1
00:00:04,559 --> 00:00:08,600
Speaker 1: Let's gamble on the Academy Awards.

2
00:00:11,320 --> 00:00:15,440
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Action Network podcast presented by bet MGM.

3
00:00:15,560 --> 00:00:18,360
Speaker 3: I'm your host, Maria Marino, and this is your.

4
00:00:18,280 --> 00:00:22,800
Speaker 2: Oscars Best Bets episode because we've got the ninety sixth

5
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:26,759
Speaker 2: presentation of the Academy Awards this Sunday night at the

6
00:00:26,800 --> 00:00:31,360
Speaker 2: Dolby Theater in Los Angeles. My guests today are two

7
00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 2: Oscars betting experts here at Action Network, Colin Witchurch and

8
00:00:37,280 --> 00:00:40,280
Speaker 2: Matt Remke, and together they will have eight.

9
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:42,760
Speaker 3: Total best bets for us. Plus.

10
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 2: If you're looking for an even deeper dive into all

11
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:47,760
Speaker 2: the action, check out our Academy Awards betting preview with

12
00:00:47,880 --> 00:00:51,280
Speaker 2: Chris Raybond and Colin Wilson, which dropped earlier this week

13
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:54,120
Speaker 2: right here on the Action Network Podcasts.

14
00:00:54,480 --> 00:00:56,080
Speaker 3: Colin and Matt, how are.

15
00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:58,840
Speaker 1: We ready to try to win some money on the Oscars.

16
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:01,920
Speaker 4: It's going to be a good night. I'm excited to

17
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 4: see my boy already. JA get up there one more time.

18
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:06,600
Speaker 4: But let's make some picks and win some money before

19
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:07,119
Speaker 4: we get there.

20
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 3: Sounds good.

21
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:10,840
Speaker 2: Well, let's not waste any time and we're gonna get

22
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 2: right into your picks.

23
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:14,679
Speaker 3: So Colin, why don't you start us off?

24
00:01:14,959 --> 00:01:17,000
Speaker 1: Sure? First of all, I just want to I think

25
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:19,120
Speaker 1: it's important to mention here that betting on the Oscars

26
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:21,800
Speaker 1: is kind of like unlike betting on anything else. This

27
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:24,199
Speaker 1: is not like betting on sports. There's no second place.

28
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 1: It's tougher to justify a losing bet as having value.

29
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:31,600
Speaker 1: Like in golf, for example, you can say I bet

30
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:34,080
Speaker 1: Sepstraka at one hundred to one and he lost by

31
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:36,839
Speaker 1: one stroke, so I can kind of rationalize my loss

32
00:01:36,840 --> 00:01:40,319
Speaker 1: and justify my loss. There's no second place here. There's

33
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 1: the winner and then there's everybody else. I mean, there's

34
00:01:42,880 --> 00:01:45,319
Speaker 1: technically a second place, but we don't know the second place. Also,

35
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:48,680
Speaker 1: it's important to note we're literally betting on something in

36
00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:51,880
Speaker 1: which the results have already been decided. There's nothing else

37
00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,960
Speaker 1: like that in sports betting. Balloting for the Oscars ended

38
00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 1: on February twenty seventh. The ballots have been tabulated by

39
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:01,840
Speaker 1: Price Waterhouse Cooper already too. Two three random people maybe

40
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:04,440
Speaker 1: know the answers we're betting on these trying to guess

41
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:06,960
Speaker 1: what these voters are doing when it's already been decided.

42
00:02:06,960 --> 00:02:09,639
Speaker 1: There's nothing else like that. Just wanted to preface that

43
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:12,399
Speaker 1: before I jump into my first pick. Probably my favorite

44
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:15,920
Speaker 1: pick is in the Best Original Screenplay category. Both of

45
00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:17,799
Speaker 1: these screenplay categories, and I know we're going to talk

46
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: about both, are very interesting this year because, unlike past years,

47
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:24,960
Speaker 1: the Writers Guild has not given out its awards yet.

48
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:30,040
Speaker 1: The WGA strike postponed the awards show until April, so

49
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:32,200
Speaker 1: we don't know who the WGA likes this year, and

50
00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:36,120
Speaker 1: usually that's a very strong correlation to these awards. So

51
00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 1: with categories like this, and you're gonna hear me talk

52
00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: about this a lot in this episode, I'm not necessarily

53
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:45,720
Speaker 1: looking for undervalued long shots, but more overvalued favorites. Categories

54
00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 1: where the favorites are modeled at less than fifty percent

55
00:02:48,400 --> 00:02:53,679
Speaker 1: chance to win, Categories with more randomness, if you will now.

56
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:56,640
Speaker 1: Ben Zosmer at the Hollywood Reporter has been modeling the

57
00:02:56,680 --> 00:02:59,760
Speaker 1: oscars for quite a while. I lean heavily on his model.

58
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:02,560
Speaker 1: Anatomy of a Fall is the favorite in this category,

59
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:04,359
Speaker 1: but he gives it just a forty two point eight

60
00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:07,840
Speaker 1: percent chance of winning. He actually gives Past Lives a

61
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:10,080
Speaker 1: twenty three percent chance of winning, and Past Lives is

62
00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:12,040
Speaker 1: way down the odds. Sport you can find it longer

63
00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:13,840
Speaker 1: than ten to one in a lot of places, so

64
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:15,680
Speaker 1: I'm definitely going to be taking a stab at that

65
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:18,680
Speaker 1: as well as the Holdovers, which is the second favorite

66
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:20,919
Speaker 1: behind Anatomy of a Fall. He gives a seventeen point

67
00:03:20,960 --> 00:03:24,520
Speaker 1: seven percent chance of winning, so again, the favorite has

68
00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:27,560
Speaker 1: less than fifty percent chance of winning, more chance for randomness.

69
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:29,960
Speaker 1: So I like Past Lives and the Holdovers both in

70
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:31,600
Speaker 1: this category. I'm going to be taking a stab at

71
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:32,560
Speaker 1: both of them.

72
00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:34,040
Speaker 3: Yes, very interesting.

73
00:03:34,160 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 2: So odds of about minus two hundred for Anatomy of

74
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:42,080
Speaker 2: a Fall, the Holdovers at plus money one fifty or so,

75
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 2: Past Lives up at plus twelve hundred or so.

76
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:50,080
Speaker 4: With my first pick. Another thing that makes the oscars

77
00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 4: very different from sports betting is that narratives do matter

78
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 4: a little bit more. Colin's going to throw a lot

79
00:03:55,800 --> 00:03:58,400
Speaker 4: of numbers today. I'm not really a numbers guy. I'm

80
00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:01,200
Speaker 4: going to follow the narrative a little bit more. But also,

81
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 4: like you said, overvalued favorites are kind of what I'm

82
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 4: looking for when I'm going down this list. So my

83
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:09,560
Speaker 4: first pick is going to be in the best Actress category,

84
00:04:09,640 --> 00:04:12,280
Speaker 4: and it's gonna be Emma Stone for Poor Things at

85
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:15,800
Speaker 4: plus one twenty five. Now Lily Gladstone and Killers of

86
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 4: the Flower Moon minus won seventy five. I think if

87
00:04:18,240 --> 00:04:21,720
Speaker 4: she won, nobody would, you know, raise any concern about that.

88
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:26,320
Speaker 4: She was wonderful in that movie. But my thought process

89
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:29,200
Speaker 4: on it is at minus one seventy five, there's not

90
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 4: a ton of value there. If it was closer to

91
00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 4: the plus money number, I think we'd be all over it.

92
00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:34,920
Speaker 4: But I think if you're going to take a stab

93
00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:38,479
Speaker 4: at any acting category, I think Emma Stone's where you

94
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:41,120
Speaker 4: want to go. Lily Gladstone was great in that movie,

95
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:43,159
Speaker 4: but she was really asked to do one thing, and

96
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:46,240
Speaker 4: that was being incredibly sad anytime any of her seven

97
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,800
Speaker 4: family members died. But Emma Stone, I think in Poor

98
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:54,520
Speaker 4: Things was able to show the absolute versatility of her

99
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 4: talent and the best actress category in one of the

100
00:04:57,240 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 4: most wild, all over the place movies being the catalyst

101
00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:03,240
Speaker 4: for Poor Things, and also, at the end of the day,

102
00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:06,080
Speaker 4: as much as we might not like to hear it,

103
00:05:06,120 --> 00:05:08,599
Speaker 4: the Oscars, the Academy, they do have their people, and

104
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 4: they like their people. And no one's more of a

105
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:13,720
Speaker 4: theater kid, No one's more of an Oscar's darling than

106
00:05:13,760 --> 00:05:17,080
Speaker 4: Emma Stone. So I think while Lily Gladstone is more

107
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:19,240
Speaker 4: than deserving of this win, no one's going to be

108
00:05:19,279 --> 00:05:21,839
Speaker 4: surprised if Stone's name gets called here and plus one

109
00:05:21,960 --> 00:05:23,760
Speaker 4: twenty five and we'll take a move there.

110
00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:28,400
Speaker 2: I find this one very interesting because it's one of

111
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:34,440
Speaker 2: the major awards, talking like Actor, Actress, Director Best Picture,

112
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,000
Speaker 2: that it feels like there's a chance.

113
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 3: That the favorite I won't win.

114
00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:45,799
Speaker 2: And I saw this from BETMGM as well that highest

115
00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:50,200
Speaker 2: bet percentage is on Lily Gladstone at over seventy percent,

116
00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:54,320
Speaker 2: and highest handle percentage is also on Lily Gladstone at

117
00:05:54,360 --> 00:05:56,320
Speaker 2: over seventy five percent.

118
00:05:56,680 --> 00:05:59,880
Speaker 3: But I think this is one of those major categories

119
00:05:59,880 --> 00:06:02,840
Speaker 3: that there might be at least a slight dilemma with

120
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:03,520
Speaker 3: the voters.

121
00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Lily Gladstone's winning all the prelimb awards heading

122
00:06:06,960 --> 00:06:09,440
Speaker 4: into the Oscars here, which I think is a reason

123
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:11,200
Speaker 4: you're seeing a lot of those numbers pop up. But

124
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,800
Speaker 4: I'm just taking a shot on You know, everyone loves

125
00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 4: Emma Stone, especially the Academy, and weirdly enough, we saw

126
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:21,320
Speaker 4: Jamie Lee Curtis last year that matters. They do look

127
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:24,040
Speaker 4: into who people love a lot in these situations.

128
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:27,200
Speaker 2: I'm also glad that you brought up just the idea

129
00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:33,440
Speaker 2: of narratives and also history, particularly recent history throughout the

130
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 2: oscars and some big names that are attached to movies

131
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,559
Speaker 2: and whether they've been snubbed in the past and whether

132
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,800
Speaker 2: they've won in the past. But with that being said, Colin,

133
00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,919
Speaker 2: one of the movies that definitely has a narrative attached

134
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:51,960
Speaker 2: to it is Barbie.

135
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:56,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, Barbie, obviously the highest grossing film of twenty twenty three,

136
00:06:56,920 --> 00:07:01,880
Speaker 1: Ton of Buzz, very beautiful, fun film. I actually did

137
00:07:01,920 --> 00:07:05,560
Speaker 1: the Barbie Oppenheimer doubleheader when they came out, and I

138
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: watched them both back to back. It was a kind

139
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:11,560
Speaker 1: of fun. But yeah, Barbie. I don't know what Barbie's

140
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:15,240
Speaker 1: gonna win necessarily on Sunday, but one category I'm targeting

141
00:07:15,280 --> 00:07:18,040
Speaker 1: it in is Best Adapted Screenplay. I can be quick

142
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:23,080
Speaker 1: here when on my screenplay diatribe with the original screenplay category,

143
00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:26,240
Speaker 1: and the same thing applies here. American Fiction is the

144
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:28,360
Speaker 1: favorite in this category. Ben Z Ausmoly gives it a

145
00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:31,720
Speaker 1: forty point eight percent chance of winning. Barbie's up there

146
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: at twenty three point six percent, and I think Barbie's

147
00:07:33,920 --> 00:07:36,760
Speaker 1: actually has the third lowest odds of all the nominees,

148
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:41,560
Speaker 1: and four of the five nominees have better than ten

149
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:43,800
Speaker 1: percent chance of winning. Yeah, Barbie at twenty three point

150
00:07:43,880 --> 00:07:47,000
Speaker 1: six percent, Oppenheimer at seventeen percent, pour Things at thirteen

151
00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:50,440
Speaker 1: point six percent. The interesting thing in this category, though,

152
00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:54,200
Speaker 1: is that Barbie is in the adapted Screenplay category. Most

153
00:07:54,200 --> 00:07:56,640
Speaker 1: of the other awards circuits leading up to it, it

154
00:07:56,720 --> 00:07:59,720
Speaker 1: was deemed an original screenplay, but the Academy decided it

155
00:07:59,760 --> 00:08:02,840
Speaker 1: was at So it's going up against films here that

156
00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: it didn't go up against in The Baptist, the Screen

157
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:12,240
Speaker 1: Actors Guild, et cetera, all the other screenwriting Awards shows.

158
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:15,800
Speaker 1: So there's a high level of variance in this category

159
00:08:15,840 --> 00:08:18,320
Speaker 1: this year, even more so than the original Screenplay category.

160
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:21,880
Speaker 1: So I'm seeing Barbie around the plus five hundred range

161
00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:25,000
Speaker 1: right now. I love that, definitely willing to take a

162
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:28,560
Speaker 1: shot on it again, very much a beloved public movie.

163
00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:31,320
Speaker 1: I don't know how many awards it's actually going to

164
00:08:31,360 --> 00:08:33,440
Speaker 1: get on Sunday, but adapted screenplay is one word. It

165
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:35,480
Speaker 1: definitely has a shot, especially at plus money.

166
00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:40,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Matt, it feels like Barbie is deserving of

167
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:43,400
Speaker 2: some recognition, right, but in so many of the other

168
00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:46,160
Speaker 2: categories it might be hard to justify.

169
00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 3: You also like this pick for Adapted Screenplay.

170
00:08:51,280 --> 00:08:54,400
Speaker 4: Yeah, and just to follow up on mccollins said, there,

171
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:58,080
Speaker 4: it's it's less so about you know, do we think

172
00:08:58,080 --> 00:09:01,080
Speaker 4: that Barbie is, you know, going to take this award

173
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:03,600
Speaker 4: based on you know, is it better than the other screenplays?

174
00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 4: At plus five hundred. I think it's worth a shot

175
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:08,319
Speaker 4: here because of what you just said, Maria. I don't

176
00:09:08,360 --> 00:09:10,559
Speaker 4: think Barbie's gonna win anything else. And you know, when

177
00:09:10,600 --> 00:09:13,200
Speaker 4: the nominations come out for the Academy Awards, you know,

178
00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:15,400
Speaker 4: some of the conversation is about which movie got the

179
00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:18,120
Speaker 4: most awards. That can happen, but more often than not,

180
00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:20,600
Speaker 4: it's about the snubs. It's about who didn't get nominated

181
00:09:20,600 --> 00:09:23,880
Speaker 4: for certain things. Margo, Robberie, Greta Gerwig, Barbie overall snubbed

182
00:09:23,880 --> 00:09:26,719
Speaker 4: across the board. People were very upset about it. I'm

183
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 4: on Blockbuster Twitter. People are not happy about that at all.

184
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,800
Speaker 4: And I think if they're going to give Barbie anything,

185
00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:37,680
Speaker 4: it's going to be this and Tinfoil Hat Oscar Scripted.

186
00:09:38,120 --> 00:09:40,559
Speaker 4: Maybe that's the reason they moved it to adapted screenplay

187
00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:42,680
Speaker 4: to give it a better shot at getting an award

188
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:44,800
Speaker 4: and getting I don't know if it's gonna be Greta

189
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:46,840
Speaker 4: hopping up there, but if they can get Greta Gerwig

190
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:49,160
Speaker 4: on stage, people are going to be very happy about it.

191
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:50,760
Speaker 4: So it's a good way to smooth things over, I

192
00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:53,960
Speaker 4: think for the audience. But also at plus five hundred,

193
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 4: like Colin laid out, a lot of the picks in

194
00:09:56,440 --> 00:09:59,160
Speaker 4: this category have a shot. I don't think anybody's gonna

195
00:09:59,160 --> 00:10:02,080
Speaker 4: be surprised at Apahi or anything else. You know, that's

196
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:04,080
Speaker 4: not the favorite getting a win here. But at plus

197
00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:06,400
Speaker 4: five hundred, if you're going to bet on Barbie to

198
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:08,680
Speaker 4: win anything, this is the category, and I think this.

199
00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 2: Is where you go right And just like I think

200
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:15,640
Speaker 2: folks want to give Barbie some recognition, they also may

201
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:18,120
Speaker 2: have I don't know if fatigue is the right word,

202
00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:20,800
Speaker 2: but we know Oppenheimer is probably going to get a

203
00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:22,920
Speaker 2: lot of love in a lot of other categories. So

204
00:10:23,000 --> 00:10:26,280
Speaker 2: even though they're at plus two hundred or so and

205
00:10:26,600 --> 00:10:32,439
Speaker 2: American Fiction at minus money and being the favorite, this

206
00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:33,720
Speaker 2: could be the spot.

207
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:36,880
Speaker 3: So let's move on. Colin, what's your next pick?

208
00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, We've been talking a lot about kind of math

209
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,319
Speaker 1: versus narrative today. Matt says he's more of a narrative guy.

210
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:46,440
Speaker 1: I'm more of a numbers guy here, but I'm going

211
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 1: to go with more of a narrative angle here for

212
00:10:48,240 --> 00:10:51,280
Speaker 1: my pick for Best Animated Feature, and that is The

213
00:10:51,280 --> 00:10:54,240
Speaker 1: Boy and the Heron. It has the second lowest odds

214
00:10:54,280 --> 00:10:57,439
Speaker 1: right now. You see it around plus one twenty five. Now,

215
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:00,679
Speaker 1: this is again string from my pattern of looking for

216
00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:04,080
Speaker 1: favorites that are below fifty percent. Ben ze Ausmer gives

217
00:11:04,080 --> 00:11:08,320
Speaker 1: Spider Man across the Spider Verse into the Spider Verse,

218
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,360
Speaker 1: I don't remember across this tire verse. There. It is

219
00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: a seventy four point one percent chance of winning this award,

220
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:16,720
Speaker 1: and The Boy and the Heron is an eighteen point

221
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:19,160
Speaker 1: one percent. But again going with a little bit of

222
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:23,680
Speaker 1: the narrative angle here. Heyo Miyazaki is considered an animation legend,

223
00:11:23,720 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 1: and this is reportedly the last film for the eighty

224
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:29,520
Speaker 1: three year old. Now, Animated Feature is a category that's

225
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:31,280
Speaker 1: only been around since two thousand and one. It doesn't

226
00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:33,600
Speaker 1: have the lengthy history of a lot of these other categories.

227
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:36,680
Speaker 1: Mayazaki's only won one Oscar it was for Spirited Away.

228
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:38,400
Speaker 1: It was in two thousand and two, the second year

229
00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:41,679
Speaker 1: of this category, and he deserves more than one, and

230
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:43,679
Speaker 1: many in the Academy adore him and want to give

231
00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:46,320
Speaker 1: him kind of a career Achievement award before he goes out.

232
00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:49,080
Speaker 1: It's also important to note that, with the exception of

233
00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:52,400
Speaker 1: Toy Story, the Academy has been very hesitant to give

234
00:11:52,600 --> 00:11:56,640
Speaker 1: this award to sequels. The first animated Spider Man won

235
00:11:56,679 --> 00:12:00,160
Speaker 1: this award in twenty eighteen, but other sequels like Shrek,

236
00:12:00,240 --> 00:12:03,160
Speaker 1: The Incredibles, How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda

237
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:05,920
Speaker 1: were not as successful when they were nominated. In the

238
00:12:05,960 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 1: case of Shrek and The Incredibles, the first movie actually

239
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:12,040
Speaker 1: one Best Animated Feature, the second movie did not. I

240
00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 1: think we see a good chance of that happening again here.

241
00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 1: I think the Boy in the Heron is beloved by

242
00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 1: voting members here in the Academy. I think that there

243
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:25,160
Speaker 1: might be a little bit of Spider Man and comic

244
00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:28,079
Speaker 1: book movie fatigue a little bit as we've been seeing,

245
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:31,120
Speaker 1: and I know Matt might have some opinions on that,

246
00:12:32,440 --> 00:12:34,280
Speaker 1: But yeah, the Boy and the Heron at plus money,

247
00:12:34,320 --> 00:12:38,320
Speaker 1: I think there's definitely value there, given the narrative angle

248
00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 1: and the sequel angle there with Spider Man, I love that.

249
00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:45,560
Speaker 2: Look, not only because of the great analysis, but just

250
00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:49,040
Speaker 2: because that might be a category that people aren't thinking

251
00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:51,920
Speaker 2: of right away, and it's just a good one to

252
00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:52,920
Speaker 2: keep in mind.

253
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:55,360
Speaker 3: All right, Matt, what's your next pick?

254
00:12:55,720 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 4: Well, before I get to my next pick, I do

255
00:12:57,280 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 4: I just have one quick point on the animated feature here.

256
00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:04,080
Speaker 4: I didn't feel comfortable putting Across the Spider Verse to

257
00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:07,199
Speaker 4: win animated feature as one of my picks. Don't love

258
00:13:07,240 --> 00:13:09,960
Speaker 4: the number that we're getting, you know, Boy and the heron.

259
00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:12,880
Speaker 4: It's a goat director situation and I haven't seen it,

260
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:15,880
Speaker 4: so I didn't feel comfortable battling against it. But on

261
00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:17,800
Speaker 4: the superhero fatigue thing, if I can get on my

262
00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:22,200
Speaker 4: pedestal right quick, I promise you more than anything, it's

263
00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:25,959
Speaker 4: bad superhero movie fatigue. It's bad superhero movies of which

264
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,680
Speaker 4: there are plenty from this exact studio that is driving

265
00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:32,000
Speaker 4: people down. But Across the Spider Verse is not only

266
00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:34,640
Speaker 4: one of the best comic book movies I've ever seen,

267
00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:36,920
Speaker 4: it's one of the best comic book sequels I've ever seen.

268
00:13:37,120 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 4: In the most beautiful animated movie I've ever watched in

269
00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:43,600
Speaker 4: my entire life. So I am in full support of

270
00:13:43,640 --> 00:13:45,480
Speaker 4: this movie winning. I don't think we're getting a great

271
00:13:45,559 --> 00:13:48,800
Speaker 4: number because it's such a heavy favorite seventy one percent,

272
00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:50,880
Speaker 4: as Colin said, but I just needed to get out

273
00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 4: there and say that across the Spider verse, I think

274
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:55,760
Speaker 4: is a lock here, but you know, it's it might

275
00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:58,240
Speaker 4: not be worth the change getting out here.

276
00:13:59,080 --> 00:14:02,280
Speaker 2: I really appreciate you making that distinction that you know,

277
00:14:02,400 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 2: not all superhero movies are good or bad, and there

278
00:14:07,400 --> 00:14:11,920
Speaker 2: are some, you know, great films included within that sort

279
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:16,080
Speaker 2: of genre, even though from the outside some may see

280
00:14:16,080 --> 00:14:17,199
Speaker 2: it as overplayed.

281
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 3: But that being said, you want to move on to

282
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:20,320
Speaker 3: your next pick.

283
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:22,720
Speaker 4: Now, Absolutely and ironically, I am going to pick a

284
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 4: favorite here for my last pick, and this is one

285
00:14:25,800 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 4: of those where I had the thought, like, you know,

286
00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:30,520
Speaker 4: this would be a great pick if the number was right,

287
00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:32,440
Speaker 4: and then I looked at the number, and man, alive,

288
00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:34,640
Speaker 4: is this way shorter than I thought it was going

289
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 4: to be. It's gonna be best sound Oppenheimer at minus

290
00:14:38,160 --> 00:14:40,760
Speaker 4: two point fifty. Obviously, you know you got to put

291
00:14:40,800 --> 00:14:42,680
Speaker 4: a lot in to get a lot back here. But

292
00:14:43,440 --> 00:14:46,760
Speaker 4: I cannot believe this is not a bigger difference between

293
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:49,600
Speaker 4: this and the second favor here at two fifty. I'm

294
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:53,520
Speaker 4: willing to put the majority of my night on Oppenheimer

295
00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 4: for Best Sound. And it's a two pronged kind of thing.

296
00:14:56,680 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 4: I think that last year, everything everywhere, all at once

297
00:14:59,600 --> 00:15:02,880
Speaker 4: dominate the Oscars in Best Picture, Best Director, and then

298
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:07,280
Speaker 4: a handful of actor and production categories. I think next

299
00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 4: year we're going to see Best Picture, Best Director, best

300
00:15:09,800 --> 00:15:13,400
Speaker 4: actors across the board, and production be dominated by doone too.

301
00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:15,600
Speaker 4: If you haven't seen it, go see it. And I

302
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:17,560
Speaker 4: think I'm betting on three in a row here because

303
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,040
Speaker 4: I do think Oppenheimer is going to dominate the night,

304
00:15:20,320 --> 00:15:21,760
Speaker 4: and these are the type of awards that are going

305
00:15:21,800 --> 00:15:25,040
Speaker 4: to stack up the numbers for Oppenheimer at the end,

306
00:15:25,520 --> 00:15:28,320
Speaker 4: along with the Best Director, Best Picture, and all the

307
00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:31,440
Speaker 4: actor awards that we expect it to get. But the

308
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:35,120
Speaker 4: other thing here is best Sound. This movie is great

309
00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:37,520
Speaker 4: for a lot of different reasons, but I do think

310
00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:40,840
Speaker 4: that the sound specifically is one of the keystone features

311
00:15:40,880 --> 00:15:43,600
Speaker 4: of why this movie was so successful, not only in

312
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:46,360
Speaker 4: the box office, but also just the experience of watching it.

313
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:50,040
Speaker 4: The sound in Oppenheimer really drives a lot of the

314
00:15:50,080 --> 00:15:53,600
Speaker 4: immersion that this movie has, and I think that that

315
00:15:54,640 --> 00:15:57,040
Speaker 4: being not just a great part of the movie, but

316
00:15:57,120 --> 00:15:59,240
Speaker 4: the driving force of the movie, along with all the

317
00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:02,240
Speaker 4: other things that it's going to get awards for. I

318
00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:04,160
Speaker 4: needed to have Oppenheimer on my card. So I'm gonna

319
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:06,560
Speaker 4: get Oppenheimer at Best Sound minus two fifty.

320
00:16:07,160 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 2: Well, we've heard so much about Christopher Nolan and his

321
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:14,040
Speaker 2: preference for you know, natural sound and things kind of

322
00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 2: sounding like real life, and so makes a whole lot of.

323
00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:18,440
Speaker 3: Sense to me.

324
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:21,200
Speaker 4: This podcast is proudly presented by Bett MGM.

325
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:25,240
Speaker 5: Used bonus code action act iown when signing up to

326
00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:28,680
Speaker 5: get one hundred and fifty eight dollars in bonus bets

327
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:36,000
Speaker 5: when you bet five dollars for new users in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

328
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:39,960
Speaker 5: New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

329
00:16:40,040 --> 00:16:42,000
Speaker 4: Terms and conditions of probably must be twenty one year older.

330
00:16:42,080 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 5: Gambling problem call one eight hundred gambler.

331
00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:52,320
Speaker 2: Now we have a couple more picks from Colin, but

332
00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:55,760
Speaker 2: I'm just giving you guys a heads up. I would

333
00:16:55,840 --> 00:16:58,360
Speaker 2: like to end on a fun note, and so Matt,

334
00:16:58,360 --> 00:16:59,960
Speaker 2: you can think about this while you know.

335
00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:00,840
Speaker 3: Colin is giving a.

336
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:05,520
Speaker 2: Couple more picks, but just your overall favorite film top

337
00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:07,480
Speaker 2: to bottom that you watched all year.

338
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:10,520
Speaker 3: So keep that in mind. But first, Colin, you do

339
00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:12,000
Speaker 3: have a couple more picks.

340
00:17:12,320 --> 00:17:14,320
Speaker 1: That'll be easy for me. I will get into some picks.

341
00:17:14,359 --> 00:17:16,800
Speaker 1: I do want to mention real quick. For Best Sound,

342
00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:19,480
Speaker 1: I agree with Matt that Oppenheimer's going to win. It's

343
00:17:19,520 --> 00:17:22,119
Speaker 1: a travesty that it's going to win. The Zone of

344
00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:25,440
Speaker 1: Interest is the best mixed film I've ever seen from

345
00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:29,960
Speaker 1: a sound perspective. Anyway, people don't care that much about

346
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:32,160
Speaker 1: really good people don't care that much about our personal

347
00:17:32,200 --> 00:17:34,320
Speaker 1: opinions here. They want they want bets, and they want winners.

348
00:17:36,520 --> 00:17:37,600
Speaker 1: My nice pick, Phil.

349
00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:40,280
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, it's still important reference.

350
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:47,360
Speaker 1: So yes, my next picks are correlated picks, and they

351
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:52,160
Speaker 1: are for Best Production Design and Best Costume Design, both cases.

352
00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:55,760
Speaker 1: I am going with four things here. They're correlated this

353
00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:59,720
Speaker 1: year because the same five films are nominated in both categories.

354
00:18:00,480 --> 00:18:03,000
Speaker 1: It seems unlikely this year, in particular, for a film

355
00:18:03,000 --> 00:18:04,800
Speaker 1: to win one and not the other. I know they're

356
00:18:04,840 --> 00:18:10,760
Speaker 1: different kind of specialties, and they're different guilds that run

357
00:18:10,840 --> 00:18:13,680
Speaker 1: production versus costume designed. This is just a year where

358
00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:16,719
Speaker 1: where everything seems kind of split down the middle when

359
00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:18,840
Speaker 1: it comes to these two categories. It's like we just

360
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:20,879
Speaker 1: talked about best Sound. Best Sound used to be split

361
00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:25,040
Speaker 1: into two different categories, and now they're combined into one.

362
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,560
Speaker 1: This year, Production design and costume design kind of have

363
00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:33,520
Speaker 1: that correlated play like sound used to. So that's important

364
00:18:33,520 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 1: to note, especially as you're watching the show. Whichever of

365
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:38,440
Speaker 1: these categories they present first, whether it's production design or

366
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:40,640
Speaker 1: costume design. I don't know if they're gonna have live

367
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 1: betting available on the Academy Awards, but if there are,

368
00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:46,640
Speaker 1: if Four Things wins best Production Design and Costume Design

369
00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:48,600
Speaker 1: hasn't been presented yet, maybe go jump on it. For

370
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:56,720
Speaker 1: costume design. Now both of these films, Barbie is favored

371
00:18:57,480 --> 00:19:00,159
Speaker 1: but below fifty percent, and ben Zausmer's model. Actually, I

372
00:19:00,160 --> 00:19:03,359
Speaker 1: think Four Things moved to the favorite just in the

373
00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:05,680
Speaker 1: last twenty four hours in Production design, but Barbie's its

374
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: top top contender up there along with it. Barbie's given

375
00:19:10,280 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 1: a forty point two percent chance in production design and

376
00:19:12,560 --> 00:19:15,000
Speaker 1: a forty eight point three percent chance in costume design.

377
00:19:15,080 --> 00:19:20,280
Speaker 1: So again, this fits a situation where randomness is definitely possible.

378
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:24,160
Speaker 1: Production design seems a little bit more wide open. Oppenheimer

379
00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:26,399
Speaker 1: and Killers of the Flower Moon are both above ten percent,

380
00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:29,560
Speaker 1: but in costume design, no other film tracks above ten

381
00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:34,879
Speaker 1: percent other than Barbie and Four Things. There's a strong

382
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:38,960
Speaker 1: possibility that Pour Things is This year's lots of nominations,

383
00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:42,280
Speaker 1: very few wins film, especially if I'm a Stone loses

384
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:46,280
Speaker 1: Best Actress, which I think she will necessarily. I that's

385
00:19:46,320 --> 00:19:47,560
Speaker 1: not one of my best bets. But I do think

386
00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:50,040
Speaker 1: Lily Gladstone walks away with that award, And if that's

387
00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:51,880
Speaker 1: the case, there's not a lot of opportunities for Poor

388
00:19:51,920 --> 00:19:54,640
Speaker 1: Things to win here. So this would be the chance

389
00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:57,199
Speaker 1: for the Academy to award this film and not have

390
00:19:57,240 --> 00:20:01,240
Speaker 1: it go home empty handed. I think think that when

391
00:20:01,240 --> 00:20:03,680
Speaker 1: you look at it right now, Poor Things is slightly

392
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:07,119
Speaker 1: minus money in production design, and it's slightly plus money

393
00:20:07,280 --> 00:20:10,119
Speaker 1: in costume design. But again, I think if you're betting

394
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 1: on one, you're betting on both. Whether you like Barbie

395
00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:15,960
Speaker 1: or Poor Things, you're gonna get one at plus money.

396
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:17,960
Speaker 1: One at minus Money. They'll kind of even things out.

397
00:20:18,200 --> 00:20:21,280
Speaker 1: In my opinion, this one goes to Poor Things. If

398
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:24,679
Speaker 1: there's anything that you remember about that movie, it's the

399
00:20:24,840 --> 00:20:29,119
Speaker 1: uniqueness of the production design, costume design. This is a

400
00:20:29,119 --> 00:20:31,880
Speaker 1: category where it can dominate. And this is the categories.

401
00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 1: These are the categories where I think the Academy is

402
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 1: going to award that film fair enough.

403
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:42,200
Speaker 2: Any reaction map before we get Colin's final.

404
00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:45,720
Speaker 4: Pick, No, I think that I was talking to Colin

405
00:20:45,840 --> 00:20:49,000
Speaker 4: yesterday a lot like Barbie. I love when a movie

406
00:20:49,119 --> 00:20:52,040
Speaker 4: commits to a thing and just dives all into a

407
00:20:52,119 --> 00:20:55,520
Speaker 4: vision and has no hesitation, going as weird and lacky

408
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:57,280
Speaker 4: as it can be. And Poor Things is that just

409
00:20:57,320 --> 00:20:59,399
Speaker 4: the same way Barbie is. And I think that that

410
00:20:59,440 --> 00:21:02,840
Speaker 4: commitment came out in a really beautiful way, especially in

411
00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:05,639
Speaker 4: the production and costume design across the board, Like that

412
00:21:05,720 --> 00:21:09,560
Speaker 4: movie from front to back is just nothing but stunning visuals,

413
00:21:09,600 --> 00:21:12,000
Speaker 4: and it's usually the things put in place, not even

414
00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:13,879
Speaker 4: the post production aspects of it.

415
00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:19,520
Speaker 2: And Colin, you like Poor Things as well? Potentially for

416
00:21:19,600 --> 00:21:20,520
Speaker 2: your last pick.

417
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:23,680
Speaker 1: Yeah, one more shot at Poor Things. I said, I

418
00:21:23,880 --> 00:21:25,800
Speaker 1: don't know how many awards it's going to get, but

419
00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:29,280
Speaker 1: This is one more category where I'm going to take

420
00:21:29,320 --> 00:21:32,080
Speaker 1: a shot on it. Maestro has been a strong favorite

421
00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:35,080
Speaker 1: and makeup and hairstyling pretty much since nominations came out,

422
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:38,159
Speaker 1: but there's no strong indications that it's a shoe in

423
00:21:38,280 --> 00:21:41,520
Speaker 1: for this award. This is actually the only category in

424
00:21:41,560 --> 00:21:44,119
Speaker 1: ben Zeusmer's model where he doesn't give a single film

425
00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:48,080
Speaker 1: more than a forty percent chance of winning. His model's

426
00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:50,000
Speaker 1: top choice is actually Poor Things, which you can get

427
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:53,280
Speaker 1: around plus one ten right now. Maestro's at thirty three

428
00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:56,439
Speaker 1: point four percent. Oppenheimer, which is still around twenty to

429
00:21:56,440 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 1: one at some places, is actually not that far behind

430
00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:01,679
Speaker 1: at fifteen point two percent. So this is again another

431
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:04,919
Speaker 1: category where I'm very comfortable taking a swing at a

432
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:08,600
Speaker 1: couple of long shots. Poor Things not necessarily as much

433
00:22:08,640 --> 00:22:10,399
Speaker 1: of a long shot at plus one ten ish. But

434
00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:13,760
Speaker 1: then Oppenheimer, again, we've talked about it. It's going to

435
00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:15,840
Speaker 1: clean up most of the night. This might be another

436
00:22:15,880 --> 00:22:20,320
Speaker 1: technical category where the Academy just piles on to the accolades.

437
00:22:20,320 --> 00:22:22,640
Speaker 1: It's giving that film. It's twenty to one. It's worth

438
00:22:22,640 --> 00:22:25,920
Speaker 1: a sprinkle, absolutely, but I'll have much more substantial money

439
00:22:25,920 --> 00:22:30,080
Speaker 1: on Poor Things. I think Maestro is incredibly vulnerable in

440
00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:33,240
Speaker 1: this category, and so it's ripe for the taking for

441
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:34,600
Speaker 1: a plus money bet.

442
00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:39,960
Speaker 2: All right, wrapping up here momentarily, but before we do,

443
00:22:41,240 --> 00:22:45,160
Speaker 2: Matt Remkey, best thing top to bottom you watched all year?

444
00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:49,000
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think Oppenheimer was the best movie

445
00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:52,160
Speaker 4: I watched last year, follow shortly by Across the Spider Verse.

446
00:22:52,200 --> 00:22:53,920
Speaker 4: But that's not I don't think what I'm going to

447
00:22:53,960 --> 00:22:56,720
Speaker 4: answer here. It's favorite, right, and yeah, I'm the comic

448
00:22:56,720 --> 00:22:58,840
Speaker 4: book guy, and I know that it's really fun and

449
00:22:58,960 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 4: cool and you look like the coole. It's getting school lean.

450
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:03,520
Speaker 4: It gets your locker smoking a cigarette. If you hate

451
00:23:03,520 --> 00:23:05,879
Speaker 4: on superhero movies right now, I know that's the most

452
00:23:05,920 --> 00:23:08,480
Speaker 4: awesome thing to do on Twitter. But Guardians of the

453
00:23:08,520 --> 00:23:11,560
Speaker 4: Galaxy Volume three is my favorite thing I watched last year.

454
00:23:11,760 --> 00:23:14,359
Speaker 4: James Gunn is my favorite director. Guardians one is my

455
00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:16,879
Speaker 4: favorite movie. I walked down the aisle at my wedding

456
00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 4: to come and get your love. That's how involved in

457
00:23:19,359 --> 00:23:21,480
Speaker 4: this movie I am. I think that it was a

458
00:23:21,520 --> 00:23:24,439
Speaker 4: masterpiece of a trilogy. It was a great way to

459
00:23:24,600 --> 00:23:27,160
Speaker 4: end an amazing run of three movies that will make

460
00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:31,400
Speaker 4: you cry, laugh, get excited, dramatic, all the things. It's

461
00:23:31,440 --> 00:23:34,560
Speaker 4: nominated for Best VFX. It's not gonna win, but I

462
00:23:34,560 --> 00:23:38,879
Speaker 4: think that the animation in that movie is unbelievably, you know,

463
00:23:39,520 --> 00:23:42,800
Speaker 4: more more realistic as far as animal animation than anything

464
00:23:42,800 --> 00:23:45,320
Speaker 4: we've seen. And I think that Guardians of the Galaxy

465
00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:47,800
Speaker 4: Volume three is one of the best comic book movies

466
00:23:47,840 --> 00:23:50,480
Speaker 4: I've ever seen, and it's definitely my favorite thing I

467
00:23:50,560 --> 00:23:52,040
Speaker 4: watched last year without a doubt.

468
00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:53,639
Speaker 3: Awesome Colin.

469
00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:56,119
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is actually a pretty easy decision for

470
00:23:56,160 --> 00:23:59,560
Speaker 1: me to make. I've been ranking every movie I watch

471
00:23:59,600 --> 00:24:02,719
Speaker 1: every year for a good long while. I've been tracking

472
00:24:02,720 --> 00:24:05,280
Speaker 1: them on a letterbox for the last three or four years.

473
00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:08,960
Speaker 1: You can follow me there at CEO witch Church. There

474
00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:10,880
Speaker 1: are three movies that stood out to me this year

475
00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:13,480
Speaker 1: that were, bar none, the three best movies of the year,

476
00:24:13,680 --> 00:24:15,800
Speaker 1: and actually two of them are Best Picture nominies, which

477
00:24:15,840 --> 00:24:17,679
Speaker 1: doesn't usually happen for me. I'm usually somewhat of a

478
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:20,480
Speaker 1: contrarian when it comes to the Oscars. The three best

479
00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:23,240
Speaker 1: movies that I saw this year are The Zone of Interest,

480
00:24:23,760 --> 00:24:27,359
Speaker 1: Past Lives, and a non nominee, All of Us Strangers

481
00:24:27,480 --> 00:24:31,240
Speaker 1: starring Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal very very highly recommended.

482
00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:34,960
Speaker 1: Past Lives and Zone of Interest had such a high

483
00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:40,080
Speaker 1: degree of difficulty with they with what they what they presented.

484
00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:43,120
Speaker 1: If you read the synopsis of either film, you could

485
00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:45,880
Speaker 1: see how these films could go south very easily. Past

486
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:49,800
Speaker 1: Lives could be read as kind of your stereotypical rom

487
00:24:49,880 --> 00:24:54,919
Speaker 1: com or maybe just rom not necessarily the calm the

488
00:24:55,000 --> 00:24:58,439
Speaker 1: Zone of Interest. Making a Holocaust movie and making it

489
00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:03,639
Speaker 1: unique and making it not flippantly is very difficult. And

490
00:25:03,680 --> 00:25:06,400
Speaker 1: there's been so many movies made about the Holocaust over

491
00:25:06,400 --> 00:25:09,760
Speaker 1: the years. Nothing that has been made about the Holocaust

492
00:25:10,520 --> 00:25:13,040
Speaker 1: has ever looked like this movie, has ever sounded like

493
00:25:13,080 --> 00:25:15,400
Speaker 1: this movie, has ever been anything like this movie. So

494
00:25:15,760 --> 00:25:17,320
Speaker 1: those are movies that are going to stick with me

495
00:25:17,520 --> 00:25:21,120
Speaker 1: for a very long time. They stood out well beyond

496
00:25:21,480 --> 00:25:23,200
Speaker 1: anything else I saw in twenty twenty three.

497
00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:26,840
Speaker 3: Well, thank you both for that perspective.

498
00:25:26,920 --> 00:25:29,800
Speaker 2: I do want to remind our listeners that the great

499
00:25:29,880 --> 00:25:34,240
Speaker 2: State of North Carolina is launching sports betting this Monday,

500
00:25:34,400 --> 00:25:37,000
Speaker 2: March eleventh, So if you're in the tar Heel State,

501
00:25:37,400 --> 00:25:40,760
Speaker 2: take advantage of the best sign up offers across every

502
00:25:40,920 --> 00:25:44,200
Speaker 2: sports book. A link to all those offers is in

503
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:48,160
Speaker 2: this episode description, so if you're in North Carolina, check

504
00:25:48,200 --> 00:25:51,560
Speaker 2: out that link and that's going to do it for us.

505
00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:57,640
Speaker 2: Here on the Action Network podcast, our Oscars Best Bets episode,

506
00:25:57,680 --> 00:26:00,280
Speaker 2: we are back this Friday with our weekly uf SEE

507
00:26:00,320 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 2: Betting preview featuring our MMA crew.

508
00:26:04,359 --> 00:26:07,080
Speaker 3: But want to thank everyone again for listening.

509
00:26:07,800 --> 00:26:11,399
Speaker 2: For Colin Witchurch, Matt Remkey and our producer Matt Mitchell.

510
00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:12,760
Speaker 3: I'm Maria Marino.

511
00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:16,520
Speaker 2: We hope you and your crew enjoy the ninety sixth

512
00:26:16,560 --> 00:26:19,760
Speaker 2: presentation of the Academy Awards and we'll see you back

513
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:24,119
Speaker 2: here next time on the Action Network Podcast, presented by BETTMGM.

514
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:34,040
Speaker 4: All right, you've really made this a night to remember

515
00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:40,359
Speaker 4: it every way. Now let's go party till dawn. Action

516
00:26:40,520 --> 00:26:44,960
Speaker 4: Network reminds you please gamble responsibly. If you or someone

517
00:26:45,000 --> 00:26:47,960
Speaker 4: you care about has a gambling problem, help is available

518
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:50,560
Speaker 4: twenty four to seven at one eight hundred Gambler