other three categories SPR won. Overall, I’d say Ryan was probably in slightly better shape than Shape. 🙂 And it lost.
P.S.: Updated percentages for the Best Picture win, almost definitely final:
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – 48% (After a recount of the various precedents, with BAFTA now factored in. Seems very reasonable, keeping it under 50%…)
The Shape of Water ——————————— 36% (Some might argue this is too high, some might argue it’s too low… It depends on too many unclear things to be sure.)
Get Out ————————————————— 9% (I don’t see enough reason to either raise or lower this figure. Lowering it might be better, but I’m not convinced…)
Lady Bird ———————————————— 4%
Dunkirk ————————————————– 2%
All the rest ———————————————– 1% total. (Which might be generous – but might also be too low.)
So thorough! Thanks for this.
Yeah – that’s why it actually wasn’t trivial to find time to do it all. 🙂 There was a long list of things I wanted to check, ideas I got based on what went down at BAFTA, and the possibilities it opened up…
Hey Claudiu, can you check your email if you have a minute? Thanks!
Please help, I think there is something wrong with me.
I am totally agreeing with Claudiu!!
“All six movies to have won both the Golden Globe and BAFTA for screenplay in the BFCA era that were eligible for the WGA (Django is the seventh, which wasn’t eligible, but still won the Oscar) won there. However, all (seven) also won the Critics Choice, so this is not quite the same as this year’s situation, as Three Billboards didn’t.”
Remember you said if Three Billboards was eligible for WGA it would’ve won it and when you look at that stats it looks like you could be right. But hang on a minute. What have we here? The same seven also won at the BFCA? This is incontrovertible proof that Three Billboards bucks that trend. It also suggest that it would probably have lost WGA since it lost the bigger stat at the BFCA. By all logic, Three Billboards should’ve won the BFCA screenplay but it didn’t. It’s unusual defeat gives a glimpse of how it would’ve gone at the WGA. Three Billboards breaks the trend and is looking to break the stats. This is the reason I have been telling that in order to overcome WGA ineligibility you must win BFCA to show real strength.
“By comparison, the only movie that won the Critics Choice but lost both at the Globes (it was snubbed there, in fact, just like Get Out) and at BAFTA, but still won the WGA, was Arrival.”
Stop trying to use such defunct anomaly like “Arrival” which was never expected to win and only did so because of the category confusing about “Moonlight”. It’s completely useless!
“So it’s pretty clear that winning only the Critics Choice simply isn’t enough, almost ever, to lead to a WGA win, especially if the movies said contender lost screenplay to at the Globes and BAFTA are also eligible there. ”
Technically, “Get Out” didn’t lose at the GG since it wasn’t even nominated there. I think it might even be the first movie to win BFCA that wasn’t nominated at the GG. This says more about GG than “Get Out”, I believe. I mean, why on earth did they nominate “Molly’s Game” and “The Post” instead? It boggles the mind! Anyway, the way you’ve looked at it is very subjective because if you just look at your own stat it clearly says a film which has won GG and BAFTA would very likely win WGA BUT would also win BFCA. You can’t move the stat around just to suit your argument. Three Billboard should’ve won BFCA based on that stat but it didn’t. Therefore, it very likely would’ve lost WGA too.
“Which says, to me, like that Globe snub stat does as well, that Three Billboards would have been a pretty clear favorite to win the WGA, had it been allowed to compete there, and that Get Out is also more likely than not to lose the Oscar”
It’s not clear at all. I am very convinced “Get Out” would still win just like I was convinced LLL wasn’t going to win WGA despite its screenplay wins at GG and BFCA. It’s just so clear because it’s a critics darling and so superior to the competition. I wasn’t surprised by “Get Out”‘s underperformance at the GG. Why do you think it missed screenplay there? Was it because they put it in the wrong category or what? I don’t know but I didn’t think it would do there or at BAFTA. I said there is a divide and US industry would be for “Get Out” and LB and both hit everything that they were expected to get.
“But hang on a minute. What have we here? The same seven also won at the BFCA? This is incontrovertible proof that Three Billboards bucks that trend.”
No, because we don’t have any precedents for that, as you can see. No BAFTA+GG winner has lost the BFCA before. So we can’t know what happens then. Logic dictates it’s a closer race, but not that the BFCA winner is the favorite. Definitely not. It’s like that thing with saying Argo “needed” to win all it did to overcome the directing snub. That’s a fallacy, I believe. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. Maybe winning the PGA alone would have been enough. Maybe SLP wins SAG instead, but has the DGA snub, and Life of Pi wins DGA (the most plausible alternatives, given how that season panned out), but it’s got the SAG snub, and even then both are still underdogs to Argo, and the latter still wins, because Lincoln loses all three, plus the WGA, which it did anyway, so it’s not the favorite either. So, Argo could have been the stats favorite, like Three Billboards, like Driving Miss Daisy, without needing to win half as much as it did. Or, if we want it to resemble this year’s situation even more, Argo wins SAG+WGA and SLP – or even, more plausibly, ZDT (BD and SAG snubs) – wins the PGA. And Argo loses the BFCA to ZDT. See how easy it is to make it an almost perfect precedent for Three Billboards, and still have it be the favorite for picture, despite the directing snub? That’s how weak competition was that year – same as this year, at least stats-wise. So, no, we can’t at all be sure the BAFTA+GG winner NEEDS to also win the BFCA for screenplay to be the favorite. That combo losing the BFCA is simply in that “no precedent zone”, between winners and losers. We literally have no clue which of the two it’s closest to, but the other stats suggest it’s the former.
“It also suggest that it would probably have lost WGA since it lost the bigger stat at the BFCA.”
But why do we say the BFCA is the bigger stat? That’s what I can’t find evidence for – I mean, sure, overall, including cases where the Globe/BAFTA winners were weak movies, or not even nominated for the Oscar, or movies from the other category, in the HFPA’s case… maybe it comes out on top. But that’s misleading. What matters when there’s so much dilution of the sample, and the situation is THAT different, are the precedents. The ones that actually resemble this year’s situation closely enough. And those don’t make the BFCA look very good. Definitely not when compared to a GG+BAFTA winner.
“Stop trying to use such defunct anomaly like “Arrival” which was never expected to win and only did so because of the category confusing about “Moonlight”. It’s completely useless!”
Yes, exactly! That’s literally what I’m also saying. That’s the only precedent of a movie to win the Critics Choice and lost both Globe and BAFTA awards for screenplay, and still win the WGA, and it’s completely useless, for that and other reasons. So, there’s no precedent for Get Out winning the WGA without the help of having its main competition removed, which left Lady Bird, a movie the BFCA, BAFTA and the industry have all given zero awards (the Globes gave it two for comedy), and The Shape of Water with its one critic award win for screenplay. That’s the kind of competition Get Out beat at the WGA…
“Three Billboard should’ve won BFCA based on that stat but it didn’t. Therefore, it very likely would’ve lost WGA too.”
I don’t see the logical connection between those two statements.
“I think it might even be the first movie to win BFCA that wasn’t nominated at the GG.”
It’s not. A Simple Plan (1998), The Green Mile (1999), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) – this one did only tie for the BFCA -, Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Arrival (2016). Little Miss Sunshine is the only one in original, and also the only one that won, and it remains one of Get Out’s best precedents for a legitimate WGA win/Oscar win, but that one also won BAFTA, so, again, that’s really just not the same thing. So, no, I don’t necessarily think it says more about the GG that Get Out was snubbed. It might mean genuine overall weakness for the movie/screenplay, as far as voter perception is concerned. We just can’t be sure. The pure numbers suggest it matters, and there’s no irrefutable argument that says it doesn’t, which is enough to make it impossible to ignore, if one wants to be both thorough and objective.
“Anyway, the way you’ve looked at it is very subjective because if you just look at your own stat it clearly says a film which has won GG and BAFTA would very likely win WGA BUT would also win BFCA. You can’t move the stat around just to suit your argument.”
That’s not the main reason I say Get Out isn’t the Oscar favorite. (Nor was it the WGA favorite.) It was the fact that 7/9 BFCA winners that didn’t win either the Golden Globe or BAFTA – since the date change in 2000 – (same as Get Out) went on to lose the Oscar. NONE of which, by the way, were up against a Globe+BAFTA winner, so they lost to arguably even weaker opposition. They are Memento (original), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (adapted, and snubbed by AMPAS), In America (original), Inglorious Basterds (original), Moneyball (adapted), Lincoln (adapted) and Gone Girl (adapted, and snubbed by AMPAS), the only exceptions being 12 Years a Slave (adapted, and WGA-ineligible) and Arrival (adapted) – so none in original. All original scripts that won the Critics Choice but lost the Globe and BAFTA were also nominated for, and lost, the Oscar. 3/3. This is the main thing going against Get Out for the original screenplay win at the Oscars. It doesn’t even have more Oscar nominations than the average number those got – not by a long shot!
“Technically, “Get Out” didn’t lose at the GG since it wasn’t even nominated there.”
This is true, and it’s a bit of a concern. One of the reasons I’m not calling Three Billboards some big stats favorite to win screenplay at the Oscars, or the hypothetical all-inclusive WGA. Just the favorite.
“It’s just so clear because it’s a critics darling and so superior to the competition.”
Those are literally two things that are almost never decisive when the industry votes. 🙂 They only happen to result in wins often enough because there are other reasons to vote for those movies. Like Moonlight or 12 Years a Slave, perhaps. (And Argo won the WGA, even though it was SO not the most deserving. There was just more reason to vote for it than Lincoln and the others. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. This kind of thing happens very often. But this reply is long enough as it is.) And there are no more reasons to vote for Get Out than there are for Three Billboards. If we’re being objective about what the Academy is likely to support, that is.
“just like I was convinced LLL wasn’t going to win WGA despite its screenplay wins at GG and BFCA.”
As you saw in one of my recent replies, I was too, by the end. 🙂 Also, that was a little different – La La Land won the Globe but only tied the BFCA. It lost the industry predictor, BAFTA, and couldn’t even win the second-best predictor outright. It wasn’t in as good of a position as Three Billboards, no way!
“I said there is a divide and US industry would be for “Get Out” and LB and both hit everything that they were expected to get.”
Actually, I and others expected Get Out to hit editing. It got in at ACE, after all, and had some precursor support for that. Had it been such a strong BP player, it really should’ve made it in at least there. I also expected it to contend for the SAG win, which maybe it did, but we’ll never know. Maybe it didn’t. Had it won, we would have known. Also, I don’t think anybody who thought it was strong in the race thought it would only get 4 nominations. That was unexpected. It did hit the DGA, but that’s about it. It was expected to hit either there or at the Oscars, but probably not both places. That’s the one thing it hit it wasn’t expected to hit, and it missed more than that. No editing, no extra nod for anything – supporting actress, production design, nothing. It wasn’t expected to get all of those, but one seemed possible. Point is, there’s a disconnect, but it’s actually not a big disconnect. It was among the ten that got picture nods at the Globes, and among the 9 that got them at the Oscars. It got Daniel Kaluuya in both places, and one has to imagine he would have been in had there been a single category, too, given that he didn’t miss anywhere, even at BAFTA (which is industry, by the way, and still only really gave Get Out two nods). It missed at the Globes for screenplay because they loved The Post and it wasn’t strong enough to get in with the Adapted contenders also in the running – Molly’s Game did, instead. And it missed director there, which was hardly unexpected. Only two differences. It won zero there, it’ll probably win zero at the Oscars, as unfortunate as that is. Sure, it’s not clear cut, because there is a difference, but I don’t think there’s enough of a difference for us to assume the screenplay snub there means less than it did for all of the other movies that didn’t have it and lost the Oscar the last 7 years.
“The Descendants” won the WGA and BFCA and then the Oscar despite losing GG and BAFTA. Granted it lost GG to “Midnight in Paris” which was dominant itself and in different category too. 12 Years won BFCA screenplay(not to mention the US Scripter in place of WGA) as well as winning BP everywhere yet somehow still lost to “Philomena” at BAFTA. How did that happen? The same happened to “The Descendants” and “Midnight in Paris” who won everything yet still lost BAFTA. The curveball here is GG which has only five slots and this year didn’t nominate the two early frontrunners for the screenplays (“Get Out” and “Call Me By Your Name”). How in the world did they nominate “Molly’s Game” and “The Post” ahead of those two?
BAFTA has disagreed with the WGA and BFCA on Adapted 11 times since 1996 and none of those won the Oscar. BAFTA went against WGA and BFCA 8 times out of 9 Original screenplay, the only exception is “Talk to Her” which was not nominated anywhere.
GG has disagreed with both BFCA and WGA on FOUR occasions(“Steve Jobs”, “The Queen”, “About Schmidt” and “The People vs. Larry Flynt”) and none of them won Oscar screenplay. “About Schmidt” doesn’t matter because none of them got it right that year as “The Pianist” came from nowhere to win Adapted. The same kind of thin happened in BOS too with “Talk to Her”, but it did win BAFTA.
Both GG and BAFTA disagreeing with WGA and BFCA has never happened. The closest it’s come was “The Queen” winning GG and looking likely to repeat at BAFTA, especially considering it won BP. That was avoided because BAFTA had two chances to reward Peter Morgan who wrote “The Queen” and co-wrote “The Last King of Scotland”, and they rewarded him for the latter.
The BFCA went head to head against BAFTA and GG three times and won all three times: “Spotlight”(“The Revenant” won BAFTA and GG), “No Country For Old Men” (“Atonement” won BAFTA and GG)” and “The Departed”(“The Queen” won BAFTA while “Babel” won GG).
The thing is, I am very convinced that “Get Out” would still have won WGA even if Three Billboard had eligible but I am not as convinced it would still certain to win the Oscar even then. The stats would be more favourable but I’d still not be as convinced as I of WGA. The Oscar screenplay is about BP, I feel, while WGA is mostly about screenplay. There a slight difference and 3B has the edge in terms of BP. The thing that is giving me the biggest believe is that I believe there is a divide between GG and US industry/critics. GG and BAFTA are on 3B’s side while DGA-PGA, BFCA and majority of critics have gone against it. Only SAG has bucked the trend which is not so surprising since 3B is such an actor’s movie. That and the fact that Peele is nominated THREE times and so that might factor in their mind as well as being worthy winner. To be honest, my biggest hope is that 3B doesn’t win BP. I’ll be okay with McDonagh winning BOS as long as 3B doesn’t win BP.
But that’s never going to happen ; if 3 Bills wins BSP then it wins BP
They’re very likely to give BSP to McDonagh as a substitute for the BD snub ; and that’s why the BD snub is not critical for 3 Bills chances for BP
It can clearly win without it
“”The Descendants” won the WGA and BFCA and then the Oscar despite losing GG and BAFTA. Granted it lost GG to “Midnight in Paris” which was dominant itself and in different category too. 12 Years won BFCA screenplay(not to mention the US Scripter in place of WGA) as well as winning BP everywhere yet somehow still lost to “Philomena” at BAFTA. How did that happen? The same happened to “The Descendants” and “Midnight in Paris” who won everything yet still lost BAFTA.”
Of course it’s important Midnight in Paris was from the other category. Not the case this year, so that can’t be relevant. And 12 Years a Slave wasn’t eligible at the WGA, so that’s also irrelevant to me, because I was interested in predicting the WGA, which is a BP precursor, not the Oscar for screenplay. It’s relevant for the Oscars, maybe. Though Philomena only won BAFTA, not also the Golden Globe, so it’s not even relevant for that.
“BAFTA has disagreed with the WGA and BFCA on Adapted 11 times since 1996 and none of those won the Oscar.”
You literally just said days ago the stats for original and adapted were completely different, for reasons nobody could explain. 🙂 Also, again, I’m not predicting the Oscar. If 3B wins the WGA, it’s enough for me to make it the favorite for BP. It doesn’t absolutely need to win screenplay at the Oscars, and I’ve said this many times. And, even if we do pit those two and try to predict the screenplay Oscar (instead of the WGA), the only times BAFTA and the BFCA have disagreed since 2000, with both nominated in the same category at both those two and the Oscars, and the Oscar has not gone to a THIRD movie (which is the only relevant outcome, since we’re comparing only 3B and GO’s chances), are:
– The Hurt Locker vs. Inglorious Basterds, which The Hurt Locker won at the Oscars. 1-0 to BAFTA. And The Hurt Locker didn’t even win the Globe, like Three Billboards, and it still won.
– Midnight in Paris vs. The Artist, which Midnight in Paris won at the Oscars. Alas, it also won the Globe, unlike Get Out, so it’s a wash, because that makes it clearly stronger than a movie snubbed there.
– 12 Years a Slave vs. Philomena, which 12 Years a Slave won at the Oscars. 1-1, let’s say!… BUT this was in Adapted, which, again, you say is different. So, whether you accept this as BFCA’s only precedent, or Midnight in Paris (I think both is too optimistic), it’s 1-1, regardless, between the two.
And that’s it. Even comparing lone BFCA/BAFTA-winning precedents for original screenplay, and thus ignoring 3B’s obviously relevant Golden Globe win, Get Out still doesn’t come out as the favorite for the Oscar. As for Talk to Her, it’s relevant. The BFCA didn’t even nominate it, nor did the HFPA, therefore it was clearly weaker than Three Billboards in that category, precursor-wise, and it still won BAFTA and the Oscar.
“BAFTA went against WGA and BFCA 8 times out of 9 Original screenplay”
How many of those times was the BAFTA winner not eligible for the WGA that went to the Critics Choice winner, like this year? Also, of course: how many times did it also win the Globe?
“GG has disagreed with both BFCA and WGA on FOUR occasions(“Steve Jobs”, “The Queen”, “About Schmidt” and “The People vs. Larry Flynt”) and none of them won Oscar screenplay.”
The Queen is the only one of those that is relevant. The other three (Steve Jobs included) were snubbed for the Oscar, so they couldn’t win. (Making them obviously weaker than Three Billboards, in addition to the many other ways in which they’re weaker.) The People vs. Larry Flynt, like About Schmidt also didn’t lose to the BFCA winner, by being snubbed, so it’s doubly irrelevant (The English Patient didn’t win screenplay, at least according to Wikipedia.)
“The BFCA went head to head against BAFTA and GG three times and won all three times: “Spotlight”(“The Revenant” won BAFTA and GG), “No Country For Old Men” (“Atonement” won BAFTA and GG)” and “The Departed”(“The Queen” won BAFTA while “Babel” won GG).”
Oh, you mean for picture. 🙂
First, going up against DIFFERENT BAFTA and GG winners is in no way the same thing, so that’s 2/2, not 3/3. Neither The Queen, nor Babel, were as strong as 3B. They lost the Triple Crown. Even at 2/2, this is, indeed, a small point of concern I have over not predicting Shape. I’m not 100% indifferent to this 2-0 score. It’s a part of why I still think it’s close. But, ultimately, The Revenant had Oscar screenplay, WGA and SAG snubs, which are both at least as bad as the directing snub, and it had all three of them, so it’s not even remotely the same thing. Spotlight’s ACE snub is WAY less predictive than any of those four. And Spotlight won SAG+WGA, the most important combo, whereas Shape has won neither of those. As for Atonement, it had the following snubs: Oscar directing and editing, DGA, PGA (100% stat), SAG ensemble, ACE and WGA, probably the latter due to being ineligible. Not sure. Anyway, how that’s even remotely comparable to Three Billboards’ situation, I just don’t see…
“The thing is, I am very convinced that “Get Out” would still have won WGA even if Three Billboard had eligible”
Again, I’m not saying this is necessarily not the case. You may be right. The stats don’t always win, and I respect strong intuitive feelings quite a bit, actually. Don’t think it doesn’t worry me that you’re still so sure, even knowing all of the arguments! But I just don’t think the stats case for that is there. It is for Three Billboards winning… And I have to go with the stats, as always. (My intuition is also telling me 3B would have won the WGA, and will prrrobably win the Oscar, too.)
“The thing that is giving me the biggest believe is that I believe there is a divide between GG and US industry/critics. GG and BAFTA are on 3B’s side while DGA-PGA, BFCA and majority of critics have gone against it.”
BAFTA and SAG are both industry. 3B is easily the strongest BP contender to win BAFTA since Argo. It’s not AS strong as Argo, but it’s the strongest since then, and you know yourself how good of a predictor BAFTA was for BP in the years leading up to Boyhood vs. Birdman! Boyhood, The Revenant and La La Land all lost BAFTA screenplay, neither won SAG, the latter two even being snubbed there. The Shape of Water is very much also in that situation. Minus the BAFTA and Globe wins, so even worse. The directing snub is the only real argument it has, apart from the suspect PGA win argument (I’ve already said why I think that’s suspect – the demonstrable, and understandable, bias towards flashier productions, compared to AMPAS.)
“To be honest, my biggest hope is that 3B doesn’t win BP. I’ll be okay with McDonagh winning BOS as long as 3B doesn’t win BP.”
Personally, I’d much rather it won BP than screenplay, if it’s a choice between the two. Get Out deserves screenplay so much more over it! In picture, it’s less clear, for me.
Excuse me, but the stat shows that Three Billboards is the exception rather than the rule. We can’t know for sure but the fact that it lost BFCA which was seven out seven for GG-BAFTA winners. The stats never said “Argo” had to because there was no precedence for that. Three Billboards is doing worse than any previous precedence in the same situation. That cannot be good. “Get Out” already beat its main competition at the BFCA which “Arrival” didn’t. How can you still be using it after that fact? There is a clear difference between the two so why using it as an example? That is driving me crazy!
There’s no precedent for GG-BAFTA winner losing either at WGA or BFCA but there’s plenty of WGA-BFCA winners losing at BAFTA or GG. What’s never happened is both combinations against each other.
Well, duh! Because they also won the BFCA. Do you get it now? They didn’t do it without at least the BFCA? You just keep moving the stat to say what you want. Those GG-BAFTA winners NEVER won without BFCA. That is the bloody point! 6/7 of GG-BAFTA winners won WGA(Django was inelegible) while all seven winners have won BFCA too. In other words GG-BAFTA are never by themselves and must also have WGA and BFCA and almost always both. However, the reverse is not the case as GG and especially BAFTA have differred with WGA and BFCA combination numerous.
“If 3B wins the WGA, it’s enough for me to make it the favorite for BP. It doesn’t absolutely need to win screenplay at the Oscars, and I’ve said this many times.” Well, if it had won the WGA then it would definitely be a favourite and perhaps a huge favourite.
“As for Talk to Her, it’s relevant. The BFCA didn’t even nominate it, nor did the HFPA, therefore it was clearly weaker than Three Billboards in that category, precursor-wise, and it still won BAFTA and the Oscar.”
There’s no precedent for BAFTA-GG V WGA-BFCA so we have too look at individual races in order to have an idea which combo is more likely to be right. Individually, WGA and BFCA have a much better record of matching the Oscar screenplay than GG and BAFTA individually. WGA-BFCA combo have only be wrong once which also happens to be the BAFTA-GG combo have been wrong too. However, WGA-BFCA combo have been right even when BAFTA or GG don’t agree with their choice while BAFTA-GG combo have never been right without WGA-BFCA agreeing with their choice. Conversely, I am sure there are at least a few films which also didn’t get nominated by either GG or BAFTA and win either or both the WGA and BFCA but still won the Oscar screenplay. Also you must remember that BFCA didn’t have two categories when “Talk To Her” won and didn’t even have five nominations. I think it was only three in 2003. So you must be careful when you are comparing different situations.
“How many of those times was the BAFTA winner not eligible for the WGA that went to the Critics Choice winner, like this year? Also, of course: how many times did it also win the Globe?”
I think you know very well the answer to that. There is no precedent for BAFTA-GG winner against WGA and BFCA winner. Most of those BAFTA winners weren’t even nominated elsewhere. Also, a few of them came before BAFTA moved its ceremony to before the Oscars.
“Oscar directing and editing, DGA, PGA (100% stat), SAG ensemble, ACE and WGA, probably the latter due to being ineligible. Not sure. Anyway, how that’s even remotely comparable to Three Billboards’ situation, I just don’t see…”
But that’s what I mean. A film like that would almost never win BP at the Oscars or BFCA or any of the main guilds but they’ve done quite a few times at GG and BAFTA. It doesn’t say anything about Three Billboards chances, but it does say a lot about awards shows that would give BP to such a film. While you just look at the stats each indivudual has I look at the reliability of precursors too. Some precursors have much better stats than others, which I feel can be very helful when the stats are so clear. The more reliable precursor is the more likely their pick is going to be right unless there’s a clear sign that they are likely to be wrong. WGA and BFCA are the most reliable precursors for screenplay and even better when they are together(notwithstanding legibility. Although that has never stopped them from wiining but then they never faced BAFTA-GG combo either). WGA-BFCA is great for BP too, especially the latter. I said that domination of LLL was not really to me and I thought they’ve gone overboard in rewarding because they held their show too early. I believe the reason they got BP wrong was because they held their ceremony too early and love tof LLL was too much, from both GG and BFCA.
“3B is easily the strongest BP contender to win BAFTA since Argo.”
What, stronger than “Boyhood” or “La La Land”? Is it even stronger than “12 Years a Slave”? None of those films were missing a big stat like BD except LLL, which missed SAG but still swept the precursors and looked likely winner until “Moonlight” won BP despite not winning any except WGA(not counting GG because LLL due to category difference and we know who would’ve won if they were in the same category) and toppled a few big stats itself.
“What matters when there’s so much dilution of the sample, and the situation is THAT different, are the precedents. The ones that actually resemble this year’s situation closely enough. And those don’t make the BFCA look very good. Definitely not when compared to a GG+BAFTA winner.”
You see it as BAFTA-GG against BFCA on its own. But I see it as WGA-BFCA V BAFTA-GG. “Get Out” won BFCA beating Three Billboards and it is the award the closely resembles the WGA, while the other two are more of a European affair and unsurprisingly went with the more European film. The thing I find very frustrating is there’s no way to really know. I am so convinced though. I called all the screenplays easily without any hesitations because I could see where each of them stood. It wasn’t difficult to predict them and the WGA isn’t either. If anyone of them went differently then I might question my opinion of WGA.
“What, stronger than “Boyhood” or “La La Land”? Is it even stronger than “12 Years a Slave”?”
You’re right, I don’t know what I was thinking when I made that statement. I probably had some idea in mind, but I can’t figure out what it was anymore, so maybe it wasn’t that great, anyway… 🙂
On to screenplay:
“Excuse me, but the stat shows that Three Billboards is the exception rather than the rule. We can’t know for sure but the fact that it lost BFCA which was seven out seven for GG-BAFTA winners.”
It shows that it’s the exception to winning the BFCA. Since there is no precedent to that, we can’t know whether it means enough to make it lose or not. We can’t know which of the two it’s closer to – just like I said.
“Those GG-BAFTA winners NEVER won without BFCA. That is the bloody point!”
No, that’s NOT the point, because those GG-BAFTA winners also NEVER LOST without BFCA, to provide even one precedent that says that NOT winning the BFCA means they would. Because it’s never come up.
“Well, duh! Because they also won the BFCA. Do you get it now? They didn’t do it without at least the BFCA?”
But none that lost the BFCA (because there are none) have lost due to that, either, to prove that NOT winning the BFCA means they wouldn’t.
“Individually, WGA and BFCA have a much better record of matching the Oscar screenplay than GG and BAFTA individually.”
But they’re NOT individual this year, because the Globe winner has also won BAFTA. (In addition to not even losing the WGA.) And the WGA/BFCA winner has lost both.
(The WGA cannot be taken individually because Three Billboards wasn’t eligible. Stop talking about the WGA’s record – it’s irrelevant this year!) Also, BFCA vs. BAFTA is 4-2 only, which is one away from 50%. So even that is simply entirely unconvincing. As for BFCA vs. GG, going back all the way, when the two have disagreed (the Globe winner not winning either of the BFCA screenplay awards), the BFCA has been right three times, two of which are super-questionable, to say the least (Manchester by the Sea, sort of, because it did only tie the Globe winner, The Big Short, but Steve Jobs wasn’t nominated for the Oscar, making that very different from this year’s situation, and Little Miss Sunshine), while the Globe winner won over the BFCA winner twice (Lost in Translation, and A Beautiful Mind winning when Memento lost in the other category to Gosford Park) – I wouldn’t call that “better” at all, to be honest…
“BAFTA-GG combo have never been right without WGA-BFCA agreeing with their choice.”
But that’s only because THEY NEVER HAVE both disagreed with their choice before. How is that relevant, then?
“There’s no precedent for GG-BAFTA winner losing either at WGA or BFCA but there’s plenty of WGA-BFCA winners losing at BAFTA or GG. What’s never happened is both combinations against each other.”
None of these things means anything in relation to anything. No precedents = no evidence. What is left to say beyond that?
And, by the way, what WGA+BFCA winners have won the Oscar without winning either the Globe or BAFTA? NONE. ZERO. Same as GG+BAFTA. By your logic, they all needed to win BAFTA as well, to prove they were good enough to win the Oscar. (Unless we start making unfounded assumptions about which is more relevant, which aren’t born out by either the numbers or the logic.) So Get Out can’t win the Oscar.
“WGA-BFCA combo have only be wrong once”
Yes, exactly, with Arrival, which also happens to be THE ONLY TIME the WGA+BFCA winner LOST BOTH THE GLOBE AND BAFTA, LIKE THIS YEAR.
“Three Billboards is doing worse than any previous precedence in the same situation.”
But there are no precedents in the same situation, a.k.a. WGA-ineligible. So, no, it’s not doing worse than anything. Nor better.
“”Get Out” already beat its main competition at the BFCA which “Arrival” didn’t.”
No, actually that’s not true. It did beat its main competition for the WGA (where it wasn’t competing against Moonlight) at the BFCA. And didn’t lose the BAFTA or the Globe to its main competition for either the Oscars or the WGA, like Get Out has. Simple as that. It’s much more of a valid precedent than you seem to think.
“Conversely, I am sure there are at least a few films which also didn’t get nominated by either GG or BAFTA and win either or both the WGA and BFCA but still won the Oscar screenplay.”
OK, you’ve found something relevant here. Milk was snubbed for the Globes and lost BAFTA, then won the WGA and the Oscar over BAFTA winner In Bruges. There are also Precious and The Pianist – which didn’t win the BFCA or WGA either, though, so those seems like worthless precedents… But that’s it. One relevant precedent. If you think that’s enough to make some sort of point, fine – I don’t!
“Also you must remember that BFCA didn’t have two categories when “Talk To Her” won and didn’t even have five nominations.”
Talk to Her wasn’t even among the four movies nominated that year for the BFCA. I think it’s quite safe to assume it wasn’t winning even had there been two categories.
“You see it as BAFTA-GG against BFCA on its own. But I see it as WGA-BFCA V BAFTA-GG.”
Which is completely unjustified. Get Out only won the BFCA in competition with Three Billboards. You keep refusing to treat this as what it is. How can I then think you’re being objective about anything, if you can’t be objective about this?!
“and it is the award the closely resembles the WGA”
Actually, since 2009, when the BFCA and BAFTA winners were different in either original or adapted, and one of those won the WGA, twice it was the BFCA winner (Her and Midnight in Paris) and twice the BAFTA winner (The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Hurt Locker). There are no other years that apply since 2000. So there is literally zero numerical evidence that supports your claim that the WGA is closer to the BFCA than BAFTA for screenplay.
“You just keep moving the stat to say what you want.”
No, that’s what you keep doing. 🙂 I’m keeping the stats fair. You’re fitting them to your point. Over and over. And refusing to listen to reason. If you’re going to keep giving me stats that have small samples or are based on the WGA results, or impressions about which of the three remaining precursors has a better record or is more relevant, which the numbers don’t even support, I really think we should stop this discussion, because we’re just wasting time. A lot of it, too, unfortunately.
What I think the key difference between our two approaches to stats, maybe in general, as well, but most definitely when it comes to what we’ve been discussing for the past few days, is this:
I never make assumptions about this or that precursor or result that I can’t back up exclusively with numbers. You, on the other hand, make a lot of assumptions which can be sustained (as well as countered, just as easily, which is what I’ve been doing) only on the basis of logic, which is too subjective for my tastes. (Some of them can also be counterd by the numbers, which don’t add up.) This is why I disagree with so many of your stats.
You say stuff like “Apollo 13 lost because the directing stat was stronger than the SAG stat”, which we just DO NOT KNOW – nor do we have enough reason to assume it. There are several other ways of explaining that outcome: the “WGA loss + 1” rule (that’s what I’m calling it from now on, the other way is just too long), which is the way I explain it, and which in no way depends on a comparison between the SAG and directing snub stats; Apollo 13’s lacklustre performance in “best film” precursors, matched by Braveheart, sure, but that one was at least winning director everywhere, before the guilds, and won screenplay at the WGA – Apollo 13 won way less above the line; the DGA win potentially being a fluke due to Howard’s Oscar snub and voters’ wish to make up for that – again, Braveheart won the major directing prizes that year -, which would make Braveheart the favorite, had it won that instead, as is normal, since the DGA winner is almost never an Oscar-snubbed director; the SAG snub being a fluke due to first-year weirdness, which is definitely a thing, as I’ve often illustrated. There might be other ways, too. These are only the main ones. Numbers don’t back up the theory that the directing snub trumps the SAG snub. Those are equal in percentage. Sample size isn’t enough of a reason to just assume the directing snub is more important. 89 isn’t a massive sample either, and 22 is large enough to make it almost as reliable. Enough for it to simply not be clear whether one is superior to the other. The same principle applies to Argo “needing” to win as much as it did to compensate for the directing snub. This, too, isn’t supported by numbers – and, in my opinion, is very questionable logically, as well. I won’t go into details there again – we already discussed that. Same goes for the GG+BAFTA screenplay winner “needing” to also win the BFCA. Again, not supported by any numbers or precedents. Hard to say whether it’s a correct assumption or not. We’ll get our first clue about that this year, but it won’t be more than that – a clue.
You also assume the BFCA is stronger than BAFTA as an individual screenplay predictor – which I just showed you isn’t supported by pure numbers, in my previous message. It’s only 4-2 up (4-3, even, if you count the fact that the BFCA tied between Manchester and La La Land, and BAFTA picked the Oscar winner only), which just isn’t enough to even logically assume it’s better, let alone statistically. You clearly assume this because recent cases have gone its way, for the most part, more so than in the past. But has anything changed that would suggest this being a new trend, as opposed to random variance? I don’t see it. You, likewise, assume the WGA is closer to the BFCA than BAFTA – which I again proved is no more than speculation. It’s 2-2 when the two have differed in predicting the WGA. Or that the Globes snubbing “Get Out” for screenplay is just “weird” and “out of tune”, and can be ignored because of that. (Which is, again, supported by nothing – the correlation is there, even though the Globes are not the American industry, so the stat exists, and that’s all there is to it. Otherwise, why are we taking the BFCA stats seriously at all? Because they’re American? So are the people voting for those internet polls, and they’d give Best Picture to Call Me By Your Name.) The examples are many… Almost every stat and argument you offer up is based on one or more of these assumptions, and that’s always what I address when I make my point-by-point objections.
Now, again I will say: I’m not trying to tell you you’re wrong. Far from it! I genuinely believe it’s possible (though unlikely) you are right about even a majority of these, that your subjective thoughts might trump what the numbers say – which is that it’s completely unclear. I do think it’s likely you’re right in at least a few of your assumptions, and I’m sure you’ll win some more “prediction battles” between us in the future due to that. I’m not going to keep count of who wins more, overall, because that seems silly to me, but, if you like, and you think it means anything, you can. I won’t mind. Point is, all I’m trying to say is that my opinion about those assumptions you’re making is different from yours, and, as long as the stats you try to refute my arguments with will largely be based on those assumptions, or others similar to them, it’s going to be very hard for us to ever see eye to eye on anything, if the numbers don’t also back up what you’re saying. Which, so far, they really haven’t, save for 2-3 minor cases (always very small sample stats, and not based on industry awards alone), in all of which I acknowledged you were potentially on to something, even numbers-wise, unlike with the others. There’s one in my most recent reply, too.
All of my stats are based on numbers. And, if I use a small-sampled stat to make a point, it will always have at least an 80% success rate at predicting whatever it is I’m using it to predict, not 4/6 – and a questionable 4/6, at that -, which is 66%. I work with high percentages (at least for Best Picture, and anything I’m trying to predict that directly influences my Best Picture prediction, as is the case with the WGA/Oscar for original screenplay this year), even when it comes to small-sample stats. When it comes to stats with a sample size of at least ten years/instances, I need 90%, no less, to give it any kind of attention. So, in order to convince me of anything, or prove me wrong on anything, you will simply have to come up with not only stuff like “X stat is superior to Y stat, because this and that assumption”, but with actual numbers, percentages and decent samples, to back up said assumptions. And no subjectively excluding exceptions! You have to set fair rules for all contenders to meet (like I believe I do), and then every exception to that (like Arrival, if you define a stat to say it’s included, which you have, often, and that’s the only reason I’ve kept mentioning it) is just an exception. Period. That’s the only way you’ll ever get me to say “I was wrong about this”, if you prove to me that there’s some unbiased (= fair) way of looking at things that means I’ve been looking at them wrong, and that leads to the numbers skewing strongly in favor of your argument. And that’s not 4-2…
What’s been so frustrating is that I know 90% of the stats in every one of your replies is going to be based on this or that assumption, like I just described, and I will then, when I inevitably (and usually very quickly) figure out what bias that assumption is based on, be forced to do the research to prove to you that the numbers don’t add up and don’t support the claim you’re making. I’ve done this for so many replies in a row, and wasted so much time, learning little I didn’t already know about the screenplay or picture races, or precursor strength (as described by percentages), from previous years of similar research – some things, here or there, but nowhere near enough to justify the effort put in -, that it’s just hard to motivate myself to keep doing it. And it’s not fair for you to just take what are almost shots in the dark, based on 2-3 examples you know went your way, and then for me to have to look at the whole sample myself and point out the ones that didn’t, which are usually just as many or more than the former, which you of course didn’t mention or weren’t aware of, and which you will then try to explain away with more unfounded assumptions. Or to do the same to prove that some assumption you made based on your general impressions was either clearly biased in favor of one movie’s situation, over the others, or just didn’t correspond with the facts.
It takes you infinitely less time to come up with these things, I’m sure, because it’s easy, and I could do it to, very quickly, that’s how easy it is, but it’s just not relevant to the real situation, so I don’t want to resort to that kind of arguing, where I’m just trying to win the argument at all costs. I don’t see the value in it. I don’t want to lie to myself or others. I’m trying to make actually valid points, instead. And it takes me ages, because it involves actual, unbiased, demanding research (which takes five times as long as just quickly going through a list of results, with no regard to logical soundness or circumstances, or listing examples off the top of your head, and then claiming, for instance, that, among others, Steve Jobs, which wasn’t even nominated for screenplay at the Oscars, nor did it win BAFTA or the WGA, is somehow relevant to the Globes winner not being as likely to win for screenplay as the BFCA winner, and should therefore be included in a list of precedents for Three Billboards not winning – it clearly should not, yet one of your recent stats was based on a count that included it), studying tables, checking my objectivity, my numbers, my logic, and so on.
Does this sound fair to you? I’m convinced you haven’t put anywhere near as much work into this argument over screenplay and the WGA as I have. Meaning hours upon hours… You’re a reasonable person. Please, please stop making me pay my “daily john smith tribute time” toll :), researching things I know will turn out my way (because it’s obvious your assumption is biased, and I have a good rough idea of how previous races went down and what the exceptions might be for every kind of stat), just so I can give actual numbers and list exceptions, to support my own counter-claims – and do instead try to, from now on, stick only to those arguments you can make that you can actually support with strong, high-percentage stats, or precedent lists that aren’t biased (meaning, they don’t ignore some key bit of information, like WGA eligibility, neglect to factor in what won the other major precursors, whether the contenders in question were nominated at the Oscars, and so on), are all relevant to this year’s situation and are at least on 2/2 results favoring your point, and none favoring the opposite! You’ve made two or three such points, and I acknowledged all of those, and stated my opinions on them without ever arguing that they were biased. They weren’t, at least as far as I could tell after a couple minutes’ thought.
Although, honestly, given how many times you’ve made me go through my screenplay tables (which I only compiled due to your replies in the first place, because it was taking too long researching so many screenplay winners and nominees from so many precursor awards every single time) these last few days, I don’t really think such stats exist, that support your points about screenplay, because I would have spotted them by now. But, hey, I’m human, so I could easily be wrong. EASILY. It’s not an exaggeration. But, please, stick to those, because I do have a breaking point, there’s only so much mandatory research I can perform, and I’m getting near that limit! So I really can’t take anymore stats based on subjective assumptions that can’t be supported by numbers. Please, no more! 🙂 And I don’t just mean this year. In general, when we debate stats, please try to keep in mind that anything you say that isn’t backed up by a high-percentage stat, I WILL contest, and it will probably take me a ton of time to do so, in order to be able to give you the exact numbers that back up said objections.
And, for the love of God, please don’t take any of this personally!!! 🙂 I literally am just trying to stop an endless and, by now, pointless (since we’re working under different assumptions about what is a valid stats argument and what isn’t) debate before I lose my mind. I have the utmost respect for your intuition, which you’ve proven many times is spot-on (though you’ve been wrong too, as have we all), and for your extensive knowledge of the stats and precedents. But I do very much disagree with your approach to interpreting them (something about which I fully recognize I could just as easily be wrong as right), like I said, and it leads to endless arguments like this one, which can’t possibly lead anywhere productive.
We need to agree to disagree about the fundamentals of how Oscar stats should work, and just move on, but also keep this disagreement in mind for future discussions we have, so that we don’t drive each other mad trying to prove to one another that it was, in fact, the chicken that came before the egg – or vice-versa!… 🙂
Anyway, Moonlight wasn’t a stats favorite to win the WGA, either. La La Land was perhaps a stats favorite to lose it, but if you were going to predict anything to win there, based on stats, it had to be Manchester, no? Moonlight had no major screenplay wins, only critic wins, and, like Three Billboards vs. Get Out, it had fewer of them than Manchester by the Sea.
That’s why that WGA win was so telling for BP… Not the same as with Get Out’s, which has been dominating the critic screenplay wins, a la Manchester, but even more so, and, of course, has the BFCA win, unlike Moonlight.
You weren’t certain that Three Billboards was going win BAFTA screenplay, but I saw nothing else. Some people thought LB might win screenplay at BFCA despite losing the GG and not winning many critics awards for screenplay. They still thought it could win WGA even after it lost BFCA. Some still think , or more likely hope, that it could still win the Oscar screenplay. Not going to happen. There was only one film which was going to win BFCA WGA and it won both. I was more confident about it winning those two than I am about the Oscar. I feel the Oscar could the way they like and could lean more toward the bigger BP film, especially when it’s won BAFTA and GG.
Do you honestly believe the fact you’ve been right the last few times about screenplay (even if it’s ten or something, it doesn’t matter) means you can’t be wrong this time? 🙂 I used to think like that, to some extent – when I was younger. Not anymore…
About your The Descendants argument, that lost absolutely nowhere relevant. The writers of BAFTA awarded Tinker Tailor but we have no idea what the whole of the association would have awarded and it lost the Globe to the original screenplay winner
I really hope some of these were done pre-BAFTAs because they are so so wrong.
IKR, what is the point? Dafoe, for example, is dead. It’s not the category to predict an upset.
My main problem is, most of the people are placing Three Billboards 5th. Even if you don’t place it 1st, come on, 5th???
Off topic: Does anyone know when the Awards Daily Daily Awards ballots will open? Oscar voting begins today.
I want to know what was Robin Wright smoking when she chose Dunkirk, Nolan, Robbie and Dafoe as her choices.
Yes. This is really silly. Everyone knows that is 0/4. Is she supposed to an “expert”?
Robin’s a guy. Robin’s one of the smartest film guys I know.
Robin thinks outside the box and probably has more fun betting on longshots than he does playing it safe.
Choosing between 3Bs, LB and Get Out for OS is understandable. Choosing between TSOW, 3Bs and Get Out for Picture is understandable.
But choosing Nolan instead of Del Toro is not even a longshot. This is not ‘expert’ opinion. This is shooting in the dark!
I can understand predicting outside the box on Gold Derby for fun just to try and sneak some surprise points. But if you’re genuinely saying what you think will win you usually follow more of a stat proven herd mentality.
I can see reason for all of those choices. This is the Academy. Not the critics or the awarding bodies that have gone before.
Traditionally speaking, DUNKIRK is much more of a BP winner than 3B. In terms of quality of filmmaking Nolan and Del Toro are evenly matched. So it’s entirely possible that those that prefer Dunkirk to fish sex would choose him. The case for Robbie is that Frances McDormand very famously asked the awarding bodies to choose someone younger in her speech at the SAG awards. Dafoe is not a strange choice at all because although many people like Sam Rockwell, I think he is probably less well liked than Dafoe who’s been to this rodeo more than once in the past. Dafoe is the overdue veteran in this category. So if you think there is any anti-3B sentiment out there Dafoe is a great bet.
“This is the Academy. Not the critics or the awarding bodies that have gone before.”
Dunkirk has zero significant wins at any of the major precursors. No picture, director, screenplay or acting wins. Winning BP with that record would be unprecedented since 1943, and that’s only because there were almost no precursors back then. It just doesn’t happen. Ever. Literally the only reason anyone should be giving Dunkirk any kind of a minuscule chance is the preferential ballot. I give it 2% for that reason, and the fact that nothing is 100%. I should probably be giving it 0.00%. It’s just not the kind of thing I do (and there’s nothing to gain from ever saying something 100% can’t happen, instead of saying 99% or 98%, as far as I’m concerned), otherwise I would.
And, no, saying “I don’t pay attention to stats” just doesn’t do it here. By this point, this has just become a matter of common sense. Now, for the other categories, I haven’t studied the stats as closely. There might be marginally better chances of an upset in one of those, as in closer to 5%, or whatever… 🙂 Though director, at least, is probably just as locked as picture.
Maybe I will switch to Three B at the last second. I’d love for it to get screenplay and picture.
As you’ll see in my reply to CherryValance below, that’s not my favorite thing for you to do… 🙂 But, if you end up genuinely believing it, like I have, it probably can’t be the right thing to not switch, either, of course.
And anyone can give DUNKIRK any chance they want. I watched it for a second time and have already said that it got worse, but your predictions are yours. You don’t get to tell other people what they can and can’t predict. If you’re stats were infallible and you had a perfect formula there’d be absolutely nothing to talk about and you’d have to find a new hobby.
I didn’t say one couldn’t predict it. I said by this point it was no longer common sense to do so. (In case it wasn’t already clear, given that this is a predictions site, not a scientific research forum, or whatever, I’ll add: “in my opinion”. A strongly worded opinion, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.) Surely you don’t think that’s offensive!… People say far worse things on the internet and they get away with not even a caution. I don’t think it’s at all fair for me to get attacked for this. There have been things I’ve deserved to be attacked for in the past, and I have. This is not one of those.
“You don’t get to tell other people what they can and can’t predict.”
So, yeah, please point out where I did that! Maybe you think “should” means the same thing…
I don’t want to tell anybody what to do. It genuinely pains me when I predict something and manage to convince somebody else I’m right, then get it wrong. I feel responsible. Trust me, if it were up to me, nobody would ever change their predictions on account of something I said. EVER… 🙂 That’s not the reason I am so argumentative on here – I’m just defending my logic, 99% of the time, because I want to make sure I’m not committing some fallacy that could cause me to get my predictions wrong. And because it’s fun to argue about stuff. (As long as it happens in a civilized manner, obviously.)
Yes. Telling people what they “should” do is telling them what to do.
What?! No it isn’t. Maybe if they’re “sheep” and can’t say no. Or have their own thoughts. Is that the kind of people you think we’re talking about here? I don’t get your comment at all…
Let’s just ignore each other.
Why? Do you think this silly misunderstanding, or whatever it is, is worth that much animosity? If you do, there’s nothing I can do about it, I suppose, but it seems extreme to me, to say the least… If I bug you in general, and you just can’t take it anymore, or whatever, then go ahead! But, if not, believe me, you’re overreacting big time!…
I guess you haven’t seen TSOW since it is much more than just “fish sex”! Also, we are not really talking about what has been traditionally a BP winner. Do you even know how much change the academy composition has gone through after the #oscarssowhite movement. Are you even aware that a coming-of-age movie of a black gay teen won BP last year over a romantic musical of two white heartthrobs?
We are talking about hard-core stats here which just simply say that the race for BP and the 4 acting races are over! The only competition is for BP and BOS.
“The case for Robbie is that Frances McDormand very famously asked the awarding bodies to choose someone younger in her speech at the SAG awards.”
That didn’t stop the BAFTA from giving her the win. Or now you will say the British didn’t see the SAG awards! Also, if at all the academy decides to listen to McDormand, the younger actress would be Ronan and not Robbie basis the critics awards + GG win.
Are you even aware how condescending you’re being? I have seen the Shape of Water but since I have strong opinions against it and it’s Sasha’s favorite movie, I’m keeping my mouth shut about it. The fact that every year stats are broken mean that you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. Yes it’s most likely the Academy will be sheep but the sheer fact that they stepped out and went hard for PHANTOM THREAD surprising many people means they could have a trick up their sleeve. I’m not predicting any of this shit because I know how silly trying to predict the future is.
Ofcourse I am condescending because you called TSOW as ‘fish sex’! Along with Sasha’s, it is my favourite film as well. Also, as someone has rightly pointed out on this thread, there is a fine line between predicting and having fun! Someone choosing between Spotlight, Revenant and The Big Short would be predicting but choosing The Room for best picture is shooting in the dark. I hope that clarifies…..
In her SAG speech, McDormand was likely thinking about Ronan – whom she was seen embracing. I don’t think Rockwell is less liked than Dafoe – since he was voted by SAG and BAFTA for the win. Dunkirk is done with Best Picture. No SAG ensemble, no acting, writing nods – and it’s poor showing at BAFTA.
Sally Hawkins and Saoirse Ronan are both younger than McDormand, and both their movies more beloved and stand a better chance at winning BP.
Depends on what this is supposed to be. I take this as experts predicting the race.
How are those 4 predictions “smart”
Nobody knows which of Robin’s predictions are smart until Oscar night.
I said Robin is smart. A lot of smart people like to do things differently.
Doesn’t always pan out. But when it does, we get iPhones and other fun stuff.
The way I see it is that line between being an expert pundit, and truly predicting the race, and being a player/campaigner is blurred and often crossed.
Robin’s predictions don’t make any sense, other than trying to generate debate/controversy or trying to drum up support for his favourites.
I along with many others rely on your expertise as Oscar experts, and I think you should predict what will win rather than go for fun, campaigning or generating controversy,
I’m not Robin’s attorney, so I’m done discussing his intentions.
Guess Robin will just have to cope with your refusal to certify him as an “expert pundit”
Not sure why legitimate attempts at discussion are met with condescension and sarcasm.
Is not expert v player/campaigner a reasonable discussion to have?
Depends on what this is supposed to be.
How about it’s supposed be something that is not so uniform and redundant and homogenized that all the fun is drained out of it.
Eesh. I wish sometimes some of you guys could relax and have as much as Robin seems to be having. 🙂
I think it’s pretty locked up everywhere…
Picture: Three Billboards
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Actress: Frances McDormand
Actor: Gary Oldman
Supp. Actress: Allison Janney
Supp. Actor: Sam Rockwell
Adapted Screenplay: Call me by your name
Original Screenplay: Get Out (but with a huge chance 3B also wins it)
Film Editing: Baby Driver
Cinematography: Blade Runner 2049
Production Design: The Shape of Water
Costume Design: Phantom Thread
Score: The Shape of Water
Visual Effects: Blade Runner 2049
Make Up: Darkest Hour
Animated: Coco
… Sound categories may still be open… Baby Driver – Dunkirk specially fight for those, and Song can always be a surprise. I think I am skipping this ceremony live, I work the next day and I prefer to catch a later streaming in case something unexpected happens, but overall, I do not like how it may shape in the end.
“Original Screenplay: Get Out (but with a huge chance 3B also wins it)”
So, not everywhere. 🙂
It would still be a surprise. If I had to bet, I would say 3B
I’m almost in complete agreement with you. I’m still hung up a bit on Orig. Screenplay (GO or 3B) and Editing (will it go to Baby Driver after all??). I’ll go Dunkirk in both Sounds so that I hopefully get at least one correct. But I’m pretty set on the rest.
If you’re going Dunkirk for both sounds, you should almost definitely also go with it for film editing – looking at precedents for Baby Driver’s nominations situation, it either wins all three, or none, most likely. Not 100%, but it’s a very strong stat.
I wouldn’t count out a lone Sound Editing win for either DUNKIRK or BABY DRIVER. In recent years, there have been films that have won Sound Editing and nothing else (ARRIVAL last year, AMERICAN SNIPER before that, U-571, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, and more).
Of course. But as far as film editing goes, a win for only that pretty much never happens. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the only instance in the last 40-50 years… So, if one of those two takes both sounds, it’s very unlikely for the other to take film editing.
I am predicting Dunkirk for all three but feel like I am wrong. Editing has been my most horrendous category.
Oh, you too?! 🙂 Well, then, yeah, expect Baby Driver to win those, somehow (or even another movie altogether), since we’re both predicting Dunkirk!…
Haha. So true.
I’d feel bad for APES if it LOST VFX again but part of me wants BR2049 to win because Cinematography and VFX often go together. So one may help the other.
Apes VFX > BR2049 VFX
like, no contest.
I don’t believe 3B winning BP without OS.
That’s why I think there’s a – small – chance of Get Out winning both. But nah, 3B might be winning 4 awards including BP and OS – all of them completely undeserved, in my opinion.
Interesting… Three Billboards in 4th place for Best Picture and 3rd place for Original Screenplay.
A stark constrast to Goldderby where its placed a close second in both those categories.
I also find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can put Ladybird above 3B for OS when 3B took home Bafta and GG and LB hasn’t taken any noteworthy precursors.
For once, Gold Derby is probably right… 🙂
“I also find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can put Ladybird above 3B for OS when 3B took home Bafta and GG and LB hasn’t taken any noteworthy precursors.”
Yeah, that’s some gamble!…
Very well said …..!
Greta Gerwig is the reason. Long story of performers winning for writting
On the contrary, not that many performers won for Writing. In fact, a lot more won for Directing (6 in total). The only actors to win for Writing are Emma Thompson and Billy Bob Thornton (at least as far as I can recall).
There’s Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as well.
Matt Damon & Ben Affleck, Orson Welles, Spike Jonze, Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen (the mine of actors turned director is rich!) . I’m pretty sure there are many more. And notice how with the exception of Thomson and Damon, all other winners mentioned also are directors, most of the times, of the same film they were nominated for writting.
Jonze, Tarantino, and Allen are more famous as writer/director’s then as actors. What I was referring to were people who’re more famous as actors who’ve won for Writing, and in that case, Thornton, Thompson, Damon, and Affleck are the only ones.
I really hope some of these were done pre-BAFTAs because they are so so wrong.
IKR, what is the point? Dafoe, for example, is dead. It’s not the category to predict an upset.
My main problem is, most of the people are placing Three Billboards 5th. Even if you don’t place it 1st, come on, 5th???
I want to know what was Robin Wright smoking when she chose Dunkirk, Nolan, Robbie and Dafoe as her choices.
Yes. This is really silly. Everyone knows that is 0/4. Is she supposed to an “expert”?
Robin’s a guy. Robin’s one of the smartest film guys I know.
Robin thinks outside the box and probably has more fun betting on longshots than he does playing it safe.
Choosing between 3Bs, LB and Get Out for OS is understandable. Choosing between TSOW, 3Bs and Get Out for Picture is understandable.
But choosing Nolan instead of Del Toro is not even a longshot. This is not ‘expert’ opinion. This is shooting in the dark!
I can understand predicting outside the box on Gold Derby for fun just to try and sneak some surprise points. But if you’re genuinely saying what you think will win you usually follow more of a stat proven herd mentality.
I can see reason for all of those choices. This is the Academy. Not the critics or the awarding bodies that have gone before.
Traditionally speaking, DUNKIRK is much more of a BP winner than 3B. In terms of quality of filmmaking Nolan and Del Toro are evenly matched. So it’s entirely possible that those that prefer Dunkirk to fish sex would choose him. The case for Robbie is that Frances McDormand very famously asked the awarding bodies to choose someone younger in her speech at the SAG awards. Dafoe is not a strange choice at all because although many people like Sam Rockwell, I think he is probably less well liked than Dafoe who’s been to this rodeo more than once in the past. Dafoe is the overdue veteran in this category. So if you think there is any anti-3B sentiment out there Dafoe is a great bet.
“This is the Academy. Not the critics or the awarding bodies that have gone before.”
Dunkirk has zero significant wins at any of the major precursors. No picture, director, screenplay or acting wins. Winning BP with that record would be unprecedented since 1943, and that’s only because there were almost no precursors back then. It just doesn’t happen. Ever. Literally the only reason anyone should be giving Dunkirk any kind of a minuscule chance is the preferential ballot. I give it 2% for that reason, and the fact that nothing is 100%. I should probably be giving it 0.00%. It’s just not the kind of thing I do (and there’s nothing to gain from ever saying something 100% can’t happen, instead of saying 99% or 98%, as far as I’m concerned), otherwise I would.
And, no, saying “I don’t pay attention to stats” just doesn’t do it here. By this point, this has just become a matter of common sense. Now, for the other categories, I haven’t studied the stats as closely. There might be marginally better chances of an upset in one of those, as in closer to 5%, or whatever… 🙂 Though director, at least, is probably just as locked as picture.
I guess you haven’t seen TSOW since it is much more than just “fish sex”! Also, we are not really talking about what has been traditionally a BP winner. Do you even know how much change the academy composition has gone through after the #oscarssowhite movement. Are you even aware that a coming-of-age movie of a black gay teen won BP last year over a romantic musical of two white heartthrobs?
We are talking about hard-core stats here which just simply say that the race for BP and the 4 acting races are over! The only competition is for BP and BOS.
“The case for Robbie is that Frances McDormand very famously asked the awarding bodies to choose someone younger in her speech at the SAG awards.”
That didn’t stop the BAFTA from giving her the win. Or now you will say the British didn’t see the SAG awards! Also, if at all the academy decides to listen to McDormand, the younger actress would be Ronan and not Robbie basis the critics awards + GG win.
Depends on what this is supposed to be. I take this as experts predicting the race.
How are those 4 predictions “smart”
Nobody knows which of Robin’s predictions are smart until Oscar night.
I said Robin is smart. A lot of smart people like to do things differently.
Doesn’t always pan out. But when it does, we get iPhones and other fun stuff.
The way I see it is that line between being an expert pundit, and truly predicting the race, and being a player/campaigner is blurred and often crossed.
Robin’s predictions don’t make any sense, other than trying to generate debate/controversy or trying to drum up support for his favourites.
I along with many others rely on your expertise as Oscar experts, and I think you should predict what will win rather than go for fun, campaigning or generating controversy,
Depends on what this is supposed to be.
How about it’s supposed be something that is not so uniform and redundant and homogenized that all the fun is drained out of it.
Eesh. I wish sometimes some of you guys could relax and have as much as Robin seems to be having. 🙂
I think it’s pretty locked up everywhere…
Picture: Three Billboards
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Actress: Frances McDormand
Actor: Gary Oldman
Supp. Actress: Allison Janney
Supp. Actor: Sam Rockwell
Adapted Screenplay: Call me by your name
Original Screenplay: Get Out (but with a huge chance 3B also wins it)
Film Editing: Baby Driver
Cinematography: Blade Runner 2049
Production Design: The Shape of Water
Costume Design: Phantom Thread
Score: The Shape of Water
Visual Effects: Blade Runner 2049
Make Up: Darkest Hour
Animated: Coco
… Sound categories may still be open… Baby Driver – Dunkirk specially fight for those, and Song can always be a surprise. I think I am skipping this ceremony live, I work the next day and I prefer to catch a later streaming in case something unexpected happens, but overall, I do not like how it may shape in the end.
“Original Screenplay: Get Out (but with a huge chance 3B also wins it)”
So, not everywhere. 🙂
It would still be a surprise. If I had to bet, I would say 3B
I’m almost in complete agreement with you. I’m still hung up a bit on Orig. Screenplay (GO or 3B) and Editing (will it go to Baby Driver after all??). I’ll go Dunkirk in both Sounds so that I hopefully get at least one correct. But I’m pretty set on the rest.
If you’re going Dunkirk for both sounds, you should almost definitely also go with it for film editing – looking at precedents for Baby Driver’s nominations situation, it either wins all three, or none, most likely. Not 100%, but it’s a very strong stat.
I wouldn’t count out a lone Sound Editing win for either DUNKIRK or BABY DRIVER. In recent years, there have been films that have won Sound Editing and nothing else (ARRIVAL last year, AMERICAN SNIPER before that, U-571, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, and more).
Of course. But as far as film editing goes, a win for only that pretty much never happens. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the only instance in the last 40-50 years… So, if one of those two takes both sounds, it’s very unlikely for the other to take film editing.
I am predicting Dunkirk for all three but feel like I am wrong. Editing has been my most horrendous category.
Oh, you too?! 🙂 Well, then, yeah, expect Baby Driver to win those, somehow (or even another movie altogether), since we’re both predicting Dunkirk!…
Haha. So true.
I’d feel bad for APES if it LOST VFX again but part of me wants BR2049 to win because Cinematography and VFX often go together. So one may help the other.
I don’t believe 3B winning BP without OS.
That’s why I think there’s a – small – chance of Get Out winning both. But nah, 3B might be winning 4 awards including BP and OS – all of them completely undeserved, in my opinion.
Interesting… Three Billboards in 4th place for Best Picture and 3rd place for Original Screenplay.
A stark constrast to Goldderby where its placed a close second in both those categories.
I also find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can put Ladybird above 3B for OS when 3B took home Bafta and GG and LB hasn’t taken any noteworthy precursors.
For once, Gold Derby is probably right… 🙂
“I also find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can put Ladybird above 3B for OS when 3B took home Bafta and GG and LB hasn’t taken any noteworthy precursors.”
Yeah, that’s some gamble!…
Very well said …..!
Greta Gerwig is the reason. Long story of performers winning for writting
On the contrary, not that many performers won for Writing. In fact, a lot more won for Directing (6 in total). The only actors to win for Writing are Emma Thompson and Billy Bob Thornton (at least as far as I can recall).
There’s Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as well.
Matt Damon & Ben Affleck, Orson Welles, Spike Jonze, Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen (the mine of actors turned director is rich!) . I’m pretty sure there are many more. And notice how with the exception of Thomson and Damon, all other winners mentioned also are directors, most of the times, of the same film they were nominated for writting.
Jonze, Tarantino, and Allen are more famous as writer/director’s then as actors. What I was referring to were people who’re more famous as actors who’ve won for Writing, and in that case, Thornton, Thompson, Damon, and Affleck are the only ones.