-
-
Hi, everyone! So I used to visit good ole GoldDerby frequently, even if I never posted much at all. Been in between jobs recently and started lurking around these here forums for old times sake. May I just say, the outrage from fellow nerds toward the odious and hopefully temporary changes to our beloved telecast has been downright cathartic! Despite this date typically being my cinema Christmas, I will not be watching in solidarity with the craftspeople (and of course am insisting everyone I know do the same). But there is one thing I AM still doing, and that is my yearly Oscar Formula. Something I came up with back in 2008(?) and have been expanding and refining every year since, it is a set of several dozen spreadsheets including every imaginable statistic for predicting nominees and winners in every feature category, including from every verifiable critic group and festival. I have only ever kept it to myself to give a bit of fun to, and win money money off of, friends and family. But I thought I would share it this year with you lovely folks, especially those of us who are struggling with any last-minute doubts over possible switcheroos. “THE FORMULA,” as it is known in my family, has become freakishly accurate, and whenever I deviate from it upon uploading my GoldDerby predix, it usually comes back to bite me (so I’m not going to doubt it this year and let’s see how it goes).
Late right now in my spot of the world, but I will try to post all the categories bit by bit and respond to anyone who has questions, rapturous plaudits (I assume), or an avalanche of snark (I am fluent). I can go back and type up the nominees predictions later, if anyone wants. Cheers!
Starting with the obvious place, THE FORMULA has correctly predicted all but 3 Best PIcture nominees since the preferential ballot began (I believe it correctly spotted “The Reader” getting in its first year of existence). It hasn’t gotten every single winner right, but no film has won without being a very close second (no, not even “Green Book”). So y’all may want to reconsider some recent reconsiderings…
Margin indicates how far ahead #1 is from #2. A solid frontrunner in a top category will usually have 11-12,000 points, and be at least 10% ahead of 2nd.
BEST PICTURE – Margin: 7.3%
1. The Power of the Dog – 16,567
2. Belfast – 11,375
3. Licorice Pizza – 7,072
4. King Richard – 6,748
5. Dune – 6,185
6. CODA – 6,049
7. Drive My Car – 5,528
8. West Side Story – 5,570
9. Don’t Look Up – 3,468
10. Nightmare Alley – 2,799More to come. It’s nice to be back (even if briefly).
ReplyIn the writing and directing categories, THE FORMULA has an approximately 90% accuracy rate for nominees and has correctly chosen 31/36 winners since it began.
DIRECTOR – Margin: 28.8%
1. Jane Campion “The Power of the Dog” – 21,798
2. Kenneth Branagh “Belfast” – 7,776
3. Ryusuki Hamaguchi “Drive My Car” – 5,151
4. Paul Thomas Anderson “Licorice Pizza” – 4,571
5. Steven Spielberg “West Side Story” – 3,164SCREENPLAY, ORIGINAL – Margin: 5.9%
1. Kenneth Branagh “Belfast” – 11,537
2. Paul Thomas Anderson “Licorice Pizza” – 9,003
3. Zach Baylin “King Richard” – 4,743
4. Adam McKay & David Sirota “Don’t Look Up” – 2,760
5. Eskil Vogt & Joaquim Trier “The Worst Person in the World” – 333SCREENPLAY, ADAPTED – Margin: 1.4%
ReplyCopy URL
1. Jane Campion “The Power of the Dog” – 5,488
2. Ryusuki Hamaguchi & Takamasa Oe “Drive My Car” – 5,062
3. Sian Heder “CODA” – 3,857
4. Maggie Gyllenhaal “The Lost Daughter” – 2,783
5. Eric Roth, Jon Spaihts & Denis Villeneuve “Dune” – 818In the Lead Acting categories, the formula also has an 92% accuracy rate over the last five years (it predicted all 10 this year), and has chosen 23/26 winners since it began, including Hopkins and McDormand last year.
LEAD ACTOR – Margin: 0.8%
1. Will Smith “King Richard” – 11,599
2. Benedict Cumberbatch “The Power of the Dog” – 11,285
3. Andrew Garfield “Tick, Tick… Boom!” – 6,005
4. Denzel Washington “The Tragedy of Macbeth” – 3,230
5. Javier Bardem “Being the Ricardos” – 2,034LEAD ACTRESS – Margin: 0.6%
ReplyCopy URL
1. Jessica Chastain “The Eyes of Tammy Faye” – 7,456
2. Kristen Stewart “Spencer” – 7,171
3. Olivia Colman “The Lost Daughter” – 5,024
4. Nicole Kidman “Being the Ricardos” – 4,247
5. Penelope Cruz “Parallel Mothers” – 4,200https://docs.google.com/document/d/11qnrxRa1UBrUMYK1vtEVrPARXVkaLlxYfq4-vCjhb2U/edit?usp=sharing Updated ranking with the new ballots
Based from these anonymous ballots, even before they have been tallied a couple days ago, I already have mentioned how TPOTD could and should be winning by preferential ballot, even with the questioning and resistance of people who absolutely have no idea what and how preferential ballots work. And this tally just proves it. TPOTD eventually received more Top 2s than CODA proving my theory that even though some voters may not have the film as their Top pick, the film will be doing well in a preferential ballot setting.
But what like I already have mentioned is the amount of Top 10s the film has. (Despite it being win competitive in almost all its nominations)
ReplyCopy URLYes. Like what was said earlier if TPOTD wins BP. Then it won by preferential ballot. But what we fail to anticipate is how they put a film with the most (11 nominations) in 10th place in BP. Some voters do that.
Like what they do is people who vote for CODA put it in #1 then put POTD (despite having 11 nominations and being almost win-competitive in all of them) in 10th place.
Yup. As someone who is also pretty into the nitty gritty political and democratic systems, people around here fail to realize that that simply having a preferential ballot almost never actually changes the results. The results might get closer as they are being counted, but unless the count is very close at the beginning, the person/film winning at the beginning will win in the end. In politics, a preferential ballot is a way better thing to have than first-past-the-post (what we have in America… just check one box for your favorite), because it means if the candidate getting the biggest vote at the beginning is really objectionable to other voters, they can group around someone with similar policies in the final round and not have their vote be wasted by picking their real favorite, leading to multiple parties. At the Oscars, this is not analogous, because most voters don’t think how we obsessives imagine them to. All the films have different appeals, and no real consequence to picking one over the other. So those people who would deliberately put a frontrunner in last aren’t removing it from consideration, they are only giving their vote to whatever the other film is in the last round IF one other film has consolidated enough support to be very close to the frontrunner before it gets a majority.
I don’t bet money on anything in real life, but I would bet a whole lot that either zero or maaaaybe one film has won since ’09 that would have won without preferential ballot. All that is happening is the people voting for movies 6-10 having their votes going to whichever 1-5 pick they would have in the regular system.
ReplyCopy URLIn the supporting categories, the formula has correctly predicted all but one of the last 26 winners (damn you, Christoph Waltz).
SUPPORTING ACTOR – Margin: 7.0%
1. Kodi Smit-McPhee “The Power of the Dog” – 10,340
2. Troy Kotsur “Coda” – 8,104
3. Ciaran Hinds “Belfast” – 4,167
4. Jesse Plemons “The Power of the Dog” – 1,995
5. J.K. Simmons “Being the Ricardos” – 806SUPPORTING ACTRESS – Margin: 3.2%
1. Ariana DeBose “West Side Story” – 6,752
2. Kirsten Dunst “The Power of the Dog” – 5,727
3. Aunjanue Ellis “King Richard” – 3,836
4. Judi Dench “Belfast” – 1,838
5. Jessie Buckley “The Lost Daughter” – 1,693Uploading the techs a bit later.
Whoever can tell me how to give myself an avatar or add funny gifs is my new best friend. Sincerely, North America’s most technologically incompetent young person.
ReplyCopy URLYup. As someone who is also pretty into the nitty gritty political and democratic systems, people around here fail to realize that that simply having a preferential ballot almost never actually changes the results. The results might get closer as they are being counted, but unless the count is very close at the beginning, the person/film winning at the beginning will win in the end. In politics, a preferential ballot is a way better thing to have than first-past-the-post (what we have in America… just check one box for your favorite), because it means if the candidate getting the biggest vote at the beginning is really objectionable to other voters, they can group around someone with similar policies in the final round and not have their vote be wasted by picking their real favorite, leading to multiple parties. At the Oscars, this is not analogous, because most voters don’t think how we obsessives imagine them to. All the films have different appeals, and no real consequence to picking one over the other. So those people who would deliberately put a frontrunner in last aren’t removing it from consideration, they are only giving their vote to whatever the other film is in the last round IF one other film has consolidated enough support to be very close to the frontrunner before it gets a majority.
I don’t bet money on anything in real life, but I would bet a whole lot that either zero or maaaaybe one film has won since ’09 that would have won without preferential ballot. All that is happening is the people voting for movies 6-10 having their votes going to whichever 1-5 pick they would have in the regular system.
Yes. Because people have their own biases when choosing their #1s but with preferential ballots they create a better general concensus.
ReplyCopy URLYup. As someone who is also pretty into the nitty gritty political and democratic systems, people around here fail to realize that that simply having a preferential ballot almost never actually changes the results.
Most recent state election in Australia, it changed the result in 1 of 48 seats, and made three very close (this wasn’t a particularly close election, though it did result in a change of government). I don’t know what the stats are under your system but a 1 in 12 chance of making a difference seems roundabout?
ReplyCopy URLMost recent state election in Australia, it changed the result in 1 of 48 seats, and made three very close (this wasn’t a particularly close election, though it did result in a change of government). I don’t know what the stats are under your system but a 1 in 12 chance of making a difference seems roundabout?
Yeah, but almost changing a result or making it closer isn’t actually, well, changing a result. 1 out of 48 means it can happen, but it would be even less likely to happen considering there are more films to vote for best pic than parties to support.
I know we need to have something to speculate about around here, but all evidence shows the preferential ballot does not lead to a different result any more than once in a very very very very very long time.
ReplyCopy URLCINEMATOGRAPHY – Margin: 4.7%
1. Greig Fraser “Dune” – 9,606
2. Ari Wegner “The Power of the Dog” – 8,049
3. Bruno Delbonnel “The Tragedy of Macbeth” – 4,440
4. Janusz Kaminski “West Side Story” – 3,623
5. Dan Laustsen “Nightmare Alley” – 2,755EDITING – Margin: 0.2%
1. Peter Sciberras “The Power of the Dog” – 4,336
2. Joe Walker “Dune” – 4,275
3. Pamela Martin “King Richard” – 1,588
4. Myron Kerstein & Andrew Weisblum “Tick, Tick, Boom!” – 1,516
5. Hank Corwin “Don’t Look Up” – 712PRODUCTION DESIGN – Margin: 25.6%
1. Patrice Vermette & Richard Roberts and Zsuzsanna Sipos “Dune” – 6,031
2. Tamara Deverell & Shane Vieau “Nightmare Alley” – 3,202
3. Adam Stockhausen & Rena DeAngelo “West Side Story” – 2,546
4. Grant Major & Amber Richards “The Power of the Dog” – 965
5. Stefan Dechant & Nancy Haigh “The Tragedy of Macbeth” – 793COSTUME DESIGN – Margin: 3.3%
1. Jenny Beavan “Cruella” – 3,896
2. Jacqueline West & Bob Morgan “Dune” – 3,309
3. Paul TAzewell “West Side Story” – 2,170
4. Luis Sequiera “Nightmare Alley” – 1,700
5. Massimo Cantini Parrini & Jacqueline Durran “Cyrano” – 587SCORE – Margin: 18.2%
1. Hans Zimmer “Dune” – 7,196
2. Johnny Greenwood “The Power of the Dog” – 4,519
3. Germaine Franco “Encanto” – 1,047
4. Nicholas Brittel “Don’t Look Up” – 526
5. Alberto Iglesias “Parallel Mothers” – 471SONG – Margin: 11.8%
1. No Time to Die “No Time to Die” – 2,745
2. Dos Orugitas “Encanto” – 1,817
3. Be Alive “King Richard” – 1,195
4. Down to Joy “Belfast” – 764
5. Somehow You Do “Four Good Days” – 0Yes, Eyes of Tammy Faye is winning Makeup, and Dune is winning Effects and Sound. I’m not even copying those down.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
