Yeah, Neon claimed that it was 59% non-English, but even if that was precisely correct that might’ve been close enough to 50% to hurt its chances to even be nominated.
I will take that bet, re: Oppenheimer. I think the entire industry will be shocked if that doesn’t win. So what do you think is going to win?
I agree. I will be very surprised if Oppenheimer doesn’t win.
I also think Anatomy of a Fall will take Best Original Screenplay.
Based on how things have gone in the past, American Fiction, Killers of the Flower Moon, or (less likely) Barbie, all of which have a “social message”, and all of which I’d personally rank near the bottom of the ten nominees.
I want you in my Oscar pool. 
I quickly searched on a site with the oddsmakers assessments for the Oscars (this site, which has the distinction of being the top site returned on search that my work firewall will actually allow me to open). I don’t make any claim as to its predictive power.
- Oppenheimer (-5000)
- Poor Things (+2000)
- The Holdovers (+2500)
- The Zone of Interest (+2500)
- Barbie (+3500)
- Anatomy of a Fall (+4000)
- Killers of the Flower Moon (+6500)
- American Fiction (+8000)
- Past Lives (+10000)
- Maestro (+15000)
@wolfpup, you can really clean up on your picks- big money!
Oppenheimer seems to be the heavy favorite across most of its categories.
Zone of Interest is odds on to win the International Feature Award, which I sort of predicted above. It played forever on the Westside of Los Angeles, which is local for the Academy demographic.
Mysteriously, all 26 woke critics at the Gold Derby have unanimously picked Oppenheimer as the likely winner. Unanimously! Smells like conspiracy.
ETA: on the other hand, if you don’t like the woke parade, Armond White has your back. He says all 10 nominees are terrible, and John Wick 4, Rebel Moon, All of Us Strangers, The Taste of Things, and Asteroid City are the obvious choices.
Hollywood Awards Season Politics Turn Critics into Lobbyists | National Review
Maybe I was too cynical. It the oddsmakers are right, two of the three films I liked least are indeed near the bottom of the list. In fact that list closely parallels my assessment of merit, except at the very least I would move Anatomy of a Fall above Barbie. The basis of my cynicism is in questioning the degree to which merit is actually a big factor in Oscar decisions.
As for Oppenheimer, I’m surprised it’s such a heavy favourite, but I certainly won’t be disappointed if it wins. Besides the skillful storytelling, it’s certainly the most lavish production of all the nominees; the absolutely gigantic reel of 70mm 15-perf film requires a big forklift or crane to move around. The vast majority probably saw it in some digital form, but film IMAX is how Nolan really intended it to be seen.
I was going to suggest making a “field bet” on “all of them except Oppenheimer,” but when I crunched the numbers, the odds were only +253.
If anyone is interested in this kind of thing, I’ve always been entertained by Thomas Flight’s film analysis. Here he talks about what he thinks should win in all the broadcast categories, and what he thinks might win.
(ahem)…“Past Lives”, lest anyone get confused.
Speaking of which, I don’t expect it to win, but I hope folks see it because it is really, really good.
I have seen 9 of the 10 Best Picture nominees (still missing “Killers of the Flower Moon”).
My prediction is that “Poor Things” will win. I think about it perhaps once a week, and every time I do I decide that I like it a little more.
I just noticed that on the Gold Derby site that “Killers…” has knocked “Poor Things” out of second place. “Oppenheimer” remains the favorite.
mmm
If you want to see the careful thought that goes into a ballot, here is this year’s first “brutally honest Oscar ballot”.
… and even though it’s cheesy I’ll be real with you: I met Downey at an awards season party, we had an interaction that I did not initiate, and it tipped the scales for me. Campaigning matters! (Laughs. )
At the time of my last few comments I had seen less than half of Poor Things but formed a snap judgment that I liked the refreshing originality. Now that I’ve seen the whole thing, I’m a-rootin’ for it! Nominated for 11 Oscars and I think it deserves many of them. It’s obviously got very steep competition for Best Picture, and Emma Stone likewise has steep competition for Best Actress, but a bunch of Oscars for things like set design, cinematography, writing, film editing, and others are probably up for grabs and I hope it snags many of them.
You’ve heavily hinted that undeserving movies are getting recognized because they contain elements you find woke. Can you be more specific? I assume it’s American Fiction and Killers of the Flower Moon because they have large minority casts (or at least a large enough part of the story involves non white men)? Do you think they’re objectively non deserving of praise?
You’re grossly misreading what “industry politics” means here, which I’ve already explained. I’d especially strongly appreciate it if you didn’t make nasty and baseless innuendos about what I’m supposedly “hinting”. Thanks.
Do you mind explaining again what you mean by Industry Politics? I must have missed it. Thanks.
Sure, I touched on it in this post but there are also many other factors that contribute to industry politics. For instance, the Academy loves movies about itself – La La Land didn’t win BP, but it did get nominated and was widely expected to win – and for the record, I liked that movie even less than any of this year’s nominees (except maybe Maestro, which I’d also place near the bottom of the list). Other “politics” issues are things like “body of work” considerations for long-time filmmakers and performers who have not yet won an Oscar, and a film’s popularity and theatrical exposure – all of which are quite distinct from merit.
I neglected to mention another potentially huge factor alluded to by @Maserschmidt up in post #113 – internal influencing, campaigning, and brown-nosing. Why would industry politics in the film industry be any different than the scourge of corporate politics anywhere?
Perhaps I’m dense. But can you explain exactly which “politics” you think are involved? The term "social relevance " is carrying a lot of weight that’s unexplained. I don’t understand why you’re not just saying what it is.
I’d also like an explanation of how you know that American Fiction is objectively undeserving of a nomination. Are you suggesting people are pretending to enjoy and respect its artistic merits?