10:53 PM. Four out of six with Slumdog's thoroughly unsurprising victory. Meh. That would be pretty impressive, if only a blindfolded monkey couldn't have done better. But I think Penn's win in the Best Actor category was genuinely surprising.
10:46 PM. I blame Prop 8.
10:43 PM. Which means that Sean Penn is now going to live to be about 103...
10:40 PM. Winning a Best Actor or Best Actress award extends one's life expectancy by four years.
10:35 PM. For the 10th 11th time in her career, Meryl Streep makes the scrunchy face while someone else wins Best Actress.
10:21 PM. With Danny Boyle's win for Slumdog, the computer is now assured of getting at least 2 out of the 6 awards right: better than random chance! Take that, Kaus!
10:05 PM.
9:54 PM. Whomever of you out there who had a drinking came category for "Zac Efron eye blinks" ain't making it into work tomorrow.
9:35 PM. More stats: additional box office revenues received since the Oscar nominations were announced:Slumdog Millionaire $53,308,2019:15 PM. Now I am a documentary buff, and hope Man on Wire wins this.
Benjamin Button $19,805,150
The Reader $15,118,119
Frost/Nixon $8,522,299
Milk $7,520,600
9:05 PM. No, Ledger won't be the first dead guy to win.
8:58 PM. These horrid montage sequences always remind me of this:
8:52 PM. To see an example of what I was talking about before, compare the performance of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which made just $12.9 million in additional domestic box office after winning the Oscar in 2004, against Million Dollar Baby, which got a $35.6 million bounce.
8:44 PM. Dark Knight, indeed, has now made more than $1 billion worldwide, making it one of only four films ever to do so.
8:28 PM. Discuss: the reason why Dark Knight and WALL-E weren't nominated for Best Picture is because everyone who was going to see them has already seen them anyway.
8:11 PM. J.C. Penney running ads during the Oscars -- can you say "recession?"
8:02 PM. Good early sign for Slumdog.
8:00 PM. Remember when the Oscars used to be interesting and the Super Bowl used to be boring?
7:47 PM. Penelope Cruz? F*ck. I demand a recount.
7:43 PM. Is this the new cast of The View?
7:38 PM. Of course, there actually are polls on this stuff. Edison Research, which is the group best known for conducting the national exit polls each election, surveyed 915 movie-goers who actually saw all five best picture nominees (which is roughly four more than I've seen). Slumdog Millionaire was the plurality choice with 45 percent, with Milk next at 26.
7:33 PM. Here is a rundown of my computer-generated picks against the wisdom of crowds over at Intrade.
You feeling lucky tonight, Taraji P. Henson? I need a miracle to prevent Mickey Kaus from making fun of me.
2.22.2009
Oscars Liveblog
@ 8:16 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
120 comments
First?
Intrade goes up 1.
fail
And it call came crashing down not even 1 hour in.
Looks like Taraji will be mocking you for the next few days.
Haha, oops? But you knew this category might be your downfall. Who knew politics was easier than cinema?
I've got almost $10,000 bet on these on Intrade. Check out my picks here:
http://wiserthanthecrowd.blogspot.com/2009/02/final-oscar-positions.html
Haha, Nate got owned in the first award.
Still like your site, Nate. :)
oopsies, Penelope! We still love you though Nate! Chris Matthews gave you a great shout out on Friday!
http://www.popduds.com
Sorry Nate! If it helps any, I'd consider it a compliment to be dissed by Kaus...
I still don;t see slumdog getting best picture. It doesnt bode well on 2nd and 3rd viewings, while all the others do. And remember the majority of academy voting takes place in December i.e. after prop 8 was defeated. And I bet 95% of the academy lives here in Los angeles. It's gonna be Milk. I'll be damned if slumdog takes best picture.
Well, kids, MILK just won best screenplay. A slam dunk, afai'm concerned.
A very touching acceptance speech by the writer. "Equal rights enforced by Federal law soon in our lifetime". Beautifully spoken. As we say "from your lips to Congress' ears".
~ Latte
I'm sorry, Nate.
This was the one category where you and inTrade disagreed and they won.
You're still my hero (not really but you have a great site).
starvingpundits.com
It'd be interesting to know what kind of "crowd" we're talking about when it comes to the people who, unlike myself, actually put up their money on intrade and don't just use it as a barometric gauge of public or common "wisdom."
Any idea what the volume of trade is over there? I followed both intrade and the predictions here at 538 over the course of the last election cycle and found the predictions here to be much more reliable (and definitely less volatile to single news cycle swings than at intrade).
But in general, there seemed to be a relative consensus between both 538 and intrade, and even though the election predictions were of much greater complexity than Oscar picks, I gotta wonder what was behind the discrepancy between the numbers on Henson and Cruz.
Could a single investor be able to swing the trading price in one direction and could that account for the difference here?
Seems a little like watching the late money come in on a horse race...the guy with the inside info waits until post to make his bet.
Das Boot—
You'll be damned.
That acceptance speech for the Milk writer nearly made me cry.
And Jack Black presenting for animation, when his own movie is nominated but loses? Is that kosher? But I no one but him could pull it off I suppose, haha.
Why Taraji lost? Because Penelope Cruz was freakin' awesome and Oscar loves Woody Allen's women in Supporting Actress roles. He's got 9 of them.
Ha!
You swung and missed best supporting actress. Perhaps the dramatic arts can't be predicted so easily? One can only hope.
@MNLatte
Are you implying that the screenplay win for MILK bodes well for it taking best picture? Gotta say I'd come to the complete opposite conclusion.
@Nate
Damn! Now how am I supposed to pay my rent. PENELOPE!!!!
Which reminds me Nate, I think you should worry less about Kaus than Colbert.
The DaColbert Code is clearly superior to any computer-generated picks.
Are the Oscars painful to watch or what?
We need a drinking game for this.
And Ben Stiller hasn't been funny since Zoolander.
Dark Knight was a bit overrated I thought, but I will agree Wall-E should have been nominated for BP.
@Michael,
A wiser man in my place would've waited a couple of hours to answer, but not I! :)
Actually, I didn't mean the screenplay as an indicator for anything. I merely wanted to say that the screenplay acceptance speech moved me and touched me. And I'm a pretty crusty and cynical old bastard. That's all.
Having said that, I just watched Ben Stiller doing River Phoenix and I can no longer type anything with a straight (no pun intended) face.
~ Latte
Have you added a variable for the number of Oscar awards won by movie Y up to award X as a predictor for who will win X? Slumdog has won a few already, which we would think would help predict its chances later in the night.
I have faith in The Da Colbert Code.
And The Dark Knight not being nominated for Best Picture was bad, but it losing Best Cinematography is a travesty.
No ... WALL-E not nominated because it is not good. First Pixar film I ever actively disliked.
@Latte
Agreed on all points! Thx for the post.
@Rufus
With ya on the drinking game but not so much on Stiller (though I will concede that a public apology is in order for 'Night at the Museum' or whatever the hell it was.)
Anybody else a little irked GRAN TORINO was so thoroughly shunned? I guess some parts were a bit over the top, but then again CRASH won BP and that had its fair share of ham.
When did the Oscars become the Tony Awards?
Jay-Z is a lucky man.
@ Michael - Tropic Thunder wasn't too bad :)
All this singing and dancing calls for tequila shots.
I don't disagree about why Dark Knight was left out of the best picture nominations. How do you explain Gladiator winning though? That clearly wasn't a film that needed a post Oscar bump...
"The musical is back!"
What he means to say is that hollywood has invested in another Mamma Mia, and we're supposed to eat it up this time around.
"All this singing and dancing calls for tequila shots."
Tequila shots are definitely in order if for no other reason than to cleanse myself of this sudden desire to sip on an appletini or wine spritzer.
With all due respect to the late Heath Ledger, his OD'ing during the filming of Dark Knight was the catalyst for its huge success. I am a big fan of the Batman series, but Dark Knight was just another good movie in that series, not Best Picture stuff (especially in a year where more high-minded movies got nominations for Best Picture).
Go Wall-E best animated film! But it should have had a shot for best picture, it was sp cite yet so deep.
Interestingly both Finch and Ledger were Australians... just a weird coincidence on the (potentially) posthumous Oscar front.
Bah, timing. I then refresh Oscars.com and find I could have left out "potentially".
Peter Finch was amazing in Network.
They let Bill Maher into the Oscars? WTF? He should win for Religulous.
Right on. Man on Wire kicked ass. And Philippe Petit was hilarious on Colbert.
Oh Jason Alexander, say it ain't so! This is worse than Michael Richards turning out to be a racist.
Okay, I'm officially outraged at Benjamin Button winning Best Visual Effects. What. The. Hell.
Hmm, Slumdog's winning a lot of the lesser stuff. What might that portend for Best Director / Best Picture?
Seems I lost a comment somewhere along the line.
Something changed after The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won Best Picture for 2003. Not one of the 25 movies nominated for best picture since has grossed $150 million domestic and only a handful have surpassed $100 million. Juno, I believe, is the top grosser among the 25 and will likely remain so since Slumdog is just about to surpass $100 milion domestic and Benjamin Button won't win any major awards.
I found Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech was extremely moving.I teared up.
I just watched Ben Stiller doing River Phoenix
For those that want to see the Phoenix bit on youtube,it's Joaquin Phoenex,not his long deceased brother River.
Oscars getting outsourced this year.
Nate,
It would be interesting if you could go even further with your analysis on how films have done after the nominations were announced. It would be awesome if you could extend these numbers to when they first opened and see how the trend changed after the nominations were announced. I'm pretty sure weekly box office results are available.
Robert Downey Jr. should have won for Tropic Thunder. But what do you expect from these morons? The Academy thinks award worthy comedic performances only come from Woody Allen films. The fact that Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray weren't even nominated for Rushmore still pisses me off.
hey Nate you spelled Meryl wrong in your little chart there...
Fincher will get director, undeservedly. Winslet's getting actress. Mickey Rourke ain't getting actor, and Slumdog is obviously a foregone conclusion.
Posting is kinda wonky tonight--first attempt got lost in the ether.
Did they do the "obits" yet? If so I missed it.
i think this was more of a Bruce Buena de Mesquita field of play.
Never mind...
Why in the hell is Hugh Jackman hosting the Oscars?
Because he's the Sexiest Man Alive!!! (According to People magazine.) What other qualifications could you possibly need?
Oh shit, here come Best Director...
Looks like Slumdog Millionaire is going to sweep the Academy Awards. I've noticed that prior to the early 60's one movie tended to dominate the Oscars. But then in the 1960s until the mid-90's the Academy seemed to spread the awards around. Now the trend is back towards one movie dominating the Oscars. Any suggestions why the phenomenon?
Nate, you are cracking me up tonight!
Mark said...
And The Dark Knight not being nominated for Best Picture was bad, but it losing Best Cinematography is a travesty.
TDK's DP used to shoot soft porn, I shit you not. Trust me, this guy is never winning an Oscar.
Sophia Loren was hitting the grappa hard backstage.
WIN!
Glad I got director wrong. Now Fincher can get back to doing what he does best: Pepsi product placement and making the same NIN music video.
Yea, this is the worst oscar show ever. The only moment that was any good was with Steve Martin and Tina Fey, they should let one of them host next year. Just being sexy DOESN'T mean they'll be a good host.
@Porridge
Paul Haggis was the co-creator and head writer of "Walker Texas Ranger" (worse dialogue and acting than most soft porn I've seen), but that didn't stop him from taking home a couple Oscars.
Maybe you're right about the DP, but in Hollywood everyone has to cut their teeth somewhere and it's generally not held against that person if they had to whore themselves out a bit (see: the Jason Alexander commercial Nate posted above)
And Haggis won for Crash, which is quite possibly the most insufferable piece of shit I've had to sit through since American Beauty.
The Oscars sucks balls!
For the 10th 11th time in her career, Meryl Streep makes the scrunchy face while someone else wins Best Actress.
And I'm pretty sure this is the first time she's been told to SUCK IT by the winner.
Coppola used to edit hardcore porn. But he made The Godfather Part II and Apocalypse Now. So yeah, it is possible.
Sean Penn with the block.
Oh behalf of commie homos everywhere, I approve this award.
Jeez, Paul Haggis got fired from his job as a writer on "The Facts of Life."
Is true. You can look it up.
And you lose another. But I'm very happy for this one, Sean Penn and Harvey Milk deserve it.
"You commie homo-loving sons of guns!"
Interestingly, this also breaks Colbert's streak of picks too - unless you count that Penn was actually his first pick, until his faux-conservative personality made him change it. I wonder how he'll acknowledge this dilemma.
Prop 8 strikes again. Poor Mickey Rourke
I'm surprised that both you and the gamblers got it wrong. SAG went for Penn, and they make up the majority of the voters for the Academy.
SO glad you were wrong about this Nate.
Would love to see a Milk upset right about now.
I beg your pardon? You 'blame' Prop 8? Excuse me, but it's your own fault that your model is socio-politically tonedeaf. Apparently there are somethings you can't fit.
Strike two ...
100% knew it they'd give best actor to someone else. I didn't even bother to check who else was nominated, I just knew it. Fucking joke. Mickey Rourke must be feeling as shitty on the inside as he looks on the outside.
I wouldn't blame Prop 8 for Penn's win. Rourke only has himself to blame for being a f&cking ass to so many people in the industry. You think they want to consider increasing that man's ego? Besides, Penn gave a phenomenal performance. One that had a degree of difficulty far greater than his role in Mystic River.
You "blame" prop 8? How about you were just wrong? :)
Nate clearly left out the "commie homo loving sons of guns" factor.
I still have faith in the DaColbert code...they clearly figured that even though Rourke was the favorite, Penn still had a shot.
Sean Penn used to perform in both softcore and hardcore porn. Not a lot of people know that.
Wow, some of you clearly don't know how to take a joke. I thought it was funny, and I'm one of the people thrilled Milk got some recognition.
Sweet, I finished up $2700 tonight! Thank you Sean Penn!
But I think Penn's win in the Best Actor category was genuinely surprising.
Dude. Did you see both Milk and The Wrestler?
Uh-oh Nate, Lindi just gave you strike two. Apparently the "socio-political tondeaf[ness]" of your model is only matched by her complete inability to pick up on sarcasm.
Nate- on the cruz suprise, try teaching the computer to read female measurements next time.
Penn and Cruz were locks, as I said in a previous thread. Not Ledger locks, but locks nonetheless.
That said, the model was wrong this time around. For the past month or so there has been article after article about how the Oscars always get it wrong.
The voters saw this and, human nature being what it is, went outside their usual thought process and moved toward popular opinion.
The big question is whether this pattern holds. My guess is that next year the old model will be more accurate.
Woot I beat Nate!
I predicted 5/6 :D (predicted Rourke over Penn as well).
I also got both screenplay awards and best animated :P.
jesse Hoff said...
"Nate- on the cruz suprise, try teaching the computer to read female measurements next time"
Might have worked in Penn's favor as well.
Hmm, biggest surprise: the foreign language oscar to that japanese movie.
I knew that Rourke wasn't going to win, because I remembered some sarcastic comment about how the academy loathed Ben Affleck because he did "Pearl Harbor" after they'd given him the Oscar for "Good Will Hunting" - well, and of course Rourke didn't have to act, he essentially WAS the character he played. Penn however... something completely different.
Still, I thought Langella would win and Milk would get "best picture" instead, Prop 8 and all - but as the economy turned America into a slum (lol) and as the hype grew, Slumdog had become the safe bet.
I knew Sean Penn was going to win over Mickey Rourke. Penn deserved that award.
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone loves Slumdog so much. I didn't like it. I think by far Milk should've been winning all these awards. I just don't get it.
The only part Sean Penn should have won an Oscar for is Dave Kleinfeld in Carlito's Way, and he wasn't even nominated.
Just goes to show how clueless the Academy are.
But to be fair, Tommy Lee Jones won that year for The Fugitive, and rightly so. It's the best performance he's ever given.
Nate, your model is going to have to be revised, Intrade beat you. Moreover, in the one category that you both got wrong (Best Actor) Intrade predicted a higher probability of Sean Penn winning.
Umm...Nate? Your computer model worked. Look at the percentages is assigned. According to those numbers and the laws of probability, there was only a 21% chance that all of the computer's top predictions would turn out to be right. I haven't chewed through all the combinations, but it looks to me like, using the computer's percentages as accurate, you would expect about two out of the six not to be the highest ranked choice. In fact, if all six had won, it would have cast doubt on the computer model, as the model itself wasn't that confident.
Nate wins! (In a geeky, statistical sense.)
I thought Penn deserved this win, but disagreed about his Mystic River win.
@lisps - While Slumdog's end result was very predicable (meaning that the boy gets the girl and wins the money); that was just incidental to the tale that was told in the flashbacks. Boyle did a great job of telling a gritty and gripping tale that rang true in both tone and scope, as well as being beautifully shot with a wonderfully touching but current soundtrack (especially the use of M.I.A.)
I thought the Harvey Milk story was better told in the The Times of Harvey Milk. I think Prop 8 is the only reason it received a best pic nod.
wv mateapse - a friend's church
I take back my earlier criticim. The FReeptards are pissed at Penn about something. So in in this case, it was worth it. Milky Milky!
'Majorly shocked about Mickey, but it's OK, Nate; you're still the man!
Thank God you were right on November 4th! After your piss poor performance here it's time to get back to statistics.
Keep away from law, too. That's a subjct you don't seem to understand yet.
i think it's really hard to predict the oscars because there's no rhyme or reason to it. you know someone may deserve the award, but then politics gets in the way.
Good call overall, Señor Silver. You already suspected the problem with best supporting actress, and Milk was far too good a movie to get shut out of best picture, best director, and best actor. Too bad Neilsen can't factor in your readership to the TV ratings for the Oscars this year. It might be statistically significant :)
And thanks for making this blog entertaining as well as informative and argument-provoking. We less eggheady types heart u 4ever.
Some things can't be analyzed and put into a formula. I posted my predictions on my Facebook page a week ago. Sticking to Nate's format, I only focused on the top 6 awards and went 6 for 6. I predicted the Cruz win based on two factors (the "babe" factor which tends to favor the prettiest nominee in that category) and the Woody Allen/comedy flick advantage that also seems to be at work there.
I based my prediction of the Sean Penn win on two factors: Prop 8 - which has been duly noted and the fact that as a burnout, Mickey Rourke probably pissed off inumerable technical people (who get to vote) during the course of his career. Whatever one can say about Sean Penn, one can never say that he has ever been anything less than professional in his craft. That means: being on time, knowing his lines, allowing the crew to do its work etc. etc. There is very little patience for people who, through whatever personal demons are at work, cause others to have to wait around, word late or suffer abuse. I call it the Judy Garland factor (and she never won an Oscar either).
The Slumdog pic/director nod and the Winslet and Ledger wins were slam dunks.
Well, Nate - I'm glad you're better at predicting politics than oscars. It was great to see Sean Penn win - all politics aside, that was a truly epic performance.
Whether Nate's prediction are good or not depends on whether if he betted on share in each category on intrade he would have made money and beaten the market. Let's analyze and see if he would have made money.
If you go with the market, you make a profit of about 11 dollars
Nate would have certainly made a 20 dollar profit on Slumdog for best picture and Boyle for best director.
Nate would have lost 19 dollars for betting on Hensen. Now its uncertain who he would have bet for the best the best actors and best actress, but there is a high probability that he would have stuck with Ledger and Winslet for another 20 dollar profit. At this stage Nate is 21 dollars ahead.
For best actor, he would have either put money down on Brad Pitt or Mickey Rourke. He thought Rourke would win, but the payoff is low and he could go with Pitt even though he thinks he's a long shot. He could go with Pitt since he believes he has a much better chance of winning than Intrade does. I say, most likely he sticks with Rourke and loses 70 dollars. Thus, overall Nate loses 49 dollars. His model needs revising since he would have done better by just going with the market.
Best Actor: I agree with the surprise of Penn's win despite Rourke grabbing two of the three major movie wards preceding the Oscars - the Golden Globe and BAFTA. The SAG, although a ceremony awarding actors, went to Penn. Still, it's true that preceding Awards predict Oscar results more reliably than the other factors Nate outlined in New York Magazine, so its odd that both Intrade and Nate were wrong.
It obviously comes down to the voters: Foreigners represent the Golden Globes and BAFTA, whereas the SAG comprise a limited electorate - just actors (not directors) and Americans account for a larger share of the voting bloc. More importantly, as some already mentioned, many SAG members are represented in the Oscar Academy.
Voting for the Oscars begun sometime in December and ended one day after the Golden Globes, providing for last minute influence. The allotted time frame allows for three non-statistical factors at play, in order of importance: (1) contempt for Rourke among members of the Academy for personal reasons; (2)the recent political buzz after November's election drawing more attention; (3) performance assessment.
I didn't see either movie, though. All in all, I'm more familiar with Penn and would rather see Milk because of its political topic, after praise and recommendations and to see both performances.
As for Best Supporting Actress: I saw both movies, and Penelope was afforded a role with more dialogue, greater intrigue, and emotional intensity. Plain simply, she rocked! Henson's role was clearly functionary in The Curious Case (not to belittle it).
I'm happy that Nate covered the Oscars, and elated 538 garners fans of both politics and the movies.
Nate, I think a problem with your model was that the different results were not independent (I assume you were predicting them as if they were). For example, given that say, Milk was not winning any other Oscars, it was more likely to win best actor.
"I predicted the Cruz win based on two factors (the "babe" factor which tends to favor the prettiest nominee in that category)"
That can absolutely be analyzed (incidentally I think your reasons are rather ad hoc for most). I will assign hotness estimates for each nominee (out of 10), and see if there is a correlation.
I took a gander at the hotness score of every nominee for best supporting actress since 1990 (N = 92, minus 3 minors, to whom I did not consider), and ran a probit regression with robust standard errors.
Hotness is not a statistically significant predictor of best actors, though the correlation is positive. The model predicts that an actress of hotness 10 would have a 38.94% chance of winning, while only 10.23% at hotness 4. A Chi-Square test was unable to reject the hypothesis of independence for the model overall.
I tried a second model, however, that employed fixed effects for each year and controlled for competition (number of competitors with hotness > or equal to 7). In this case, hotness was statistically significant. At hotness 4, the predicted probability of winning was 10.5%, versus 39.8% at hotness 9 (assuming only 1 actress of hotness > or equal to 7). However, a joint Chi-sq. test did not find sufficient evidence to support the model as a whole.
2008
* Penelope Cruz - 9
Marisa Tomei - 6.5
Taraji Henson - 6
Amy Adams - 6.5
Viola Davis - 4
2007
* Tilda Swinton - 4
Cate Blanchett - 8.5
Ruby Dee - 4
Amy Ryan - 6.5
Saoirse Ronan - (minor)
2006
* Jennifer Hudson - 5
Cate Blanchett - 8.5
Abigail Breslin - (minor)
Rinko Kikuchi - 7
Adriana Barraza - 4
2005
* Rachel Weiss - 7
Michelle Williams - 8
Frances McDormand - 5
Catherine Keener - 7
Amy Adams - 6.5
2004
* Cate Blanchett - 8.5
Natalie Portman - 7
Laura Linney - 7
Virginia Madsen - 6
Sophie Okonedo - 6
2003
*Renee Zellweger - 7
Holly Hunter - 7.5
Shohreh A. - 6
Patricia Clarkson - 5
Marcia Hayden - 5
2002
* Catherine Zeta-Jones - 9.5
Julianne Moore - 6
Queen Latifah - 5
Meryl Streep - 6
Kathy Bates - 4
2001
*Jennifer Connelly - 8
Kate Winslet - 7
Helen Mirren - 6
Maggie Smith - 3
Marisa Tomei - 6.5
2000
*Marcia Gay Hayden - 5
Kate Hudson - 8.5
Judi Dench - 4
Julie Walters - 4
Frances McDormand - 5
1999
*Angelina Jolie - 10
Chloe Sevigny - 8
Toni Collette - 5.5
Catherine Keener - 7
Samantha Morton - 5.5
1998
*Judi Dench - 4
Rachel Griffiths - 7
Kathy Bates -4
Brenda Blethyn - 4.5
Lynne Redgrave - 5
1997
*Kim Basinger - 7
Minnie Driver - 6.5
Julianne Moore - 6
Gloria Stuart - 3
Joan Cusack - 6
1996
*Juliette Binoche - 6.5
Marianne Jean-Baptiste - 5.5
Barbara Hershey - 6.5
Lauren Bacall - 5
Joan Allen - 6
1995
*Mira Sorvino - 9
Kate Winslet - 7
Mare Winningham - 6
Joan Allen - 6
Kathleen Quinlan - 6
1994
*Dianne Wiest - 4.5
Uma Thurman - 8.5
Helen Mirren - 6.5
Jennifer Tilly - 8
Rosemary Harris - 3.5
1993
* Anna Paquin - (minor at the time)
Holly Hunter - 9
Rosie Perez - 6.5
Winona Ryder - 7.5
Emma Thompson - 6.5
1992
Marisa Tomei - 8
Miranda Richardson - 7
Vanessa Redgrave - 4
Joan Plowright - 3
Judy Davis - 6
1991
*Mercedes Ruehl - 7
Juliette Lewis - 7
Dianne Ladd - 4.5
Kate Nelligan - 7
Jessica Tandy - 3.5
1990 -3
*Whoopi Goldberg - 4
Annette Bening - 7
Dianne Ladd - 4.5
Lorraine Bracco - 6
Mary McDonnell - 7
@ hosertohoosier - Bro, you need to re-visit Stats 101. And I doubt Nate has ever calculated ANYTHING on this blog on a so-called hotness "I predicted the Cruz win based on two factors (the "babe" factor which tends to favor the prettiest nominee in that category)" factor. That sort of nonsense he leaves to us.
Hey Nate - always a great site. Most interesting thing though - the surge of betting through inTrade on Hanson on Sunday. Methinks a lot of betters saw your predictions and placed their cash on.
Too bad Mickey Rourke did not win. It woild have been the perfect coda to his come back tale.
Sean Penn was an obviously political choice, a sop to the Gay community still grieving over the loss on Prop 8 and feeling wounded over relegation to second class status in the Democrat Party.
The one oddly discordant note, where Hollywood showed its true colors came during the review of those that had died towards the end they announced Charleton Heston's name, one of the most iconic actors of his time and a former head of the Academy. The applause immediately died off as the lefties in the audience sat on their hands.
It was a classless gesture from a largely classless bunch.
The notion that your model was a bad one is absurd, no? You had Supporting Actress at a coin-flip You had Best Actor and Best Actress at 71.1% and 67.6% respectively. Assuming the Best Actor/Actress results are independent, you had getting both of those right at a coin-flip (51.9%). I think pretty much everyone has lost two consecutive coin-flips sometimes in their lives. To claim -- on the basis of having gotten only four out of six -- that you necessarily had a bad model is stupid. Don't take crap from anyone.
HANDS OFF TO SLUMDOG.....
jai ho...millions of people excited back home in india
Wow, forgot about Jason Alexander's pathetic 80's commercial for the equally pathetic McDLT (we called it the McDolt). I wonder if the marketing genius who came up with that is homeless on the streets of LA pushing a shopping cart still ordering that burger from McDonalds. Nobody puts the cheese on the cold side. C'mon.
Post a Comment