1
00:00:00,800 --> 00:00:06,480
Speaker 1: This is the Action Network Podcast, and it is good.

2
00:00:11,000 --> 00:00:15,280
Speaker 1: From the red carpet arrivals to glamorous after parties, it's

3
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:16,880
Speaker 1: the most magical.

4
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:17,280
Speaker 2: Night of the year.

5
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,799
Speaker 1: And today the Action Network honors Hollywood the best way

6
00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:25,680
Speaker 1: we know how, by helping you profit up the monumental

7
00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:29,880
Speaker 1: creative achievements of others. And what's more Hollywood than that.

8
00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:36,920
Speaker 1: Let's gamble on the Academy Awards.

9
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:41,159
Speaker 2: At that time a year again after season. Welcome the

10
00:00:41,200 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 2: Action Network Podcast Academy Awards Gambling Spectacular. I am your host,

11
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:51,519
Speaker 2: Chris Rabon, and I'm joined today by Colin Wilson and

12
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 2: Katie rich Creek of the Action Network, and we are

13
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:58,360
Speaker 2: going to be breaking down everything that you need to

14
00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:03,920
Speaker 2: know to bet the twenty one Academy Awards. We're gonna

15
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:06,760
Speaker 2: go through all of the categories. I'll give you guys

16
00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:10,000
Speaker 2: a little roadmap right now. We'll start out with the

17
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 2: Actor categories, then we will get into some of the

18
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 2: song and the Best Original Score, We'll go through the

19
00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:22,920
Speaker 2: Craft categories, and then we'll round it out with Supporting Actors,

20
00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:26,399
Speaker 2: the Screenplay Awards, which are always great, and then we'll

21
00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:31,520
Speaker 2: talk about Best Picture, which has been a very profitable

22
00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:34,480
Speaker 2: category to bet these last few years, So there will

23
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:36,280
Speaker 2: be a few categories we're not going to get into

24
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:40,720
Speaker 2: because we like the favorite, no underdog action, and they're

25
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:43,880
Speaker 2: not major categories. So for Best Documentary Short, we like

26
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:46,759
Speaker 2: A Love Song for Latasha at minus three zero five.

27
00:01:47,160 --> 00:01:50,080
Speaker 2: For Best Animated Short, we like If Anything Happens I

28
00:01:50,120 --> 00:01:54,080
Speaker 2: Love You at minus three thirty five. For Best Documentary Feature,

29
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:57,880
Speaker 2: we like My Octopus Teacher at minus five hundred. For

30
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 2: Best International Feature, Another Round at minus twelve fifty, and

31
00:02:01,520 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 2: Best Animated Feature Soul at minus five thousand. No real

32
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:09,320
Speaker 2: value there. We're not going to waste time talking about it.

33
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:11,400
Speaker 2: What we are going to do is we're going to

34
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:16,119
Speaker 2: get right into Best Supporting Actor Andy nominees. For Best

35
00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:20,120
Speaker 2: Supporting Actor, Daniel Klujah from Judas in the Black Messiah

36
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:24,440
Speaker 2: is the front runner at minus twenty five hundred. You

37
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,560
Speaker 2: have Paul Racy from Sound to Metal at twelve to one,

38
00:02:28,160 --> 00:02:31,360
Speaker 2: Fasha Baron Cohen from the Trial of the Chicago Seven

39
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 2: at twelve to one, Leslie Otim Junior for One Night

40
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,639
Speaker 2: in Miami at seventeen to one, and la Keith Stanfield

41
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:42,920
Speaker 2: from Judas in the Black Messiah at thirty three to one, Haiti,

42
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:45,680
Speaker 2: I'm going to start with you. Where are you going

43
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:47,799
Speaker 2: for Best Supporting Actor?

44
00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:52,200
Speaker 3: So Daniel Kluia is obviously a heavy favorite in this category,

45
00:02:52,280 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 3: and for rightful reasons, he has all of the precursor

46
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:59,799
Speaker 3: awards on his side. One really interesting note about this category, though,

47
00:02:59,840 --> 00:03:03,959
Speaker 3: is he and Lakeith Stanfield obviously both starred in Judas

48
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:06,440
Speaker 3: and the Black Messiah. That makes them the twenty pair

49
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 3: of actors to start in the same movie and also

50
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:12,800
Speaker 3: be nominated for the same category. Historically, one of the

51
00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:16,520
Speaker 3: two in a pair usually prevails because they have more

52
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:19,840
Speaker 3: screen time, and in this case, Stanfield actually has the edge.

53
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 3: But ultimately, you know, Daniel Kluia is the heavy favorite

54
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:23,880
Speaker 3: for a reason.

55
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:25,639
Speaker 4: This is his award to lose.

56
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 3: I think, even at the superjuiced odds, this is where

57
00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:29,960
Speaker 3: the betting value lies.

58
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:33,040
Speaker 2: It's not a question of violence or non violence. Is

59
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:36,200
Speaker 2: no question of resistance to fascism or non existence, but

60
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 2: it is a fascism.

61
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:40,440
Speaker 5: First off, it's great to be back with you guys,

62
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:42,680
Speaker 5: because I thought we killed it last year, even though

63
00:03:42,760 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 5: you know, Parasite took a little bit of money from me.

64
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:48,760
Speaker 5: The Cynthia Rivo thing had me crying for a week it,

65
00:03:49,200 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 5: you know, so I'm glad that we're back. We're going

66
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:54,440
Speaker 5: to make some money off of this. So as far

67
00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:57,520
Speaker 5: as Best Supporting Actor goes, and no one from Minory

68
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:01,360
Speaker 5: is nominated in this category, which means I don't have

69
00:04:01,360 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 5: to bet any money on it, because I just want

70
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:05,360
Speaker 5: everybody to know that I'm going to be completely bipartial

71
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:08,640
Speaker 5: in this podcast as a person that is living in Tulsa, Oklahoma,

72
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 5: where the movie was shot, from northwest Arkansas, where the

73
00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:16,160
Speaker 5: movie was the scenery was to be yes, we all

74
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:19,440
Speaker 5: carry crosses down dirt roads and preach about Jesus. That's

75
00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:21,960
Speaker 5: where I come from. Now, can't bet on that here.

76
00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:26,400
Speaker 5: And Best Supporting Actor, I am gonna go with Daniel Gluya.

77
00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:29,680
Speaker 5: The historical analysis here, I mean is to watch for

78
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:33,680
Speaker 5: an older nominee receiving a lifetime award. So there's no

79
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:36,280
Speaker 5: one here that applies to that. Paul Racy is in

80
00:04:36,320 --> 00:04:38,880
Speaker 5: this list. He's seventy three years old. His body of

81
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:43,679
Speaker 5: work includes waiter at in a movie called Rennakop, Paparazzi

82
00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:47,400
Speaker 5: and She Wants Me Bad Guy in the Bruce Lee story.

83
00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 5: This is not a guy that wins this award. You know,

84
00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:52,800
Speaker 5: only one of the twenty seven experts didn't pick Daniel

85
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,680
Speaker 5: q Lety for this. He won BAFTA, American Film Institute

86
00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:59,920
Speaker 5: Critics Choice, DFW Film Critics, Golden Globes, National Boarder Review,

87
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:02,839
Speaker 5: and the SAgs Where did he lose? He lost in

88
00:05:02,920 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 5: one spot. Dale Kululia did not win in the Washington

89
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 5: DC Area Film Critics Association, where they went with Leslie

90
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:13,160
Speaker 5: Odom Junior, take Daniel Klulia here to win this easy

91
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 5: money to lay, and I don't think he's ever going

92
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:18,880
Speaker 5: to make a personal trip himself to the Washington DC

93
00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:21,720
Speaker 5: Area of Film critics because of that snob.

94
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:24,960
Speaker 2: You know, watching these movies, I thought Leslie Odom Junior

95
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:27,479
Speaker 2: deserves more love this award season. I thought he did

96
00:05:27,800 --> 00:05:30,640
Speaker 2: a really outstanding job as Sam Cook in One Night

97
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:34,000
Speaker 2: in Miami. I think if there was anyone that would

98
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:37,560
Speaker 2: probably get that kind of you know, he kind of

99
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 2: deserves it, maybe not just for this movie, but more

100
00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:42,560
Speaker 2: of an achievement thing, it would be Sasha Byron Cohen.

101
00:05:42,880 --> 00:05:46,279
Speaker 2: You know, he's also got bored at subsequent movie film

102
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:49,080
Speaker 2: going on, and pretty good actor who's you know, really

103
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:51,720
Speaker 2: kind of coming into his own these last few years,

104
00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:54,360
Speaker 2: so you know, he's at plus twelve hundred. But here's

105
00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:57,359
Speaker 2: why I have to have to go Daniel Koulia as well.

106
00:05:57,600 --> 00:05:59,640
Speaker 2: Now you talked about the experts, Colin for those that

107
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 2: don't know, so we look at golderby dot com and

108
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:06,240
Speaker 2: they track their expert predictions, they track their editor predictions.

109
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:09,320
Speaker 2: They also track the predictions of their most accurate users,

110
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:11,280
Speaker 2: and so we have a lot of data going back

111
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:14,120
Speaker 2: about a decade on you know, people that are kind

112
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,159
Speaker 2: of inside, you know, the sharp money, so to speak,

113
00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:19,560
Speaker 2: in the industry, and how accurate they are. So I

114
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:24,919
Speaker 2: incorporate that into my models as a main variable for

115
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:29,080
Speaker 2: a lot of these And eight of the nine editors

116
00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:34,279
Speaker 2: number one choice have won since they started tracking, and

117
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:39,960
Speaker 2: the one exception was in twenty sixteen Mark Rylance and

118
00:06:40,000 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 2: his only other win that year of relevance was the

119
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:47,120
Speaker 2: Bath Well, Daniel Kolulia won the Bath to To. I don't

120
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:51,560
Speaker 2: really see anyway, given all the precurses that Daniel Kawulia

121
00:06:51,720 --> 00:06:54,800
Speaker 2: is not winning this award minus twenty five hundred, the

122
00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:58,000
Speaker 2: odds are about right, you know, above ninety five percent,

123
00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:00,240
Speaker 2: So I don't expect many people to bet on this

124
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 2: but unfortunate. We know underdog love for Best Supporting Actor

125
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 2: this year.

126
00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:09,360
Speaker 5: Let me say this, Chris, because we if you didn't

127
00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:11,280
Speaker 5: listen to the pod last year, we talked about this

128
00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:12,960
Speaker 5: last year. It needs to be mentioned here as we

129
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:16,280
Speaker 5: go through these odds. Following the gold derby experts and

130
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:20,760
Speaker 5: editors is a much more trusting process. And following Oscar

131
00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 5: Metrics by ben Z Osmer, that is a much more

132
00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:26,160
Speaker 5: trusted process than steam chasing.

133
00:07:25,840 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 2: For the people that may just be with it into

134
00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 2: this is novice better is more so filmed the fifty

135
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 2: Nado's explain theme and steam jasing.

136
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:38,000
Speaker 5: I am looking at the Best Supporting Actor and Leslie

137
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:41,360
Speaker 5: Odom Junior he's listed it, you know, seventeen to one odds.

138
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 5: But I wake up on Oscar more the morning of

139
00:07:43,480 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 5: Oscars and he's four to one odds. Holy shit, somebody

140
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 5: knows something. Something has come out. Obviously this is the winner.

141
00:07:50,880 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 5: It has to be it. No I believe what price,

142
00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 5: Waterhouse Cooper. They're the ones that control the ballots.

143
00:07:56,600 --> 00:07:56,800
Speaker 2: Here.

144
00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:01,240
Speaker 5: There is absolutely zero leaks. The only time there is

145
00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:04,320
Speaker 5: a leak is when the Academy Award accidentally tweets it

146
00:08:04,320 --> 00:08:07,880
Speaker 5: out like they did last year, Warren Baty can't read

147
00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:11,320
Speaker 5: a damn card. I'm sorry, No, there's a mistake. There's

148
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 5: a mistake. Moonlight. You guys won Best Picture.

149
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:15,720
Speaker 2: This is not a joke.

150
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 5: This is not a joke.

151
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:18,600
Speaker 2: I'm afraid they read the wrong thing.

152
00:08:19,080 --> 00:08:22,720
Speaker 5: There's no leaks. So when we say oscar metrics as

153
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 5: a place to look for analysis, was we say gold

154
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:30,320
Speaker 5: derby Editors and experts don't chase steam.

155
00:08:30,560 --> 00:08:34,040
Speaker 2: Yeah, and of course check out actionnetwork dot com. I

156
00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:35,880
Speaker 2: know you have your write up out. I'll have my

157
00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:39,079
Speaker 2: you know, category by category right up out with more

158
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:41,720
Speaker 2: probably even more detail. Then we'll go into uh in

159
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:43,760
Speaker 2: the pod for some of these, so be sure to

160
00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:46,200
Speaker 2: check those out. But yeah, there's it's if the lines

161
00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:49,160
Speaker 2: are moving, it's just because books are getting money on

162
00:08:49,200 --> 00:08:53,080
Speaker 2: a certain you know, candidate. But that doesn't mean there's

163
00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:56,400
Speaker 2: any kind of week or anything like that. So yeah,

164
00:08:56,440 --> 00:08:58,960
Speaker 2: don't go chasing numbers just because you know, things start

165
00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:01,240
Speaker 2: shifting or anything like that. Like when you listen to

166
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:03,920
Speaker 2: this and make your bets, probably the sooner you make them,

167
00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:06,880
Speaker 2: the better. Anything that's really worth betting on, the lines

168
00:09:06,880 --> 00:09:09,199
Speaker 2: are probably just going to move in that direction. You're

169
00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:11,719
Speaker 2: gonna get less value. But yeah, don't buy into the

170
00:09:11,800 --> 00:09:14,040
Speaker 2: hype with any kind of crazy see move That was

171
00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 2: great advice. Let's move on to a Best Supporting Actress.

172
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:20,920
Speaker 5: Most every actress and actor I know wants to build

173
00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:22,079
Speaker 5: a lasting body of work.

174
00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:26,120
Speaker 2: The five women nominated Best Supporting Actress have done just that.

175
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:34,439
Speaker 2: Indie nominees are out Jung Un from Minerre at minus

176
00:09:34,520 --> 00:09:39,319
Speaker 2: five hundred, the front runner, Maria Blacklavah for Boat Subsequent

177
00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:42,600
Speaker 2: Movie Film at plus three seventy five, Glen Close from

178
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 2: Hillbilly Elg at plus one thousand, so ten to one,

179
00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,920
Speaker 2: Olivia Coleman from The Father at twenty to one, and

180
00:09:51,120 --> 00:09:56,760
Speaker 2: Amanda Cfried from manc at thirty three to one. What's

181
00:09:56,760 --> 00:09:57,439
Speaker 2: the look on like here?

182
00:09:57,520 --> 00:09:59,600
Speaker 5: Colin? Yeah, I mean I'm gonna go with you in here.

183
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,960
Speaker 5: I've already stated that Minory is my favorite movie of

184
00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:05,800
Speaker 5: the year, but that's not the reason for the handicap here.

185
00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:09,480
Speaker 5: June has been winning awards since nineteen sixty nine. She

186
00:10:09,600 --> 00:10:13,040
Speaker 5: was named the Best New Talent at the TBC Drama Awards.

187
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:16,839
Speaker 5: She is a staple in the film industry for decades.

188
00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:20,840
Speaker 5: She's received over forty nominations in this role as Grandma

189
00:10:21,320 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 5: in Minory and she's had thirty four victories that includes

190
00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:28,120
Speaker 5: BAFTA's SAgs anywhere that she's eligible, right, because some of

191
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:31,000
Speaker 5: these film associations really we'll get into that later, Like

192
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:33,360
Speaker 5: Minory was just not allowed to be nominated. So the

193
00:10:33,360 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 5: Critics Choice Award did take Bakolova heads up over un

194
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:41,000
Speaker 5: so that shouldn't really be a consideration. The Critics Choice

195
00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 5: Award is not really an indication here. The one area

196
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:46,640
Speaker 5: of concern that I have is that if you get

197
00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 5: the analysis out of oscar Metrics, it says that the

198
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:53,640
Speaker 5: higher the billing in the credits, the more screen time

199
00:10:53,679 --> 00:10:57,520
Speaker 5: you have, and that is directly correlated to Best Supporting Actress.

200
00:10:58,120 --> 00:11:01,600
Speaker 5: June was billed as fifth. The rest of the nominees

201
00:11:02,160 --> 00:11:04,920
Speaker 5: was billed as second. But you know what, the rest

202
00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:08,560
Speaker 5: of those nominees didn't drink a bowl of piss because

203
00:11:08,600 --> 00:11:11,200
Speaker 5: they thought it was mountain dew, and they didn't watch

204
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:15,160
Speaker 5: professional wrestling and teach their kids to gambling on card games.

205
00:11:15,480 --> 00:11:17,080
Speaker 5: This movie not only is.

206
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 2: In my hometown, reminds me of my grandma.

207
00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:25,400
Speaker 5: Her performance I thought was spectacular and she will be rewarded.

208
00:11:25,920 --> 00:11:28,800
Speaker 2: Colin is often his own world and reminiscent of he's

209
00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:31,040
Speaker 2: got some type of Oedipus grandma complex going on. I

210
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:34,520
Speaker 2: don't even know, But you got any any long shots here?

211
00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 3: I do have a long shot, although I did want

212
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:38,720
Speaker 3: to quickly say that in addition to being a fan

213
00:11:38,760 --> 00:11:41,720
Speaker 3: of Colin Wilson's grandma, who has made an appearance on

214
00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 3: action content before, I also think this is Yune's award

215
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:48,400
Speaker 3: to lose. But I do have a long shot, and

216
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,240
Speaker 3: it has absolutely nothing to do with her performance in

217
00:11:51,320 --> 00:11:54,000
Speaker 3: Hillbilly Elogy, because I did not watch it. It's the

218
00:11:54,040 --> 00:11:56,520
Speaker 3: only Netflix film that's nominated for any award that I

219
00:11:56,600 --> 00:11:59,640
Speaker 3: have not seen because it just got dunked on all year,

220
00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:03,360
Speaker 3: and there are really no precursors that are pointing to this.

221
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:07,160
Speaker 3: So this long shot has absolutely everything to do with narrative.

222
00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:10,920
Speaker 3: But this is Glenn Close's eighth Oscar nomination, but she's

223
00:12:11,160 --> 00:12:13,800
Speaker 3: never won, and right now, that means she's the only

224
00:12:13,880 --> 00:12:16,880
Speaker 3: actress with that many nominations who has never actually won

225
00:12:17,160 --> 00:12:20,720
Speaker 3: an acting award. So again, this is a true long

226
00:12:20,720 --> 00:12:24,280
Speaker 3: shot because we're abandoning those historical trends in favor of

227
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,760
Speaker 3: a narrative. But I do believe there is some weight

228
00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:30,199
Speaker 3: to that when we're talking about the Academy, especially considering

229
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:34,439
Speaker 3: the proximity of when Close was upset by Olivia Coleman

230
00:12:34,520 --> 00:12:37,560
Speaker 3: for Best Actress a couple of years ago, when Close

231
00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 3: was the unanimous favorite going into that award show, and

232
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 3: now Olivia Coleman is also in this category, so I

233
00:12:44,920 --> 00:12:46,560
Speaker 3: think that will be front of mine for quite a

234
00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:47,560
Speaker 3: few voters.

235
00:12:48,440 --> 00:12:51,160
Speaker 5: Hey listen, if some of you millennials and gen zers

236
00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 5: out there thinking about having an affair, why don't you

237
00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:56,200
Speaker 5: go look up Glenn Close and fatal attraction, Like, I

238
00:12:56,280 --> 00:12:59,840
Speaker 5: will never ever, ever, ever do anything outside of my

239
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:03,559
Speaker 5: relationship because her performance, and she's a fantastic performer. She's

240
00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:07,240
Speaker 5: been nominated so many times. She's a powerhouse in the industry.

241
00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:10,520
Speaker 5: So it's definitely a good long shot back. You don't

242
00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:12,679
Speaker 5: get it, You just you don't get it.

243
00:13:13,080 --> 00:13:14,800
Speaker 4: I just want to be a part of your life.

244
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be ignored, Dan, I'm just going

245
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:21,040
Speaker 2: with you because I look back at the numbers and

246
00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:25,480
Speaker 2: this is one where the gold Derby experts and editors

247
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 2: have been the most accurate, more so than pretty much

248
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:33,839
Speaker 2: any other category. One hundred percent of the editor's number

249
00:13:33,840 --> 00:13:36,880
Speaker 2: one Choice has won the award and one hundred percent

250
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:39,079
Speaker 2: of the experts number one choice have won the award.

251
00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:43,199
Speaker 2: They've never diverged. They are both in agreement with ujung

252
00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:48,480
Speaker 2: own eleven of eleven editors and about ninety ish percent

253
00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:51,080
Speaker 2: of the experts, So she's the number one for both.

254
00:13:51,400 --> 00:13:54,320
Speaker 2: It hasn't let me down yet, So I will be

255
00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:58,760
Speaker 2: laying the juice here at minus five hundred, although I

256
00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:01,880
Speaker 2: most admit I did get her at plus money like

257
00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:06,200
Speaker 2: months ago, like when the I first posted, she was

258
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:09,600
Speaker 2: sitting there at like plus like one twenty or something

259
00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:10,920
Speaker 2: like that, and I was like, oh, this is off.

260
00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 2: So obligatory mentioned everybody out there, you know, going forward,

261
00:14:15,000 --> 00:14:18,120
Speaker 2: if you're into this stuff, don't forget to just check

262
00:14:18,160 --> 00:14:20,240
Speaker 2: the odds, and you know, when they first come out,

263
00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 2: even if you're not going to go hard, you might

264
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 2: see a feuple things that you like, and there's always

265
00:14:24,080 --> 00:14:28,240
Speaker 2: gonna be value early on. So definitely do that.

266
00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:31,040
Speaker 5: Yeah, to tap into that. Chris, I know the article

267
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:33,440
Speaker 5: that I wrote for Action Network. I took no ad

268
00:14:33,520 --> 00:14:37,120
Speaker 5: Land thirty three to one to win Best Picture last April,

269
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:40,160
Speaker 5: and so there will be odds for the following year

270
00:14:40,240 --> 00:14:43,000
Speaker 5: coming out and if you can find those odds. You

271
00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:45,400
Speaker 5: need to find the ones that have already been critically

272
00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:47,840
Speaker 5: acclaimed by sun Dance, by the ones that are the

273
00:14:47,880 --> 00:14:50,840
Speaker 5: film festivals, and you need to look at the powerhouses

274
00:14:51,680 --> 00:14:53,440
Speaker 5: that are in the Best Actor or Best Actress and

275
00:14:53,480 --> 00:14:55,280
Speaker 5: Best Picture because that's when you want to buy those

276
00:14:55,320 --> 00:14:58,400
Speaker 5: odds right now. I know limits are twenty five fifty,

277
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,800
Speaker 5: maybe one hundred dollars like WW type shit, but that's

278
00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:03,880
Speaker 5: the perfect time to strike. Now sitting around with the

279
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:05,960
Speaker 5: nomadland thirty three to one, you got some work to do.

280
00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:08,480
Speaker 5: You're sitting around with the UNI plus money you got

281
00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:10,280
Speaker 5: you got, you got money to spend on others.

282
00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 2: True, and you're gonna need it, like if you really

283
00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:14,360
Speaker 2: want to get into betting some of this, because you're

284
00:15:14,360 --> 00:15:16,080
Speaker 2: gonna have to weigh juice on some of these, if

285
00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:18,920
Speaker 2: you you know, just because they're touch locks and there's

286
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:21,920
Speaker 2: only so many categories, right, so you know, I usually

287
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:25,240
Speaker 2: max bet even the high juice ones, you know, if

288
00:15:25,240 --> 00:15:28,480
Speaker 2: I if I consider it a value. So yeah, definitely

289
00:15:28,680 --> 00:15:32,000
Speaker 2: want to check those odds early. Let's go to Best

290
00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:36,520
Speaker 2: Original Song, and the nominees are speak now from One

291
00:15:36,640 --> 00:15:42,400
Speaker 2: Night in Miami at minus one fifty five, EOC from

292
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:47,400
Speaker 2: The Life Ahead at plus two twenty five, Brucivic from

293
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:52,120
Speaker 2: Eurovision Song Contest Song of Ice and Fire at clus

294
00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:54,920
Speaker 2: three fifty, Fight for You from Judas and the Black

295
00:15:55,040 --> 00:15:58,880
Speaker 2: Messiah at twenty five to one, and Hear My Voice

296
00:15:59,040 --> 00:16:03,200
Speaker 2: from The Try of the Chicago Seven, also at twenty

297
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:07,840
Speaker 2: five to one. Colin, what do you think about this one? So?

298
00:16:07,920 --> 00:16:10,360
Speaker 5: I think my one hesitation here is that there just

299
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:12,880
Speaker 5: wasn't an You know, there's a huge number of experts

300
00:16:12,880 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 5: that had it in fourth and fifth place, and you know,

301
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:17,320
Speaker 5: if that sways any other votes for it not to

302
00:16:17,320 --> 00:16:20,360
Speaker 5: get any first place votes, you know that there's a

303
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 5: reason why it's a dog price. I believe it should

304
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:26,040
Speaker 5: be priced better than plus three fifty. I mean, this

305
00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:28,120
Speaker 5: really should be a plus one fifty plus two hundred

306
00:16:28,160 --> 00:16:30,680
Speaker 5: type bet. So I would bet it up until there.

307
00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:36,600
Speaker 5: Eosa is wildly overpriced. I mean by the expert editor picks, nobody,

308
00:16:36,920 --> 00:16:40,480
Speaker 5: nobody likes that song. It's like zero, like twenty seven

309
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:42,400
Speaker 5: of them, like two of them picked it. I don't

310
00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:44,920
Speaker 5: know why that's plus two twenty five. According to the

311
00:16:44,920 --> 00:16:47,080
Speaker 5: experts and editors, that thing should be like plus eight

312
00:16:47,160 --> 00:16:50,520
Speaker 5: hundred like eight to one. So yeah, I definitely think

313
00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:53,120
Speaker 5: here it's either the favorite or it's going to be Husivic.

314
00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've got to go with Husta Vic. I mean

315
00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:58,840
Speaker 2: we're looking for value here. And if you look at

316
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:03,560
Speaker 2: the editors, eight of nine number one choices for the

317
00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:07,600
Speaker 2: editors have won and Whosovic has eight of eleven editor vote,

318
00:17:07,680 --> 00:17:10,960
Speaker 2: So you know, that's just under you know, it's just

319
00:17:11,040 --> 00:17:13,680
Speaker 2: under eighty percent of the of the votes and that's

320
00:17:13,680 --> 00:17:17,920
Speaker 2: a big discrepancy. You don't usually see a front runner

321
00:17:18,280 --> 00:17:20,560
Speaker 2: for the you know, the experts or the editors that

322
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:24,600
Speaker 2: isn't also the betting favorite. And so, uh, you know

323
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:27,399
Speaker 2: eight out of nine that those are great odds. You know,

324
00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:30,159
Speaker 2: eight out of eleven editors, those are great odds. So

325
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:33,520
Speaker 2: it's sitting there at plus three fifty. Uh. I would

326
00:17:33,520 --> 00:17:37,040
Speaker 2: bet that down to even money, honestly, because it should

327
00:17:37,119 --> 00:17:38,399
Speaker 2: be the favorite at this point.

328
00:17:38,400 --> 00:17:38,680
Speaker 5: Now.

329
00:17:38,880 --> 00:17:41,840
Speaker 2: I think speak now is definitely still in a conversation,

330
00:17:41,920 --> 00:17:43,840
Speaker 2: but it's overvalued. That's how you have to look at it.

331
00:17:43,840 --> 00:17:47,040
Speaker 2: It's that minus one fifty five that implies about a

332
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:51,920
Speaker 2: sixty percent chance of winning, and at most I think,

333
00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:55,080
Speaker 2: you know, it's fifty to fifty between between that and Husavic.

334
00:17:55,200 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 2: So Husavic our first real value plus money bet that

335
00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 2: we're going to discuss today. Go out there and get

336
00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:06,840
Speaker 2: it plus three fifty. I love it. Let's go to

337
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:16,040
Speaker 2: Best Original Score. In the nominees, we have Sole at

338
00:18:16,200 --> 00:18:21,640
Speaker 2: minus sixteen sixty seven, Manc at eight to one, Minaye

339
00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:25,640
Speaker 2: seventeen to one, The Five Bloods twenty five to one,

340
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:30,760
Speaker 2: and News of the World also at twenty five to one.

341
00:18:31,160 --> 00:18:34,520
Speaker 2: Do we see anything sticking out here for Best Original Score?

342
00:18:34,600 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 5: Colin, Well, I know News of the World, which was

343
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:39,320
Speaker 5: like the only movie that was in the theaters in December,

344
00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:43,719
Speaker 5: that soundtrack left no impression on me whatsoever. Like when

345
00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:47,320
Speaker 5: I heard nineteen seventeen last year, I was absolutely you know,

346
00:18:47,760 --> 00:18:50,720
Speaker 5: out of my gord. The running scene at the end,

347
00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:55,920
Speaker 5: the music for the entire story was perfect. Joker, And

348
00:18:56,000 --> 00:18:59,040
Speaker 5: I'm not sure besides Minery, that we've got that here

349
00:18:59,080 --> 00:19:01,920
Speaker 5: in this cantigory, I mean, resulting to Sole, her Soul

350
00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:04,520
Speaker 5: has been like the favorite since, I mean the movie

351
00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:07,080
Speaker 5: ever came out. I'm just wondering, and maybe you can

352
00:19:07,119 --> 00:19:08,760
Speaker 5: explain it to me. I'm wondering why the odds are

353
00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:10,680
Speaker 5: so low for such a heavy favorite, like it should

354
00:19:10,680 --> 00:19:11,520
Speaker 5: be higher, right.

355
00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:14,239
Speaker 2: I mean probably because no one's betting it as it

356
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:17,680
Speaker 2: is at minus sixteen sixty seven, and probably two people

357
00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:20,720
Speaker 2: listening are actually going to bet it. But it looks

358
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:23,320
Speaker 2: like a pretty safe bet to me looking at the numbers.

359
00:19:24,040 --> 00:19:28,600
Speaker 2: If we look at the gold Derby dot Com editor accuracy,

360
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:32,440
Speaker 2: one hundred percent of their number one choices have gone

361
00:19:32,480 --> 00:19:35,280
Speaker 2: on to win the award for Best Original Score, and

362
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:39,439
Speaker 2: it's unanimous with the with the editors this year, every

363
00:19:39,520 --> 00:19:43,160
Speaker 2: single editor that has weighed in has gone for Soul,

364
00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:45,960
Speaker 2: you know. For It's the same thing for the experts,

365
00:19:46,040 --> 00:19:48,200
Speaker 2: and their their hit rate is pretty high as well.

366
00:19:48,320 --> 00:19:51,880
Speaker 2: So I really see no reason to get fancy here.

367
00:19:52,080 --> 00:19:54,040
Speaker 2: It just depends on how much juice are comfortable. Way

368
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:56,639
Speaker 2: in sixteen sixty seven is a lot, it does, you know?

369
00:19:56,720 --> 00:19:58,960
Speaker 2: What is that like you get way one hundred hours

370
00:19:58,960 --> 00:20:02,160
Speaker 2: and make a big fifteen bucks or something. So it's

371
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:05,679
Speaker 2: not it's not great, but if you're non Krine, it

372
00:20:05,680 --> 00:20:06,560
Speaker 2: should be a thick step.

373
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:09,760
Speaker 5: I find it extremely interesting that Trent Reznor nine inch

374
00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:12,879
Speaker 5: Nails his name is build on two of the songs

375
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:15,040
Speaker 5: in this category, both Soul and mank.

376
00:20:15,480 --> 00:20:17,720
Speaker 2: I mean he's winning either way. You know. Mank is

377
00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:20,480
Speaker 2: the number one, you know, runner up eight to one.

378
00:20:20,520 --> 00:20:23,680
Speaker 2: I don't think it's gonna win at all, but yeah,

379
00:20:24,240 --> 00:20:27,119
Speaker 2: he's got the top too. But let's move on to

380
00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:33,040
Speaker 2: Best Live Action Short and the nominees. The letter Room

381
00:20:33,320 --> 00:20:36,560
Speaker 2: is the favorite at minus one sixty seven, and we

382
00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:40,280
Speaker 2: have two distant strangers at plus one fifty Feeling Through

383
00:20:40,480 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 2: at twelve to one, the Present at twelve to one,

384
00:20:43,880 --> 00:20:47,760
Speaker 2: and White Eye at thirty three to one.

385
00:20:48,160 --> 00:20:52,840
Speaker 3: Okay, so I don't have a take here, but this

386
00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:56,720
Speaker 3: is a good category to highlight what we discussed earlier,

387
00:20:56,760 --> 00:20:59,600
Speaker 3: and that's how these odds evolved over the course of

388
00:20:59,640 --> 00:21:04,560
Speaker 3: the So nominations came out about this time last month,

389
00:21:05,080 --> 00:21:08,040
Speaker 3: we captured them at the beginning of April, and since

390
00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:11,800
Speaker 3: the beginning of April, whye Ey's odds have fallen even further,

391
00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:14,120
Speaker 3: from twenty five to one to thirty three to one,

392
00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 3: while the Letter Room has held steady as the minus

393
00:21:17,280 --> 00:21:21,760
Speaker 3: money favorite. So just another example of you know, even

394
00:21:21,800 --> 00:21:23,480
Speaker 3: if you don't get in on it as early as

395
00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:27,000
Speaker 3: the April before after Sundance, you still have time shortly

396
00:21:27,040 --> 00:21:29,920
Speaker 3: after the nominations come out to capitalize on some value.

397
00:21:30,119 --> 00:21:33,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we should point out that the letter Room

398
00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:37,160
Speaker 2: was initially minus two thirty. It's down to minus one

399
00:21:37,280 --> 00:21:41,800
Speaker 2: sixty seven. So essentially it's odds are getting worse, and

400
00:21:42,160 --> 00:21:45,720
Speaker 2: I'm on board with that. I don't think it should

401
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:50,719
Speaker 2: be the prohibitive favorite. I would bet on Two Distant

402
00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:53,960
Speaker 2: Strangers at plus one fifty and with a little bit

403
00:21:54,000 --> 00:21:56,680
Speaker 2: of a hedge on long shot Feeling Through at twelve

404
00:21:56,800 --> 00:22:01,560
Speaker 2: to one. Of the editors number one choices, only five

405
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:04,480
Speaker 2: of their number of their number ones have won. So

406
00:22:04,520 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 2: this is a category where even the experts tend to

407
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 2: have a little bit of, you know, a tough time predicting,

408
00:22:10,359 --> 00:22:12,520
Speaker 2: and it creates a lot of variance. And so so

409
00:22:12,600 --> 00:22:15,159
Speaker 2: we'd see just under two thirds of the of the

410
00:22:15,280 --> 00:22:20,040
Speaker 2: editors going with the Letter Room, and for the experts,

411
00:22:20,080 --> 00:22:23,399
Speaker 2: they are even more squ They're actually predicting Two Distant

412
00:22:23,440 --> 00:22:27,400
Speaker 2: Strangers as the favorite with fifty percent of the expert vote.

413
00:22:27,400 --> 00:22:30,000
Speaker 2: Then the Letter Room is number two with thirty five percent,

414
00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:34,520
Speaker 2: and then Feeling Through has fifteen percent. So there's value,

415
00:22:34,840 --> 00:22:38,800
Speaker 2: you know, assuming those odds are more or less how

416
00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:41,959
Speaker 2: the you know, the true odds, which, again, you know,

417
00:22:42,280 --> 00:22:46,080
Speaker 2: these tend to align pretty closely, so fifteen point four percent.

418
00:22:46,160 --> 00:22:49,240
Speaker 2: For Feeling Through, you're getting value when you're betting that

419
00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:52,040
Speaker 2: at twelve to one, because those implied odds are only

420
00:22:52,080 --> 00:22:55,680
Speaker 2: about seven point seven percent, so you have you're getting

421
00:22:55,680 --> 00:22:58,320
Speaker 2: about two x to value. And it's a long shot,

422
00:22:58,359 --> 00:22:59,800
Speaker 2: so you don't even have to put like a whole

423
00:22:59,880 --> 00:23:03,080
Speaker 2: unor tould just put a you know, a fraction of

424
00:23:03,119 --> 00:23:05,280
Speaker 2: a unit on it, whatever you like. But two Distant

425
00:23:05,320 --> 00:23:08,760
Speaker 2: Strangers that should be the favorite according to the experts.

426
00:23:09,119 --> 00:23:11,560
Speaker 2: But the experts have been more predictive than the editors

427
00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:13,840
Speaker 2: in this one, and they're saying two Distant Strangers is

428
00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:15,840
Speaker 2: the favorite, and we're getting that at plus one fiftyes.

429
00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:18,359
Speaker 2: So for my money for Best Live Action Short at

430
00:23:18,359 --> 00:23:19,919
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty one Academy.

431
00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:21,880
Speaker 5: Awards, Josca goes too.

432
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:25,919
Speaker 2: Either Two Distant Strangers at plus one fifty or Feeling

433
00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:30,880
Speaker 2: Through at plus twelve hundred. And before we move on here,

434
00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 2: we want to show some appreciation for our sponsor, Athletic

435
00:23:35,040 --> 00:23:38,960
Speaker 2: Brewing Company. The nineteen eighty six film Back to School

436
00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:42,119
Speaker 2: did not win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, but

437
00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:45,520
Speaker 2: it did give us the great Rodney Dangerfield line. Bring

438
00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:48,000
Speaker 2: us a picture of beer every seven minutes until someone

439
00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:51,120
Speaker 2: passes out, then bring one every ten minutes. And while

440
00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:53,600
Speaker 2: a person drinking themselves under the table was always good

441
00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:57,000
Speaker 2: for a movie laugh, it's never good for your bank role.

442
00:23:57,280 --> 00:24:00,960
Speaker 2: Plus you'll never rub shoulders with the Hollywood if you're

443
00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:04,200
Speaker 2: too trashed for the after party. And that's where our

444
00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:08,600
Speaker 2: friends at Athletic Brewing come in because for years now,

445
00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:11,639
Speaker 2: Athletic Brewing has been making some of the most flavorful

446
00:24:11,880 --> 00:24:16,080
Speaker 2: beer money can buy, brews that celebrate the flavors and

447
00:24:16,200 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 2: innovations of the craft beer tradition, but without the alcohol.

448
00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:21,960
Speaker 2: So if you want to take it easy on the

449
00:24:22,000 --> 00:24:25,840
Speaker 2: booze and keep your gambling, what's about you, Athletic Brewings

450
00:24:25,920 --> 00:24:29,159
Speaker 2: award winning beers are a great option. Just head to

451
00:24:29,240 --> 00:24:33,040
Speaker 2: Athletic Brewing dot com, check out their selection and place

452
00:24:33,080 --> 00:24:37,320
Speaker 2: an order using code Action fifteen and it gets new

453
00:24:37,400 --> 00:24:42,000
Speaker 2: customers fifteen percent off your first order, and if you

454
00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:45,280
Speaker 2: order two or more six packs, shipping is always free.

455
00:24:45,480 --> 00:24:49,600
Speaker 2: That's Athletic Brewing dot Com. Use the code Action one

456
00:24:49,920 --> 00:24:53,760
Speaker 2: five on that first order and enjoy great pace while

457
00:24:53,840 --> 00:24:59,920
Speaker 2: keeping your gambling edge. Let's move on to best perdu

458
00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:05,879
Speaker 2: duction design and the nominee manc Big Favorite at minus

459
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:09,840
Speaker 2: five sixty, Marini's Black Bottom at six and a half

460
00:25:09,920 --> 00:25:13,520
Speaker 2: to one, Tennett at eighth to one, News of the

461
00:25:13,520 --> 00:25:17,040
Speaker 2: World at twenty to one, and The Father at twenty

462
00:25:17,080 --> 00:25:20,400
Speaker 2: to one as well. Colin, what you got here?

463
00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the historical pecking order for this category

464
00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:27,879
Speaker 5: is drama, musical, sci fi. Really we need to focus

465
00:25:27,920 --> 00:25:30,640
Speaker 5: on for me, the dramas and the dramas here are

466
00:25:30,720 --> 00:25:34,320
Speaker 5: our mank Who production design was done by Donald Graham Bert.

467
00:25:34,640 --> 00:25:38,160
Speaker 5: He won this same award for a personal favorite of Mind,

468
00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:40,960
Speaker 5: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Is there a case

469
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:43,600
Speaker 5: for Nathan Crowley here in Tenant? Because Tennant is a

470
00:25:43,640 --> 00:25:46,919
Speaker 5: sci fi movie, so that is definitely a strong contender.

471
00:25:46,960 --> 00:25:49,119
Speaker 5: If you look at Nathan Crowley, you know who is

472
00:25:49,160 --> 00:25:52,360
Speaker 5: in charge for production design for that movie. He's been

473
00:25:52,440 --> 00:25:56,520
Speaker 5: nominated in the past for First Man, Dunkirk, Interstellar, The

474
00:25:56,640 --> 00:26:01,120
Speaker 5: Dark Knight, the Prestige, Fantastic Movie. This is his sixth

475
00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:03,960
Speaker 5: time and he's listed it eight to one odds. So

476
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:06,280
Speaker 5: if there's somebody that can reach up and get it,

477
00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:09,119
Speaker 5: it is sci fi it falls below the drama category.

478
00:26:09,320 --> 00:26:12,399
Speaker 5: I think this is mank All the way, But Crowley's

479
00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:15,800
Speaker 5: sixth time to be nominated is what caught my eye.

480
00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:19,200
Speaker 5: Donald Graham Bert somebody might vote in say this dude

481
00:26:19,200 --> 00:26:22,160
Speaker 5: got it for a Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Crowley's

482
00:26:22,160 --> 00:26:25,880
Speaker 5: on his sixth nomination. So for me, MANK is the

483
00:26:25,960 --> 00:26:29,040
Speaker 5: mank is definitely the play here because it's it fits

484
00:26:29,040 --> 00:26:32,200
Speaker 5: the right genre. But Nathan Crowley for Tenant this is

485
00:26:32,280 --> 00:26:33,720
Speaker 5: sixth time, and so I think that needs to be

486
00:26:33,720 --> 00:26:34,959
Speaker 5: taken into account.

487
00:26:35,480 --> 00:26:37,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, Tennant did win at the Art Director's

488
00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:41,719
Speaker 2: good for fantasy design, but MANC one for period design

489
00:26:41,960 --> 00:26:45,560
Speaker 2: over Ma Rainey and News of the World. But more important,

490
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:51,159
Speaker 2: we uh the experts, the editors unanimously, like there's not

491
00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:55,359
Speaker 2: even one who diverges from MANC. And anytime it's been unanimous,

492
00:26:55,840 --> 00:26:59,200
Speaker 2: it's been it's hit, it's it's it's not even been

493
00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:02,120
Speaker 2: a question. So this is not one of those years.

494
00:27:02,720 --> 00:27:05,199
Speaker 2: And this is not like the last category where you know,

495
00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:09,080
Speaker 2: there's like two different values. Here, it's MANK or nothing.

496
00:27:09,160 --> 00:27:13,000
Speaker 2: So minus five sixty not a very attractive bet, But

497
00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:15,680
Speaker 2: I don't really see how you could go any other way.

498
00:27:16,240 --> 00:27:18,959
Speaker 2: MANC is again, it's got the head to head winds.

499
00:27:18,960 --> 00:27:25,760
Speaker 2: Over Maraini. It's got the expert support unanimously. So for

500
00:27:25,800 --> 00:27:28,600
Speaker 2: my money, Best Production Design at the twenty twenty one

501
00:27:28,720 --> 00:27:33,480
Speaker 2: Academy Awards and the Oscar goes to Manc at minus

502
00:27:33,600 --> 00:27:38,159
Speaker 2: five sixty. What keep it going? With Best Costume Design

503
00:27:38,960 --> 00:27:43,959
Speaker 2: and the nominee Maraini's Black Bottom the favorite at minus

504
00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:46,720
Speaker 2: five hundred, and you have Emma at three and a

505
00:27:46,760 --> 00:27:51,560
Speaker 2: half to one, Manc ten to one, Pinocchio twenty five

506
00:27:51,600 --> 00:27:57,080
Speaker 2: to one, and Mulan thirty three to one. Hey, what's this?

507
00:27:57,200 --> 00:27:59,119
Speaker 2: What's this costume design looking like?

508
00:27:59,480 --> 00:27:59,640
Speaker 4: So?

509
00:27:59,720 --> 00:28:02,800
Speaker 3: I know Colin is about to rip into costume designer

510
00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:05,520
Speaker 3: awards in a little bit, so I will leave that

511
00:28:05,640 --> 00:28:08,720
Speaker 3: mostly to him. But generally, what folks should know is

512
00:28:08,760 --> 00:28:11,480
Speaker 3: that there is an argument against how much those precursors

513
00:28:11,600 --> 00:28:15,960
Speaker 3: really matter. But despite all of that, and despite the

514
00:28:15,960 --> 00:28:18,200
Speaker 3: film I'm about to mention not getting any of those

515
00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:22,080
Speaker 3: precursor awards, I do like the idea of placing a

516
00:28:22,119 --> 00:28:25,879
Speaker 3: small wager on Emma as a long shot in this category.

517
00:28:26,400 --> 00:28:30,000
Speaker 3: Like Ma Rainey, Emma is a period piece, which has

518
00:28:30,440 --> 00:28:34,119
Speaker 3: historically been a huge advantage in this category, but unlike

519
00:28:34,160 --> 00:28:37,120
Speaker 3: Ma Rainey, which is really carried by strong acting. Emma's

520
00:28:37,400 --> 00:28:41,400
Speaker 3: entire draw is really it's colorful costumes that were designed

521
00:28:41,400 --> 00:28:45,080
Speaker 3: by Alexandra Byrne I hope I'm pronouncing her last name correctly,

522
00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:47,720
Speaker 3: But she won this award back in two thousand and

523
00:28:47,800 --> 00:28:51,280
Speaker 3: eight for similar work in Elizabeth the Golden Age, which

524
00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:53,840
Speaker 3: was one of six winners over the past fifteen years

525
00:28:53,840 --> 00:28:58,360
Speaker 3: that featured period costumes in stories that focused on aristocracy.

526
00:28:58,840 --> 00:29:02,000
Speaker 3: So again, we don't really know what's going to happen here,

527
00:29:02,080 --> 00:29:05,240
Speaker 3: at least that's my belief. But I am placing a

528
00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:06,360
Speaker 3: small bet on Emma.

529
00:29:07,240 --> 00:29:10,160
Speaker 5: Yeah, we absolutely don't know what's going to happen here.

530
00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:11,680
Speaker 5: And I guess this is a shout out to the

531
00:29:11,720 --> 00:29:15,360
Speaker 5: Costume Design Awards and the Guild. Get your shit together,

532
00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:18,880
Speaker 5: all right. So at the Academy Awards, we have Best

533
00:29:18,920 --> 00:29:23,160
Speaker 5: Costume Design one category. What the Costume Designer Awards do

534
00:29:23,240 --> 00:29:28,760
Speaker 5: the CDG they split that up into three different categories, okay, Contemporary, Period,

535
00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:32,360
Speaker 5: and Fantasy. And what you should know is that gives

536
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:36,880
Speaker 5: them fifteen different movies to be nominated for three awards.

537
00:29:37,280 --> 00:29:39,600
Speaker 5: You would think that would give us some sort of

538
00:29:39,760 --> 00:29:42,840
Speaker 5: indication about who's going to win. The Academy Award.

539
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:43,520
Speaker 6: Right.

540
00:29:43,960 --> 00:29:47,600
Speaker 5: Don't you think that if you were nominated and won

541
00:29:48,040 --> 00:29:51,240
Speaker 5: the Consume the Costume Designer Award that you would move

542
00:29:51,280 --> 00:29:54,520
Speaker 5: on to the Academy. Well, let's review, all right. Oscar

543
00:29:54,560 --> 00:29:58,200
Speaker 5: last year went to Little Women. Wasn't even nominated.

544
00:29:57,880 --> 00:29:59,960
Speaker 2: Though, it was just ineligible. That's a different for me

545
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:02,680
Speaker 2: getting snubbed, and that's the problem within itself. But just

546
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:05,360
Speaker 2: to be clear, like it didn't get snubbed, it just

547
00:30:05,640 --> 00:30:06,360
Speaker 2: was ineligible.

548
00:30:06,480 --> 00:30:10,080
Speaker 5: Twenty seventeen Phantom Thread took home the Oscar nothing at

549
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:14,960
Speaker 5: the Kids Costume Designer Awards. I'm sure it was ineligible too, Yeah, okay, yeah,

550
00:30:15,000 --> 00:30:18,640
Speaker 5: I mean, well why twenty sixteen Oscar to Fantastic Beasts

551
00:30:18,720 --> 00:30:19,560
Speaker 5: and Where to Find Them?

552
00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:19,680
Speaker 2: Man?

553
00:30:19,840 --> 00:30:23,320
Speaker 5: I love that movie, but nothing at the Costume Designer Awards.

554
00:30:23,840 --> 00:30:26,920
Speaker 5: I might look for some couch change and just throw

555
00:30:27,000 --> 00:30:30,480
Speaker 5: some money at Pinocchio. I mean, we're all gonna end

556
00:30:30,560 --> 00:30:32,440
Speaker 5: up getting our money sunk into Disney somehow with the

557
00:30:32,480 --> 00:30:35,040
Speaker 5: reopening after the pandemic, so I might as well just

558
00:30:35,040 --> 00:30:36,160
Speaker 5: throw some money on Pinocchio.

559
00:30:36,400 --> 00:30:38,160
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know if it's smart. I

560
00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:42,360
Speaker 2: see another one here with the editors in unanimous agreement

561
00:30:42,600 --> 00:30:46,360
Speaker 2: from a rainy that's never lost in the nine years

562
00:30:46,400 --> 00:30:50,840
Speaker 2: of tracking the prediction accuracy of the editors. You know,

563
00:30:51,000 --> 00:30:53,480
Speaker 2: for a movie to even be in consideration, I have

564
00:30:53,560 --> 00:30:55,720
Speaker 2: to get at least one editor vote, Like no movie

565
00:30:55,760 --> 00:30:59,800
Speaker 2: with no editor votes has ever won, and you only

566
00:30:59,840 --> 00:31:03,200
Speaker 2: have I MORAINI here, So I trust you know these

567
00:31:03,800 --> 00:31:07,360
Speaker 2: you know, astute individuals. They're at gold thereby to kind

568
00:31:07,360 --> 00:31:12,000
Speaker 2: of parse through this confusing like Costume Design Guild precursors.

569
00:31:12,000 --> 00:31:14,320
Speaker 2: But I mean, moray, did you know they got they

570
00:31:14,360 --> 00:31:17,200
Speaker 2: got they wanted Costume Designers Guild, They got the Period Award,

571
00:31:17,400 --> 00:31:19,560
Speaker 2: they got the Bath Do, they got the Critics Choice.

572
00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:22,560
Speaker 2: So it's looking pretty good for them. It's actually one

573
00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:26,320
Speaker 2: of those years where you're getting the front runner. Actually

574
00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:29,000
Speaker 2: I guess eligible, but maybe it's just like it's like

575
00:31:29,680 --> 00:31:32,320
Speaker 2: I feel like I pictured these costume whoever runs the

576
00:31:32,360 --> 00:31:35,760
Speaker 2: Costume Designers Guild is like somebody from like a different

577
00:31:35,840 --> 00:31:38,760
Speaker 2: like the sixteen hundreds, just just like the costume design

578
00:31:38,800 --> 00:31:41,600
Speaker 2: has guilt and like they just like like they're on

579
00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:44,080
Speaker 2: a whole different calendar. And that's why just like movies

580
00:31:44,080 --> 00:31:46,760
Speaker 2: come out and it's like two years and the eligibility

581
00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:48,240
Speaker 2: is all messed up. They're on like a they're not

582
00:31:48,280 --> 00:31:50,240
Speaker 2: even on like a three hundred and sixty five day

583
00:31:50,320 --> 00:31:53,560
Speaker 2: fiscal year. Like it's just all all backwards. But my

584
00:31:53,720 --> 00:31:55,080
Speaker 2: Raini minus five hundred.

585
00:31:54,920 --> 00:31:57,760
Speaker 5: So no by Chipotle Bowl this weekend, I'm going to

586
00:31:57,880 --> 00:32:01,440
Speaker 5: use that extra couch. Change is going to completely fade

587
00:32:02,240 --> 00:32:04,240
Speaker 5: the Costume Designer Awards every year.

588
00:32:05,080 --> 00:32:10,400
Speaker 2: I'm blame you. Let's go to a somewhat related award,

589
00:32:10,680 --> 00:32:16,560
Speaker 2: Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and the nominees for Best Makeup

590
00:32:16,560 --> 00:32:21,959
Speaker 2: and Hair Styling. Yeahs, oh my Rainey's black bottom minus

591
00:32:21,960 --> 00:32:26,480
Speaker 2: six seventy, Pinocchio five and a half to one, Hillbilly

592
00:32:26,600 --> 00:32:30,760
Speaker 2: LG twelve to one, MANC twenty to one, Emma twenty

593
00:32:30,760 --> 00:32:35,920
Speaker 2: five to one, rounding out the five nominees. Colmin, you're

594
00:32:35,960 --> 00:32:38,400
Speaker 2: gonna keep going here or we're gonna give them a break.

595
00:32:38,840 --> 00:32:42,480
Speaker 5: I'm down on MANK per Oscar Metrics. Most nominations pay

596
00:32:42,480 --> 00:32:45,440
Speaker 5: off in this category. That's you know, that's what the most.

597
00:32:46,000 --> 00:32:49,040
Speaker 5: That's the biggest indicator here. No previous winning history here

598
00:32:49,120 --> 00:32:53,200
Speaker 5: for for Gigi Williams, Kimberly Spteri, and Colleen Lebath from MANK,

599
00:32:53,440 --> 00:32:56,480
Speaker 5: but the same applies from al Rainey's proved. Sergio Lopez Rivera,

600
00:32:56,560 --> 00:32:59,080
Speaker 5: me and Neil and Jamika Wilson they haven't won anything either,

601
00:32:59,080 --> 00:33:01,479
Speaker 5: so there's no historical effect there, you know. I mean,

602
00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 5: if you're looking for something super outside the box, Mark

603
00:33:03,840 --> 00:33:06,400
Speaker 5: Coolier is he's on the crew for Pinocchio and he's

604
00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:09,240
Speaker 5: won two previous Oscars for The Iron Lady in twenty

605
00:33:09,240 --> 00:33:13,120
Speaker 5: eleven and Grand Budapest Hotel in twenty fourteen. So nothing

606
00:33:13,360 --> 00:33:16,840
Speaker 5: strong here. I think Man Rainey definitely fits the bill.

607
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:19,000
Speaker 5: It's just a movie you watch and you say that

608
00:33:19,000 --> 00:33:20,920
Speaker 5: that is the best of the year. But at the

609
00:33:20,960 --> 00:33:22,520
Speaker 5: same time, I mean it's still in the back of

610
00:33:22,560 --> 00:33:24,920
Speaker 5: my head that you know, Mark Coolier has won this before.

611
00:33:24,960 --> 00:33:27,520
Speaker 5: And go by oscar Metrics, it's the most nominations and

612
00:33:27,560 --> 00:33:30,400
Speaker 5: that would be Maank So I definitely at the number

613
00:33:30,440 --> 00:33:32,160
Speaker 5: that it's currently sitting at in the market, it's worth

614
00:33:32,200 --> 00:33:33,120
Speaker 5: something real.

615
00:33:33,000 --> 00:33:34,760
Speaker 2: Quick for the people that may not even be familiar

616
00:33:34,840 --> 00:33:38,800
Speaker 2: with oscar Metrics explain what that isn't in who you know,

617
00:33:38,880 --> 00:33:40,560
Speaker 2: who's the creator and all that.

618
00:33:40,880 --> 00:33:42,880
Speaker 5: Yeah, oscar Metrics is a book that was written by

619
00:33:42,880 --> 00:33:44,960
Speaker 5: Benz Osmer. I went to the history in each of

620
00:33:45,000 --> 00:33:48,040
Speaker 5: these categories and looked at analytics in a different light

621
00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:50,960
Speaker 5: from you know, it takes the winners and then it

622
00:33:51,000 --> 00:33:54,800
Speaker 5: does a backwards engineering about is there any advanced analytics

623
00:33:54,840 --> 00:33:58,000
Speaker 5: that tells me whether or not there is an indicator

624
00:33:58,000 --> 00:34:00,280
Speaker 5: of who is going to win this award. We're going

625
00:34:00,280 --> 00:34:02,400
Speaker 5: to get into this with Best Actress. Right, there's just

626
00:34:02,440 --> 00:34:05,240
Speaker 5: an age range that you don't bet. There is a

627
00:34:05,280 --> 00:34:09,400
Speaker 5: certain level whether it's drama or sci Fi. There's certain

628
00:34:09,440 --> 00:34:12,520
Speaker 5: things that you just don't bet nineteen seventeen. It was

629
00:34:12,560 --> 00:34:14,839
Speaker 5: spot on last year with nineteen seventeen. Let me give

630
00:34:14,840 --> 00:34:17,520
Speaker 5: you an example of where oscar metrics was key. Nineteen

631
00:34:17,600 --> 00:34:22,200
Speaker 5: seventeen did not have anybody nominated and Best Actor, Best Actress,

632
00:34:22,239 --> 00:34:26,200
Speaker 5: Best Supporting. You have to have these things to win

633
00:34:26,320 --> 00:34:30,120
Speaker 5: certain categories. Oscar Metrics was a perfect book that was

634
00:34:30,120 --> 00:34:33,400
Speaker 5: put together by ben Z Osmer. It's definitely worth a read.

635
00:34:33,760 --> 00:34:36,600
Speaker 5: We'll talk about this later though. The Academy voting base

636
00:34:36,719 --> 00:34:39,840
Speaker 5: is getting bigger, categories are getting a little bit more volatile,

637
00:34:39,880 --> 00:34:42,239
Speaker 5: like last year with Parasite. So we'll see how it

638
00:34:42,239 --> 00:34:44,719
Speaker 5: does this year. If oscar Metrics holds up before we

639
00:34:44,760 --> 00:34:45,680
Speaker 5: podcast next year.

640
00:34:46,080 --> 00:34:49,160
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's definitely an invaluable resource for somebody that's

641
00:34:49,280 --> 00:34:51,239
Speaker 2: really looking to kind of dive into these things and

642
00:34:51,480 --> 00:34:53,279
Speaker 2: just kind of giving you ideas of where to look.

643
00:34:53,320 --> 00:34:56,440
Speaker 2: You know, I still you know, Earth and foremost I'm

644
00:34:56,440 --> 00:35:00,640
Speaker 2: always going by I'm going to incorporate the predict accuracy

645
00:35:00,680 --> 00:35:04,000
Speaker 2: because that's like a great way to kind of get

646
00:35:04,000 --> 00:35:08,040
Speaker 2: a accurate prediction based on you know, recent and relevant data.

647
00:35:08,320 --> 00:35:11,319
Speaker 2: And then but like the Oscar metrics, you know, they

648
00:35:11,520 --> 00:35:14,640
Speaker 2: they they kind of give you things to add to

649
00:35:14,680 --> 00:35:17,480
Speaker 2: your model that you may, like you said, Rotten Tomato score,

650
00:35:17,560 --> 00:35:20,759
Speaker 2: run time for some of the short films, you know,

651
00:35:21,080 --> 00:35:23,920
Speaker 2: which precursors you know, to kind of pay attention to

652
00:35:24,280 --> 00:35:27,440
Speaker 2: in situations where things aren't as clear. So great book.

653
00:35:27,760 --> 00:35:30,000
Speaker 2: Be sure you guys go and check it out. As

654
00:35:30,040 --> 00:35:33,480
Speaker 2: far as this category, yeah, I it does stick out.

655
00:35:33,560 --> 00:35:36,400
Speaker 2: You know, twenty six to thirty eight films, sixty eight

656
00:35:36,400 --> 00:35:39,239
Speaker 2: point four percent with the most nominations have won. That's

657
00:35:39,280 --> 00:35:43,560
Speaker 2: mank But that that's a pretty wide data set, so

658
00:35:43,680 --> 00:35:47,160
Speaker 2: you know, I do you know, also look at the

659
00:35:47,200 --> 00:35:49,640
Speaker 2: more recent data over the past decade. Look at the

660
00:35:49,640 --> 00:35:55,640
Speaker 2: prediction accuracy on gold Derby and no film with less

661
00:35:55,800 --> 00:36:00,359
Speaker 2: than twenty six percent of the vote from the gold

662
00:36:00,400 --> 00:36:03,799
Speaker 2: Derby experts has won. Now right now, Ma Rainey has

663
00:36:03,920 --> 00:36:08,640
Speaker 2: ninety three percent, mank and Hillbilly Elgy rounded out. It's

664
00:36:08,680 --> 00:36:10,680
Speaker 2: not really looking like one of those years where there's

665
00:36:10,680 --> 00:36:12,239
Speaker 2: gonna be an upset. It's looking like more like that

666
00:36:12,280 --> 00:36:14,000
Speaker 2: one third of the time when the film with the

667
00:36:14,080 --> 00:36:16,480
Speaker 2: most nominations does not win. I believe that's actually what

668
00:36:16,560 --> 00:36:18,640
Speaker 2: happened last year too. I think I think, if I'm

669
00:36:18,680 --> 00:36:21,160
Speaker 2: not mistaken, I was on Joker. I'm not sure if

670
00:36:21,160 --> 00:36:23,680
Speaker 2: you guys were too, but I believe that did not

671
00:36:23,840 --> 00:36:27,640
Speaker 2: win in this category last year. So I'm I'm going

672
00:36:27,640 --> 00:36:30,400
Speaker 2: with Maraini. It's just, you know, these these gold Derby

673
00:36:30,400 --> 00:36:33,279
Speaker 2: experts in some of these craft categories, they're they're spot on.

674
00:36:33,360 --> 00:36:36,799
Speaker 2: This has been another one. It's near unanimous. Uh, there

675
00:36:36,880 --> 00:36:41,880
Speaker 2: is one editor, so like about like nine percent of

676
00:36:41,880 --> 00:36:45,080
Speaker 2: the editors you could say, is on Pinocchio. You know

677
00:36:45,160 --> 00:36:47,840
Speaker 2: sometimes they update these things, you know, weeding up to

678
00:36:47,880 --> 00:36:50,960
Speaker 2: the to the to the show, so that might change,

679
00:36:51,080 --> 00:36:53,759
Speaker 2: might go back to eleven of eleven. But just wanted

680
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:56,319
Speaker 2: to point that out there. But I see it. I'm

681
00:36:56,320 --> 00:36:59,360
Speaker 2: going Maraini's black bottom and then with a little bit

682
00:36:59,400 --> 00:37:01,920
Speaker 2: of hedge on just because I think that you know,

683
00:37:01,960 --> 00:37:05,960
Speaker 2: sixty eight point four percent with the most nominations have

684
00:37:06,080 --> 00:37:09,080
Speaker 2: won that that's that's enough, you know, to more than

685
00:37:09,120 --> 00:37:11,279
Speaker 2: two thirds for me to say, Okay, you know, mank

686
00:37:11,800 --> 00:37:14,640
Speaker 2: at twenty to one. You know, I'll throw a little

687
00:37:14,640 --> 00:37:17,800
Speaker 2: something on there with the hedge on this huge chalk favorite.

688
00:37:17,800 --> 00:37:22,279
Speaker 2: But I think it's going to be my Rainey's Blackbot.

689
00:37:22,200 --> 00:37:23,799
Speaker 5: And you're gonna get that with the experts, right because

690
00:37:23,800 --> 00:37:26,960
Speaker 5: Mark Cooliers won twice, won an Oscar twice, and he

691
00:37:27,239 --> 00:37:29,960
Speaker 5: did Pinocchio, So I obviously you know, an expert or

692
00:37:29,960 --> 00:37:31,719
Speaker 5: an editor that knows that is going to say, well

693
00:37:31,760 --> 00:37:33,839
Speaker 5: this this has to be in so I, I mean,

694
00:37:33,880 --> 00:37:35,839
Speaker 5: there's an explanation for that one. But yeah, I think

695
00:37:35,920 --> 00:37:39,000
Speaker 5: absolutely Ma Rainey and everything with the editors and experts

696
00:37:39,080 --> 00:37:39,719
Speaker 5: is the pick.

697
00:37:40,520 --> 00:37:43,480
Speaker 2: Yeah. And you know, when you have a diversion like this,

698
00:37:43,960 --> 00:37:46,080
Speaker 2: you can you can hedge. And we have a hedging

699
00:37:46,120 --> 00:37:49,080
Speaker 2: calculator at Action Network Dot comments also available in the

700
00:37:49,120 --> 00:37:52,480
Speaker 2: award winning Action Network app, where you can enter in

701
00:37:52,480 --> 00:37:55,120
Speaker 2: the odds entering how much you're betting, and it will

702
00:37:55,200 --> 00:37:57,719
Speaker 2: calculate how much to put on each bet. Because at

703
00:37:57,800 --> 00:38:00,720
Speaker 2: minus six seventy or something, you know, whatever the odds

704
00:38:00,719 --> 00:38:04,319
Speaker 2: are at your book. For Maraini, uh with Mank, then

705
00:38:04,360 --> 00:38:07,400
Speaker 2: at twenty to one, you can you can creator a

706
00:38:07,400 --> 00:38:09,879
Speaker 2: pretty good hedge there where if either of those win,

707
00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:12,600
Speaker 2: you're you're profiting. So be sure to be on the

708
00:38:12,640 --> 00:38:14,200
Speaker 2: lookout for that. And that's that's the way you have

709
00:38:14,239 --> 00:38:17,120
Speaker 2: to approach a number of these categories. You know, there's

710
00:38:17,160 --> 00:38:20,200
Speaker 2: gonna be a chalk favorite that's probably the right place.

711
00:38:20,239 --> 00:38:22,759
Speaker 2: Sometimes there's so overvalue that you just don't bet them,

712
00:38:23,239 --> 00:38:25,040
Speaker 2: but a lot of times there will be value on

713
00:38:25,400 --> 00:38:27,960
Speaker 2: like the Trouk favorite, and also you know, one of

714
00:38:28,000 --> 00:38:30,799
Speaker 2: the long shots if they're not properly ordered by the

715
00:38:30,800 --> 00:38:32,799
Speaker 2: betting market. So sometimes you hear us say, you know,

716
00:38:32,840 --> 00:38:34,719
Speaker 2: to bet you know, two different bets. It's not because

717
00:38:34,760 --> 00:38:36,799
Speaker 2: we're trying to you know, be wishy washy, it's just

718
00:38:36,880 --> 00:38:39,080
Speaker 2: that's how you that's how you kind of lock in

719
00:38:39,120 --> 00:38:41,480
Speaker 2: your value. You know, I've done that with Best Picture

720
00:38:41,680 --> 00:38:44,719
Speaker 2: the last few years, just fading the the favorite and

721
00:38:44,719 --> 00:38:46,400
Speaker 2: betting on you know, the number two and the number three,

722
00:38:46,440 --> 00:38:48,640
Speaker 2: and it's worked out really well. So that's just an

723
00:38:48,680 --> 00:38:52,720
Speaker 2: example of that. So yeah, Maraini and Mank for makeup

724
00:38:52,800 --> 00:38:58,080
Speaker 2: and hairstyling. Let's go to best Sound. There used to

725
00:38:58,120 --> 00:39:00,760
Speaker 2: be two of these sound categories. Now they're is one

726
00:39:01,600 --> 00:39:06,440
Speaker 2: and the nominees for best Sound of the singular Sound

727
00:39:06,600 --> 00:39:10,879
Speaker 2: of Metal NINEUS twenty five hundred, the favorite Mank ten

728
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:14,359
Speaker 2: to one, Soul ten to one, Greyhound twenty to one,

729
00:39:15,000 --> 00:39:19,640
Speaker 2: and News of the World at thirty three to one. Katie.

730
00:39:20,160 --> 00:39:22,360
Speaker 2: Sound of Metal has the word sound in it. The

731
00:39:22,400 --> 00:39:25,160
Speaker 2: category is best Sound. There's only one sound category now,

732
00:39:25,480 --> 00:39:27,719
Speaker 2: I mean, this has got to be Sound of Metal, right,

733
00:39:29,640 --> 00:39:31,160
Speaker 2: I try to hear you. Do you understand me?

734
00:39:31,280 --> 00:39:34,919
Speaker 5: I can't. I'm dead. I'm dad.

735
00:39:36,239 --> 00:39:36,959
Speaker 2: I agree. Yeah.

736
00:39:37,000 --> 00:39:39,680
Speaker 4: Obviously, that's why these odds are so defused.

737
00:39:39,360 --> 00:39:42,600
Speaker 3: Is because it is the clear favorite, and like you said,

738
00:39:42,800 --> 00:39:46,479
Speaker 3: sound is in the actual title. But for those who

739
00:39:46,719 --> 00:39:49,040
Speaker 3: have no idea what Sound of Metal is, just for

740
00:39:49,120 --> 00:39:53,080
Speaker 3: some context. It is a film about a drummer who

741
00:39:53,400 --> 00:39:57,120
Speaker 3: starts to lose his hearing, and it goes through that

742
00:39:57,200 --> 00:40:01,520
Speaker 3: journey with him. It is, honestly a little bit it intense,

743
00:40:02,120 --> 00:40:06,480
Speaker 3: perhaps triggering for some folks, but very beautifully done because

744
00:40:06,520 --> 00:40:09,640
Speaker 3: you're going back and forth with him as he's experiencing

745
00:40:10,040 --> 00:40:11,320
Speaker 3: that loss of hearing.

746
00:40:12,120 --> 00:40:14,120
Speaker 4: So obvious favorite in this one.

747
00:40:15,719 --> 00:40:17,680
Speaker 5: I think Raybond is trying to get an Emmy here

748
00:40:17,719 --> 00:40:20,080
Speaker 5: setting up the best sound about how the mixing and

749
00:40:20,680 --> 00:40:22,960
Speaker 5: you know, the editing have been combined into one. He

750
00:40:23,040 --> 00:40:26,759
Speaker 5: set that up perfectly. What the hell's going on, academy, Huh,

751
00:40:26,800 --> 00:40:28,839
Speaker 5: what's going on here? So you know, if you didn't

752
00:40:28,840 --> 00:40:30,400
Speaker 5: know what mixing and editing is, we don't have to

753
00:40:30,440 --> 00:40:32,120
Speaker 5: explain to you that some of it happens on set

754
00:40:32,160 --> 00:40:34,279
Speaker 5: and some of it happens in a studio. But what

755
00:40:34,520 --> 00:40:36,480
Speaker 5: people in the industry are probably pissed off about, if

756
00:40:36,480 --> 00:40:39,480
Speaker 5: you're actually in that industry, is that now you have

757
00:40:39,560 --> 00:40:42,120
Speaker 5: to share this award and maybe the other team is

758
00:40:42,160 --> 00:40:44,360
Speaker 5: not holding up their end of the bargain. To me,

759
00:40:45,040 --> 00:40:47,040
Speaker 5: it's a complete stay away. I heard Sound of Metal

760
00:40:47,080 --> 00:40:49,239
Speaker 5: was actually the best movie out there this year. I

761
00:40:49,640 --> 00:40:52,000
Speaker 5: kind of disagree. A Star is Born there was a

762
00:40:52,000 --> 00:40:54,920
Speaker 5: little bit of a hearing loss there. Lady Gaga's in it.

763
00:40:54,960 --> 00:40:56,920
Speaker 5: One of the great movies I've seen that didn't win

764
00:40:56,960 --> 00:40:59,239
Speaker 5: anything like nineteen seventeen, So I'll stick with that being

765
00:40:59,280 --> 00:41:04,120
Speaker 5: my favorite going death music movie. No, You're right, sound

766
00:41:04,239 --> 00:41:08,360
Speaker 5: is in this It's an extremely extremely high price I

767
00:41:08,440 --> 00:41:10,760
Speaker 5: am going to sit back. I'm going to lay off,

768
00:41:10,920 --> 00:41:14,120
Speaker 5: and if anybody else wins this, we are absolutely betting

769
00:41:14,280 --> 00:41:17,759
Speaker 5: every underdog in twenty twenty two. So let's see how

770
00:41:17,760 --> 00:41:22,040
Speaker 5: the voting crowd reacts to mixing and editing being pushed together.

771
00:41:23,160 --> 00:41:25,040
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a tough one because this is one

772
00:41:25,080 --> 00:41:28,400
Speaker 2: where you really don't have, you know, prior data to

773
00:41:28,520 --> 00:41:31,480
Speaker 2: truly rely on because of how the category is now

774
00:41:32,280 --> 00:41:35,279
Speaker 2: changed from the two categories. So I don't have much

775
00:41:35,320 --> 00:41:37,919
Speaker 2: here other than saying, if you look at the Best

776
00:41:37,920 --> 00:41:41,399
Speaker 2: Picture nominations, Sound of Metal is one of the eight

777
00:41:41,520 --> 00:41:45,319
Speaker 2: this year, and they usually if you kind of look

778
00:41:45,360 --> 00:41:47,880
Speaker 2: back at the Oscars, each film kind of has its

779
00:41:47,960 --> 00:41:51,239
Speaker 2: niche where they usually end up rewarding it, And you know,

780
00:41:51,360 --> 00:41:54,319
Speaker 2: I would that's essentially the narrative that I would kind

781
00:41:54,360 --> 00:41:55,960
Speaker 2: of roll with here with Sound of Metal. You know,

782
00:41:56,400 --> 00:41:59,160
Speaker 2: it's maybe it wouldn't have gotten both sound categories had

783
00:41:59,200 --> 00:42:01,839
Speaker 2: they been split, But I think because it's the Best

784
00:42:01,880 --> 00:42:06,120
Speaker 2: Picture nomination, because you don't really see any other standout

785
00:42:06,920 --> 00:42:10,719
Speaker 2: area where it's you know, a front runner, I think

786
00:42:10,760 --> 00:42:12,520
Speaker 2: that's why the odds are so high. So this is

787
00:42:12,560 --> 00:42:15,960
Speaker 2: one I may I probably will pass on as well,

788
00:42:16,000 --> 00:42:18,000
Speaker 2: it's minus twenty five hundred. I don't really see a

789
00:42:18,040 --> 00:42:20,640
Speaker 2: ton of value there, and I don't really have enough

790
00:42:20,719 --> 00:42:23,920
Speaker 2: data to truly be confident in weighing that much jew

791
00:42:24,080 --> 00:42:27,040
Speaker 2: So you know, I would pick down the metal, but

792
00:42:27,880 --> 00:42:30,920
Speaker 2: not really what I recommend betting on. I think you

793
00:42:30,960 --> 00:42:34,960
Speaker 2: have a lot better options. Let's get into Best Visual

794
00:42:35,000 --> 00:42:40,760
Speaker 2: Effect and the nominee four Best Visual Effects. Tennant fucking

795
00:42:40,800 --> 00:42:44,279
Speaker 2: in first at minus five sixty, the Midnight Sky at

796
00:42:44,320 --> 00:42:49,360
Speaker 2: plus two seventy five, Mulan seventeen to one, Love and

797
00:42:49,520 --> 00:42:55,480
Speaker 2: Monsters twenty five to one, and The One and Only

798
00:42:55,600 --> 00:42:59,120
Speaker 2: Ivan also at twenty five to one. This is interesting

799
00:42:59,120 --> 00:43:01,000
Speaker 2: because we have a couple of usually see this in

800
00:43:01,040 --> 00:43:03,200
Speaker 2: like the shorts, but we have a couple of these

801
00:43:03,239 --> 00:43:06,440
Speaker 2: that they're not nominated anywhere else. Eleven Monsters, the One

802
00:43:06,480 --> 00:43:11,040
Speaker 2: and Only Ivan Coledy got anything on Best Visual Effects.

803
00:43:11,400 --> 00:43:13,359
Speaker 5: It's kind of amazing that we don't see a Star

804
00:43:13,400 --> 00:43:16,120
Speaker 5: Wars or an Avengers, like a Marble. It's just crazy

805
00:43:16,160 --> 00:43:17,719
Speaker 5: that that's not in. I mean, we finally have a

806
00:43:17,800 --> 00:43:20,320
Speaker 5: year where none of that is in. But that's pandemic

807
00:43:20,400 --> 00:43:22,200
Speaker 5: life for you. So I'm sure next year it'll be

808
00:43:22,239 --> 00:43:26,960
Speaker 5: something different. Listen. Tenant should easily win for visual effects.

809
00:43:27,960 --> 00:43:31,320
Speaker 5: My favorite I'm a Christopher Nolan freak, but my favorite

810
00:43:31,360 --> 00:43:35,680
Speaker 5: movie because for visual effects. Because Elizabeth Debickie stands six

811
00:43:35,680 --> 00:43:39,480
Speaker 5: foot three. John David Washington is five foot nine, and

812
00:43:39,520 --> 00:43:42,000
Speaker 5: I couldn't tell that the entire movie. So the visual

813
00:43:42,000 --> 00:43:44,200
Speaker 5: effects were perfect there because I never knew there was

814
00:43:44,239 --> 00:43:48,560
Speaker 5: such a discrepancy in height. Plus John David Washington absolutely

815
00:43:48,600 --> 00:43:50,720
Speaker 5: beats the shit out of a guy in a kitchen

816
00:43:50,760 --> 00:43:53,319
Speaker 5: with a cheese greater. That couldn't have been real. That

817
00:43:53,400 --> 00:43:57,480
Speaker 5: had to be visual effects. All joking aside, though, the

818
00:43:57,960 --> 00:44:01,959
Speaker 5: technical quality that they put in to teach people what

819
00:44:02,120 --> 00:44:06,120
Speaker 5: a pincer is and how you know trains are running

820
00:44:06,120 --> 00:44:09,439
Speaker 5: in opposite directions. Every single scene of that movie. There's

821
00:44:09,480 --> 00:44:12,200
Speaker 5: something happening in reverse and you just don't even notice.

822
00:44:12,320 --> 00:44:15,880
Speaker 5: And that's because they did an amazing job in visual effects.

823
00:44:17,280 --> 00:44:19,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I can't go against the truck here with

824
00:44:20,000 --> 00:44:23,240
Speaker 2: Tennant either, you know it is. I think it's nominated

825
00:44:23,239 --> 00:44:27,200
Speaker 2: only twice, but I do think it takes home this category.

826
00:44:27,360 --> 00:44:33,120
Speaker 2: The gold Derby editors agree unanimously. One hundred percent are

827
00:44:33,239 --> 00:44:36,520
Speaker 2: backing Tenant, and we've only had one time so it's

828
00:44:36,680 --> 00:44:40,400
Speaker 2: it's been. There is about eleven percent chance based on

829
00:44:40,440 --> 00:44:42,840
Speaker 2: the past data that they are wrong in this case.

830
00:44:43,600 --> 00:44:47,240
Speaker 2: But that gives you about eighty nine percent implied odds

831
00:44:47,239 --> 00:44:50,880
Speaker 2: for Tenant and minus five sixties about eighty five percent,

832
00:44:51,000 --> 00:44:53,600
Speaker 2: So you still have about five percent of value there

833
00:44:53,880 --> 00:44:56,080
Speaker 2: on Tenant based on the implied odds, even if you're

834
00:44:56,239 --> 00:45:00,080
Speaker 2: kind of factoring in that error rate, like if they're

835
00:45:00,120 --> 00:45:03,759
Speaker 2: is something unexpected, it would be Midnight Sky. That's the

836
00:45:03,880 --> 00:45:07,480
Speaker 2: consensus number two. But I don't see enough value on

837
00:45:07,560 --> 00:45:10,160
Speaker 2: Midnight Sky. At plus two seventy five. I would bet

838
00:45:10,160 --> 00:45:13,280
Speaker 2: Tenant up to about minus seven hundred, which is about

839
00:45:13,280 --> 00:45:16,879
Speaker 2: eighty seven point five percent implied odds. So I'm with you, Conn,

840
00:45:16,960 --> 00:45:19,440
Speaker 2: I think Tenants. Can't they get home? All right? Let's

841
00:45:19,440 --> 00:45:24,799
Speaker 2: get into a good one. Guest Original Screenplay and the

842
00:45:24,840 --> 00:45:30,239
Speaker 2: nominees for Best Original Screenplay Promising a Young Woman at

843
00:45:30,360 --> 00:45:34,680
Speaker 2: minus four fifty five. The big favorite The Trial of

844
00:45:34,680 --> 00:45:38,960
Speaker 2: the Chicago seven plus two seventy five Minery fourteen to one,

845
00:45:39,360 --> 00:45:43,720
Speaker 2: Judas and The Black Messiah thirty three to one, hand

846
00:45:44,440 --> 00:45:50,279
Speaker 2: Down to Metal, also at thirty three to one. This

847
00:45:50,440 --> 00:45:55,840
Speaker 2: one is interesting, Katie, because promising Young Woman the Trial

848
00:45:55,880 --> 00:45:59,800
Speaker 2: of the Chicago Seven and mineralate. This is a screenplay award.

849
00:46:00,000 --> 00:46:04,160
Speaker 2: The three Best Picture contenders, and the odds are really

850
00:46:04,160 --> 00:46:07,919
Speaker 2: spread out for this Screenplay Award. How do you see

851
00:46:07,920 --> 00:46:09,879
Speaker 2: this one plane out? Yeah?

852
00:46:10,120 --> 00:46:11,120
Speaker 4: It definitely is interesting.

853
00:46:11,120 --> 00:46:13,440
Speaker 3: And this is also the first time in history that

854
00:46:13,640 --> 00:46:16,759
Speaker 3: all five nominees in this category are also nominated for

855
00:46:16,760 --> 00:46:18,879
Speaker 3: the Best Picture, which is an interesting wrinkle that I'll

856
00:46:18,920 --> 00:46:21,400
Speaker 3: get to in a moment. But before I dive in,

857
00:46:21,480 --> 00:46:23,200
Speaker 3: I want to preface this by saying that I think

858
00:46:23,239 --> 00:46:26,000
Speaker 3: Promising Young Woman is more likely to win this award

859
00:46:26,040 --> 00:46:29,120
Speaker 3: than Trial of the Chicago Seven, namely because Promising Young

860
00:46:29,160 --> 00:46:33,439
Speaker 3: Woman shares a lot of similarities with Jordan Peele's Get Out,

861
00:46:33,480 --> 00:46:36,279
Speaker 3: which won this award three years ago. Both of these

862
00:46:36,280 --> 00:46:40,040
Speaker 3: scripts are very sharp social critiques. Promising Young Woman has

863
00:46:40,120 --> 00:46:44,400
Speaker 3: drawn a lot of controversy because it deals specifically with

864
00:46:44,400 --> 00:46:48,880
Speaker 3: sexual assault, and its ending has sparked said controversy. But

865
00:46:49,239 --> 00:46:51,719
Speaker 3: Emerald Finel's take is so unique on the surface that

866
00:46:51,760 --> 00:46:55,000
Speaker 3: I believe this script should win this award. That said,

867
00:46:55,200 --> 00:46:58,040
Speaker 3: I do see betting value on Trial of the Chicago Seven.

868
00:46:58,520 --> 00:47:02,759
Speaker 3: This is completely theoretic, but as we mentioned throughout this podcast,

869
00:47:03,040 --> 00:47:06,880
Speaker 3: voting has become increasingly volatile for the Oscars ever since

870
00:47:07,040 --> 00:47:11,000
Speaker 3: the Academy expanded its voting body, which started after Oscar

871
00:47:11,080 --> 00:47:14,600
Speaker 3: so White in twenty fifteen. It's basically increased its membership

872
00:47:14,600 --> 00:47:17,080
Speaker 3: by fifty percent since then in an effort to add

873
00:47:17,239 --> 00:47:21,000
Speaker 3: more women and diverse voters. But because this is the

874
00:47:21,000 --> 00:47:23,480
Speaker 3: first year where all five of these nominees are also

875
00:47:23,560 --> 00:47:26,880
Speaker 3: nominated for Best Picture, I have a hunch that voters

876
00:47:26,880 --> 00:47:30,000
Speaker 3: will have zigged on Best Original Screenplay where they zagged

877
00:47:30,120 --> 00:47:32,719
Speaker 3: on Best Picture. Now, I do think that of the

878
00:47:32,800 --> 00:47:35,960
Speaker 3: underdog's for Best Picture, trial of the Chicago Seven shouldn't

879
00:47:35,960 --> 00:47:38,520
Speaker 3: be slept on. We will get to that later. But

880
00:47:38,840 --> 00:47:42,080
Speaker 3: if we believe No Madland does prevail as the heavy

881
00:47:42,120 --> 00:47:45,920
Speaker 3: heavy bedding favorite for Best Picture, then I think voters

882
00:47:45,920 --> 00:47:50,160
Speaker 3: will aim to reward longtime Academy favorite Aaron Sorkin, which

883
00:47:50,200 --> 00:47:52,759
Speaker 3: is why I like the value on Chicago seven as

884
00:47:52,800 --> 00:47:54,719
Speaker 3: the slight underdog in this category.

885
00:47:55,520 --> 00:47:59,359
Speaker 2: See now, Katie, like everything you said made like I

886
00:47:59,440 --> 00:48:01,200
Speaker 2: totally agree and it made a ton of sense. But

887
00:48:01,280 --> 00:48:03,000
Speaker 2: I kind of set you up because I know Colin

888
00:48:03,040 --> 00:48:04,799
Speaker 2: Wilson is going to come in here and just wax

889
00:48:04,880 --> 00:48:07,880
Speaker 2: poetic about Minery and try to convince everyone why Minery

890
00:48:07,960 --> 00:48:11,280
Speaker 2: is the choice over over the Trial of Chicago seven.

891
00:48:11,360 --> 00:48:13,640
Speaker 2: So just just just do it.

892
00:48:14,080 --> 00:48:15,799
Speaker 5: Listen, it's all about Minory here.

893
00:48:15,880 --> 00:48:19,719
Speaker 2: I like, you're well affair at this.

894
00:48:19,920 --> 00:48:21,839
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know, And I don't want to. I don't

895
00:48:21,840 --> 00:48:23,560
Speaker 5: want to go into things that I've already said on

896
00:48:23,600 --> 00:48:25,600
Speaker 5: the podcast, and I won't, but I will say this,

897
00:48:25,760 --> 00:48:31,600
Speaker 5: the movies that continue to show division between race, age

898
00:48:31,800 --> 00:48:35,600
Speaker 5: and wealth class and how those barriers come down, I

899
00:48:35,640 --> 00:48:37,520
Speaker 5: think are the ones in the future that are going

900
00:48:37,600 --> 00:48:38,680
Speaker 5: to win the most awards.

901
00:48:38,880 --> 00:48:40,120
Speaker 2: Just say it, Colin, just say it.

902
00:48:40,160 --> 00:48:42,680
Speaker 5: Just say this with parasite.

903
00:48:42,840 --> 00:48:44,600
Speaker 2: Sorry, just say it.

904
00:48:44,920 --> 00:48:51,120
Speaker 5: Very the is absolutely in this award because, uh, listen,

905
00:48:51,120 --> 00:48:53,640
Speaker 5: it was ineligible for the Writers Guild and for the Globes.

906
00:48:53,680 --> 00:48:55,799
Speaker 5: We can get into the restriction as to why it wasn't.

907
00:48:55,840 --> 00:48:58,200
Speaker 5: It's because I believe for the Globes you have to

908
00:48:58,239 --> 00:49:02,240
Speaker 5: have a certain amount of spoken English versus foreign language

909
00:49:02,239 --> 00:49:06,000
Speaker 5: in it. And because Minary is like completely almost all

910
00:49:06,160 --> 00:49:09,000
Speaker 5: in Korean unless they're at the chicken plant chicken sexing

911
00:49:09,040 --> 00:49:10,920
Speaker 5: and check them out if the chicken is a female

912
00:49:11,000 --> 00:49:12,840
Speaker 5: or a male. Like, there wasn't a lot of English

913
00:49:12,920 --> 00:49:16,439
Speaker 5: in this movie besides the crazy ass you know run

914
00:49:16,480 --> 00:49:18,200
Speaker 5: with the cross down the street that actually does happen

915
00:49:18,239 --> 00:49:21,000
Speaker 5: in Arkansas. Listen, the movie did pull six Bapton noms.

916
00:49:21,200 --> 00:49:24,600
Speaker 5: It pulled ten Critics' Choice So when Minery has been eligible,

917
00:49:25,239 --> 00:49:27,800
Speaker 5: it has shown that it has some muscle to flex.

918
00:49:28,239 --> 00:49:30,600
Speaker 5: So you know, I think this is a major contender,

919
00:49:30,600 --> 00:49:32,600
Speaker 5: and a lot of categories is not getting talked about.

920
00:49:32,880 --> 00:49:35,160
Speaker 5: Minory maybe on the outside looking in for Best Picture,

921
00:49:36,040 --> 00:49:38,880
Speaker 5: but I think there should be major scene here. And

922
00:49:38,920 --> 00:49:42,680
Speaker 5: there's reasons why Lee Isaac Chung crazy enough I need

923
00:49:42,680 --> 00:49:44,040
Speaker 5: to check. I think him and I grew up at

924
00:49:44,080 --> 00:49:47,520
Speaker 5: the exact same time in the exact same city, directed

925
00:49:47,520 --> 00:49:51,120
Speaker 5: the film, wrote the film, and that follows in the

926
00:49:51,120 --> 00:49:55,799
Speaker 5: footsteps of former Best Original Screenplay winners for Moonlight and

927
00:49:55,920 --> 00:49:59,560
Speaker 5: Almost Famous, very recent winners of this category where the

928
00:49:59,640 --> 00:50:03,200
Speaker 5: direct sure was the writer of the content. Oscar Metrics

929
00:50:03,200 --> 00:50:09,560
Speaker 5: gives a twelve percent chance to an ineligible Writer's Guild entry.

930
00:50:09,719 --> 00:50:13,000
Speaker 5: That's Minery, right, So when I calculate twelve percent, you

931
00:50:13,040 --> 00:50:15,359
Speaker 5: guys have to know your odds. You're gonna come. You're

932
00:50:15,360 --> 00:50:18,000
Speaker 5: gonna listen to other podcasts and listen to them bullshit

933
00:50:18,040 --> 00:50:20,880
Speaker 5: about how I think and I feel. Don't listen to that.

934
00:50:21,160 --> 00:50:24,120
Speaker 5: It's all about number, it's about money, it's about percentages.

935
00:50:24,400 --> 00:50:29,040
Speaker 5: So Oscar Metrics says a writer's guild ineligible has a

936
00:50:29,080 --> 00:50:32,920
Speaker 5: twelve percent chance to beat their peers that were nominated,

937
00:50:33,600 --> 00:50:36,800
Speaker 5: and the favorite is sixty seven percent. Let me translate.

938
00:50:36,800 --> 00:50:39,839
Speaker 5: That gets your calculator out. Minari should be bet down

939
00:50:39,840 --> 00:50:43,400
Speaker 5: to plus seven thirty three. Promising Young Woman is a

940
00:50:43,520 --> 00:50:46,200
Speaker 5: hit at minus two hundred if it happens to fall.

941
00:50:46,320 --> 00:50:47,520
Speaker 5: And that's the way I'm betting this.

942
00:50:48,680 --> 00:50:50,680
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm I'm actually in a similar vote. I

943
00:50:50,680 --> 00:50:53,320
Speaker 2: think we kind of all agree that, and Katie alluded

944
00:50:53,360 --> 00:50:56,319
Speaker 2: to it. You know, Promising Young Woman is the most

945
00:50:56,520 --> 00:51:01,560
Speaker 2: likely to win this category. However it is why would

946
00:51:01,560 --> 00:51:04,719
Speaker 2: we overpriced right now? And that's how you have to

947
00:51:04,760 --> 00:51:05,680
Speaker 2: bet these awards.

948
00:51:06,160 --> 00:51:10,520
Speaker 5: I'm back because I think you gave me a fake number.

949
00:51:10,239 --> 00:51:10,759
Speaker 6: The other day.

950
00:51:11,680 --> 00:51:12,840
Speaker 2: Doesn't sound like me.

951
00:51:13,719 --> 00:51:17,080
Speaker 5: So I spent a few hours composing a like very witty,

952
00:51:17,200 --> 00:51:20,600
Speaker 5: very romantic text, and then I sent that text to an.

953
00:51:20,400 --> 00:51:22,360
Speaker 7: Oil rig worker called Red.

954
00:51:23,080 --> 00:51:23,680
Speaker 2: Was the end of it.

955
00:51:24,000 --> 00:51:27,680
Speaker 5: Surprisingly into it, it was like immediately inappropriate, but it's

956
00:51:27,680 --> 00:51:29,319
Speaker 5: not going to work out because of the oil rig.

957
00:51:29,520 --> 00:51:33,600
Speaker 2: So promising young woman right now at minus four fifty five,

958
00:51:34,160 --> 00:51:39,080
Speaker 2: that is implying about a eighty two percent chance that

959
00:51:39,200 --> 00:51:42,120
Speaker 2: it wins. That is overvalued. I have it. I have

960
00:51:42,239 --> 00:51:44,120
Speaker 2: it pretty close to your odds, Colmon. I have it

961
00:51:44,120 --> 00:51:48,719
Speaker 2: about seventy fifteen fifteen between the three, So trial the

962
00:51:48,800 --> 00:51:52,560
Speaker 2: Chicago seven for me is still a little bit overvalued,

963
00:51:52,560 --> 00:51:54,560
Speaker 2: even though it's at plus two to seventy five. I

964
00:51:54,560 --> 00:51:56,960
Speaker 2: would want to trial the Chicago five seven to actually

965
00:51:57,000 --> 00:52:01,800
Speaker 2: climb to about plus five seventy because my one concern

966
00:52:01,840 --> 00:52:05,319
Speaker 2: with trial or the Chicago seven is this. I'm with you,

967
00:52:05,920 --> 00:52:10,560
Speaker 2: Colin on the on the Minery, you know, ineligibility kind

968
00:52:10,600 --> 00:52:13,200
Speaker 2: of creating some variants. But at the same time I

969
00:52:13,239 --> 00:52:15,520
Speaker 2: am with you KD that you know, promising young women

970
00:52:15,560 --> 00:52:17,520
Speaker 2: could get upset here by trial of the Chicago seven.

971
00:52:17,600 --> 00:52:20,800
Speaker 2: My issue though, is that because Minery has been ineligible,

972
00:52:21,200 --> 00:52:24,360
Speaker 2: we don't know exactly where it stands in relation to

973
00:52:24,400 --> 00:52:27,960
Speaker 2: promising young women. But we have seen as a result

974
00:52:28,000 --> 00:52:31,560
Speaker 2: of that, promising young women go head to head versus

975
00:52:31,640 --> 00:52:35,040
Speaker 2: trial the Chicago seven in a number of different award shows,

976
00:52:35,400 --> 00:52:39,480
Speaker 2: Bafter Critics' Choice Writers Guild, the Satellite, the Online Film

977
00:52:39,480 --> 00:52:44,240
Speaker 2: and TV Awards. Promising Young Woman has won five Chicago seven.

978
00:52:44,480 --> 00:52:47,560
Speaker 2: Only the Golden Globes did Trial the Chicago seven go

979
00:52:47,600 --> 00:52:50,040
Speaker 2: headhead with Promising Young Women and take home the victory

980
00:52:50,800 --> 00:52:54,279
Speaker 2: in this in the screenplay categories. So I think that

981
00:52:54,640 --> 00:52:57,600
Speaker 2: when it comes down to it, voters do prefer Promising

982
00:52:57,600 --> 00:53:00,880
Speaker 2: Young Women over Trial the Chicago Seven to a certain extent.

983
00:53:01,440 --> 00:53:04,680
Speaker 2: I just don't know where Minery fits into that exactly

984
00:53:04,719 --> 00:53:07,280
Speaker 2: because we haven't seen it. But you look at Minary

985
00:53:08,080 --> 00:53:11,400
Speaker 2: their screenplay nons when when they've been nominated for some

986
00:53:11,480 --> 00:53:14,000
Speaker 2: of the you know, the smaller you know, the regional

987
00:53:14,440 --> 00:53:18,040
Speaker 2: Critics Choice Awards and things like that, they're seven and three.

988
00:53:18,080 --> 00:53:21,600
Speaker 2: They've won seven of the ten I've calculated, and it

989
00:53:21,800 --> 00:53:24,040
Speaker 2: gets me going on Wikipedia and going to that list

990
00:53:24,080 --> 00:53:26,080
Speaker 2: where they list all the awards and just taking note

991
00:53:26,120 --> 00:53:29,120
Speaker 2: of every one of the Minery wins and losses that

992
00:53:29,160 --> 00:53:32,040
Speaker 2: weren't like the major awards, there's seven and three when

993
00:53:32,040 --> 00:53:34,840
Speaker 2: it comes to taking home screenplay awards. We'll see what

994
00:53:34,840 --> 00:53:38,520
Speaker 2: happens in the American Spirits, which should have taken place

995
00:53:38,520 --> 00:53:40,920
Speaker 2: by the time you guys are listening to this. But

996
00:53:42,040 --> 00:53:45,760
Speaker 2: that's a pretty big force to be reckoned with so Minory,

997
00:53:45,840 --> 00:53:48,880
Speaker 2: I think, as is the value bet in this in

998
00:53:48,920 --> 00:53:52,600
Speaker 2: this triumvirate here, I think Minory is at plus fourteen

999
00:53:52,680 --> 00:53:54,239
Speaker 2: hundred right now, I would bet that all the way

1000
00:53:54,239 --> 00:53:56,960
Speaker 2: down to plus five seventy. I would need minus two

1001
00:53:57,000 --> 00:53:59,719
Speaker 2: thirty to think about promising young women, and then I

1002
00:53:59,760 --> 00:54:02,640
Speaker 2: would need plus five seventy as well to think the trials.

1003
00:54:02,640 --> 00:54:05,120
Speaker 2: So I'm essentially given Minery and Trial a Chicago seven

1004
00:54:05,320 --> 00:54:08,600
Speaker 2: the same odds, and I put promising in a woman around

1005
00:54:08,840 --> 00:54:11,439
Speaker 2: seventy percent. So min and Rey fourteen to one. Love

1006
00:54:11,480 --> 00:54:14,239
Speaker 2: the value here, I mean the rabbit hole I went on.

1007
00:54:14,520 --> 00:54:16,319
Speaker 2: And this is another thing I found. I'm just kind

1008
00:54:16,320 --> 00:54:18,560
Speaker 2: of really digging into this this year. A lot of

1009
00:54:18,600 --> 00:54:21,120
Speaker 2: times that can be the difference maker. When you look

1010
00:54:21,160 --> 00:54:23,160
Speaker 2: back at some of the upsets, some of the spots

1011
00:54:23,160 --> 00:54:26,000
Speaker 2: where experts were wrong, you know, just categories where there's

1012
00:54:26,040 --> 00:54:28,279
Speaker 2: been a lot of uncertainty. You start looking at those,

1013
00:54:28,560 --> 00:54:31,359
Speaker 2: you know more minor you know, film festivals which are

1014
00:54:31,360 --> 00:54:33,239
Speaker 2: taking place and no one even realizes it because they

1015
00:54:33,239 --> 00:54:35,960
Speaker 2: don't really get any publicity. Those things add up, and

1016
00:54:36,000 --> 00:54:38,000
Speaker 2: a lot of times you'll see the ones that went

1017
00:54:38,040 --> 00:54:39,279
Speaker 2: on to win. It would be It would have been

1018
00:54:39,320 --> 00:54:41,359
Speaker 2: a lot more obvious if you had just looked at

1019
00:54:41,360 --> 00:54:44,920
Speaker 2: those And there's not like any specific precursor necessarily, it's

1020
00:54:44,960 --> 00:54:48,799
Speaker 2: just more of a kind of quantity I think thing here,

1021
00:54:48,840 --> 00:54:50,960
Speaker 2: So like it's the it's the hit rate, and it's

1022
00:54:50,960 --> 00:54:53,959
Speaker 2: just the number of nominations and awards. So Minery again

1023
00:54:54,080 --> 00:54:56,280
Speaker 2: seven out of ten on those on those smaller things,

1024
00:54:57,120 --> 00:54:59,640
Speaker 2: got a chance for voters to look at, you know,

1025
00:54:59,680 --> 00:55:02,560
Speaker 2: Minory versus promising young women and say, you know what,

1026
00:55:02,640 --> 00:55:04,319
Speaker 2: it wasn't eligible to a lot of the other things

1027
00:55:04,360 --> 00:55:07,200
Speaker 2: I voted at, but I prefer it. So I think

1028
00:55:07,239 --> 00:55:09,319
Speaker 2: Minery right now for me, is the only bet. Yeah.

1029
00:55:09,320 --> 00:55:10,560
Speaker 4: By the way, I do agree with this.

1030
00:55:10,719 --> 00:55:12,000
Speaker 3: I like it as a long shot, and I think

1031
00:55:12,040 --> 00:55:15,000
Speaker 3: Minery is going to continue to be a wild card

1032
00:55:15,000 --> 00:55:17,279
Speaker 3: as we get deeper into these big categories.

1033
00:55:17,760 --> 00:55:21,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And that's perfectly said. So it's a wild card.

1034
00:55:21,000 --> 00:55:24,040
Speaker 2: And so that's why you're probably gonna hear us recommending Minery.

1035
00:55:24,400 --> 00:55:28,520
Speaker 2: Collin's love for it. Notwithstanding it's a great long shot

1036
00:55:28,520 --> 00:55:30,560
Speaker 2: bet in a lot of these categories. You don't have

1037
00:55:30,640 --> 00:55:32,279
Speaker 2: to hit all of them because you know, let's say

1038
00:55:32,280 --> 00:55:35,000
Speaker 2: you're betting the same amount of units on each whatever

1039
00:55:35,080 --> 00:55:37,719
Speaker 2: categories you're betting on, you hit just one of these

1040
00:55:37,880 --> 00:55:42,320
Speaker 2: minerre like fourteen to ones, and your whole Oscars is made. Essentially,

1041
00:55:42,719 --> 00:55:49,480
Speaker 2: Let's move to Adapted Screenplay and the nominees for the

1042
00:55:49,520 --> 00:55:54,720
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one Best Adapted Screenplay Award No Madland minus

1043
00:55:54,760 --> 00:56:00,040
Speaker 2: four hundred, The Father three to one, cheers, Oh.

1044
00:56:01,880 --> 00:56:03,319
Speaker 5: Did I give everything I own?

1045
00:56:03,400 --> 00:56:07,360
Speaker 2: For a glass of a Borat subsequent movie film eighth

1046
00:56:07,360 --> 00:56:10,279
Speaker 2: to one, One Night in Miami at fourteen to one,

1047
00:56:10,520 --> 00:56:14,520
Speaker 2: and The White Tiger bringing up the rear at thirty

1048
00:56:14,600 --> 00:56:17,520
Speaker 2: three to one. Okay, what you got on this one?

1049
00:56:18,080 --> 00:56:21,279
Speaker 3: So only twice over the past eleven years, as the

1050
00:56:21,320 --> 00:56:24,560
Speaker 3: Oscars flipped to preferential voting for Best Picture, which means

1051
00:56:24,560 --> 00:56:28,520
Speaker 3: they're ranking their picks, not just selecting one. Only twice

1052
00:56:28,600 --> 00:56:31,040
Speaker 3: over that eleven year span has the winner of Best

1053
00:56:31,040 --> 00:56:34,239
Speaker 3: Picture not also taken home the Screenwriting award that they're

1054
00:56:34,280 --> 00:56:39,000
Speaker 3: nominated for. So we'll get into the nomad Land discussion

1055
00:56:39,040 --> 00:56:41,960
Speaker 3: for Best Picture later, but all you need to know

1056
00:56:42,040 --> 00:56:44,719
Speaker 3: right now is that it's a heavy favorite in that category.

1057
00:56:45,239 --> 00:56:47,160
Speaker 3: I personally am not willing to pay up for that

1058
00:56:47,200 --> 00:56:50,759
Speaker 3: because I think that category is going to be more

1059
00:56:50,840 --> 00:56:55,440
Speaker 3: open than people and the odds reflect But that said,

1060
00:56:55,480 --> 00:56:57,920
Speaker 3: I'm way more willing to pay minus four hundred for

1061
00:56:57,960 --> 00:57:01,440
Speaker 3: Nomadland to win here than for Best Picture, which is

1062
00:57:01,719 --> 00:57:04,560
Speaker 3: really the only reason I am even touching this category.

1063
00:57:06,000 --> 00:57:09,000
Speaker 2: We're a very sharp take. It's like essentially arbitrage. Like

1064
00:57:09,040 --> 00:57:12,480
Speaker 2: you're if you think no mad Wayan wins Best Picture,

1065
00:57:12,640 --> 00:57:15,320
Speaker 2: this is correlated. You're getting better ods here, You're Wayne

1066
00:57:15,360 --> 00:57:16,320
Speaker 2: west Jukes. I like it.

1067
00:57:16,760 --> 00:57:20,800
Speaker 5: Yep, yeah, absolutely absolutely the way to play this is

1068
00:57:20,800 --> 00:57:22,640
Speaker 5: no mad Land. But I'm also going to back that

1069
00:57:22,760 --> 00:57:26,280
Speaker 5: up with the one the one underdog that I think

1070
00:57:26,320 --> 00:57:29,120
Speaker 5: could win. And I mean, the winning percentage is pretty

1071
00:57:29,160 --> 00:57:31,480
Speaker 5: even when you no matter what the genre is. And

1072
00:57:31,520 --> 00:57:33,640
Speaker 5: I think when you talk about oscar metrics and what

1073
00:57:33,680 --> 00:57:36,760
Speaker 5: they say the analytics to look at is, you know,

1074
00:57:36,920 --> 00:57:39,360
Speaker 5: the trend over the past couple of decades is that

1075
00:57:40,400 --> 00:57:42,560
Speaker 5: more fiction. It used to be all fiction films all

1076
00:57:42,560 --> 00:57:44,400
Speaker 5: the time, and now nonfiction is starting to take over.

1077
00:57:44,440 --> 00:57:46,560
Speaker 5: But the winning percentage is still the same in the category,

1078
00:57:46,600 --> 00:57:48,760
Speaker 5: So the genre doesn't matter because the winning percentage is

1079
00:57:48,800 --> 00:57:51,960
Speaker 5: the same. But if you look at true recent trends

1080
00:57:52,000 --> 00:57:55,840
Speaker 5: for adapted screenplay, it's really a reflection of our current

1081
00:57:55,880 --> 00:57:58,280
Speaker 5: social climate. I mean, I think this is the category

1082
00:57:58,320 --> 00:58:00,640
Speaker 5: where you can get away. You have a Jojo Rabbit

1083
00:58:00,720 --> 00:58:03,400
Speaker 5: winning this award while putting on display the stupidity of

1084
00:58:03,400 --> 00:58:04,280
Speaker 5: the Nazi movement.

1085
00:58:05,240 --> 00:58:06,840
Speaker 2: That was a great film, by the way, I enjoyed

1086
00:58:06,840 --> 00:58:07,800
Speaker 2: that film a lot.

1087
00:58:08,160 --> 00:58:10,920
Speaker 5: Not talked about enough, and yeah, if.

1088
00:58:10,760 --> 00:58:14,240
Speaker 2: You haven't seen Jojo Rabbit, it's very under the radar,

1089
00:58:14,320 --> 00:58:15,520
Speaker 2: but great film.

1090
00:58:16,440 --> 00:58:19,880
Speaker 5: And now the director is doing the biggest episodes on

1091
00:58:19,920 --> 00:58:27,120
Speaker 5: the Mandalorian talk about skyrocketing career. Black Clansman. I went

1092
00:58:27,160 --> 00:58:29,480
Speaker 5: into that movie, you know, Spike Lee movie, I just

1093
00:58:29,520 --> 00:58:35,880
Speaker 5: figured there's spikely expectations. Was absolutely blown away, superb about

1094
00:58:35,920 --> 00:58:40,120
Speaker 5: the infiltration of Adam Driver getting into the KKK Autumn

1095
00:58:40,160 --> 00:58:44,560
Speaker 5: Driver also known as future Best Actor Katie rich Creek

1096
00:58:44,600 --> 00:58:47,760
Speaker 5: will dump the Savings truck the day that Adam Driver

1097
00:58:47,920 --> 00:58:50,560
Speaker 5: is finally nominated for Best Actor.

1098
00:58:52,440 --> 00:58:55,600
Speaker 2: You've become Maybe I'm in the minority here, but like

1099
00:58:56,040 --> 00:58:58,800
Speaker 2: I'm a big Spike Lee fan, but my Black Klansman,

1100
00:58:59,000 --> 00:59:01,880
Speaker 2: I think we have some great actors, got a great premise.

1101
00:59:02,160 --> 00:59:03,800
Speaker 2: I just thought it was too spike Weed out, Like,

1102
00:59:03,840 --> 00:59:05,600
Speaker 2: I just thought it was too spike Weed I thought

1103
00:59:05,640 --> 00:59:09,840
Speaker 2: it was too many, like the current scenes interspersed in

1104
00:59:09,920 --> 00:59:14,360
Speaker 2: the movie, and like too many rotating cameras and just weird.

1105
00:59:14,760 --> 00:59:16,480
Speaker 2: I don't know, it was just too Spike Wee for me,

1106
00:59:16,560 --> 00:59:18,920
Speaker 2: Like and then you had the KKK and the title.

1107
00:59:19,200 --> 00:59:20,600
Speaker 5: It's just it was it was.

1108
00:59:20,600 --> 00:59:23,360
Speaker 2: A too spiked, too spiked out for me, like on

1109
00:59:23,400 --> 00:59:26,320
Speaker 2: my list of Spike Wee films. That's that's near about.

1110
00:59:26,120 --> 00:59:28,959
Speaker 5: Him so and then Moonlight follows in the same path,

1111
00:59:28,960 --> 00:59:31,360
Speaker 5: the presenting a character dealing with the struggles of growing

1112
00:59:31,400 --> 00:59:33,880
Speaker 5: up in today's world in a society that doesn't accept

1113
00:59:34,000 --> 00:59:35,959
Speaker 5: who he thinks he is, you know, emerging and finding

1114
00:59:35,960 --> 00:59:38,640
Speaker 5: out who he is. So, uh, what is the hot

1115
00:59:38,680 --> 00:59:40,960
Speaker 5: topic going on in our society? I mean there's a

1116
00:59:41,000 --> 00:59:43,760
Speaker 5: lot of the things that does get mentioned up there.

1117
00:59:44,040 --> 00:59:45,920
Speaker 5: That is a parent right now is the division of

1118
00:59:45,960 --> 00:59:49,160
Speaker 5: wealth class in our country, and it's growing and it's growing,

1119
00:59:49,200 --> 00:59:53,160
Speaker 5: and it's growing division between middle class, lower middle class,

1120
00:59:53,160 --> 00:59:55,760
Speaker 5: and upper class. And I think two movies really kind

1121
00:59:55,760 --> 00:59:58,040
Speaker 5: of call that out here, Nomadland and The White Tiger.

1122
00:59:58,440 --> 01:00:02,440
Speaker 5: They did an excellent job of trying to reach across

1123
01:00:02,480 --> 01:00:05,280
Speaker 5: the fence to show people what life is like on

1124
01:00:05,360 --> 01:00:08,760
Speaker 5: their side. I think Katie is exactly correct. If you're

1125
01:00:08,760 --> 01:00:10,600
Speaker 5: gonna bet no Madland for best Picture, these are the

1126
01:00:10,600 --> 01:00:13,120
Speaker 5: better odds. I'm backing it up with a half unit

1127
01:00:13,200 --> 01:00:16,400
Speaker 5: bet on the White Tiger, which is the same take.

1128
01:00:16,480 --> 01:00:18,120
Speaker 5: You know, mad Land, This is the best price you're

1129
01:00:18,120 --> 01:00:19,480
Speaker 5: going to get if you like it for best Picture.

1130
01:00:19,600 --> 01:00:21,640
Speaker 5: Back it up with a big long shot on the

1131
01:00:21,640 --> 01:00:22,960
Speaker 5: White Tiger, which is.

1132
01:00:22,920 --> 01:00:25,560
Speaker 2: Interesting because I actually got one that's not on either

1133
01:00:25,600 --> 01:00:28,960
Speaker 2: of you guys's radars. I'm going with the Father at

1134
01:00:28,960 --> 01:00:31,360
Speaker 2: plus three hundred, and I agree it doesn't quite fit

1135
01:00:31,400 --> 01:00:35,200
Speaker 2: into that same narrative that you just spoke about so eloquently.

1136
01:00:35,960 --> 01:00:40,240
Speaker 2: I don't need any help from anyone all.

1137
01:00:40,280 --> 01:00:41,919
Speaker 5: I want to throw them to fuck off.

1138
01:00:42,360 --> 01:00:46,320
Speaker 2: But when I look at the experts, they have No

1139
01:00:46,440 --> 01:00:51,479
Speaker 2: mad Land about two thirds to win. So that gives

1140
01:00:51,480 --> 01:00:53,840
Speaker 2: me a little bit of pause, you know, backing it

1141
01:00:53,880 --> 01:00:56,560
Speaker 2: at minus four hundred, which is it's better than the

1142
01:00:56,600 --> 01:00:58,360
Speaker 2: best picture os, don't get me wrong, but it's still

1143
01:00:58,440 --> 01:01:01,000
Speaker 2: about an eighty percent chance implied to win. I'm not

1144
01:01:01,040 --> 01:01:04,240
Speaker 2: sure if it's that high. We have thirty percent of

1145
01:01:04,280 --> 01:01:08,600
Speaker 2: the experts choosing the Father. But here's what really caught me,

1146
01:01:08,640 --> 01:01:11,680
Speaker 2: because I can still make the case for Nomadland over

1147
01:01:11,720 --> 01:01:14,360
Speaker 2: the Father. You know, Nomadland has the head to head

1148
01:01:14,360 --> 01:01:17,880
Speaker 2: wins over the Father at at critic's choice. The Father

1149
01:01:18,040 --> 01:01:21,880
Speaker 2: did win over Nomadland at the BAFTA, but that's a

1150
01:01:21,880 --> 01:01:24,960
Speaker 2: little more you know, British waning. I'm not sure how

1151
01:01:25,000 --> 01:01:28,480
Speaker 2: well it's going to translate. But I looked at the

1152
01:01:28,640 --> 01:01:32,600
Speaker 2: editors on gold Derby and remember these they're these are

1153
01:01:32,840 --> 01:01:36,680
Speaker 2: these people are generally fought on and they're disagreeing with

1154
01:01:36,720 --> 01:01:40,400
Speaker 2: the experts, but like not just disagreeing. Nine of the

1155
01:01:40,480 --> 01:01:44,160
Speaker 2: eleven editors are going with the Father, including the nine

1156
01:01:44,160 --> 01:01:47,720
Speaker 2: who updated their picks most recently. So I don't know

1157
01:01:47,720 --> 01:01:50,360
Speaker 2: if they're just overrating the BAFTA, because again, I still

1158
01:01:50,400 --> 01:01:52,960
Speaker 2: I do think that's a little overrated in this case.

1159
01:01:53,000 --> 01:01:55,520
Speaker 2: But when you're talking about plus three hundred for a

1160
01:01:55,560 --> 01:02:00,800
Speaker 2: pick that's getting eighty two percent of love from industry exs, like,

1161
01:02:00,840 --> 01:02:03,520
Speaker 2: I'm not going to fade that. So I'm just gonna

1162
01:02:03,520 --> 01:02:05,680
Speaker 2: I'm going to pass on No mad Land. It's another

1163
01:02:05,720 --> 01:02:07,800
Speaker 2: one of those situations where it's the most likely one

1164
01:02:07,880 --> 01:02:11,640
Speaker 2: to win. I totally agree, but I just can't ignore that.

1165
01:02:11,920 --> 01:02:14,280
Speaker 2: You know, these experts are on The Father and the

1166
01:02:14,320 --> 01:02:15,760
Speaker 2: Father was you know, it was one of the last

1167
01:02:15,760 --> 01:02:18,280
Speaker 2: movies to come out. So I do think that some

1168
01:02:18,440 --> 01:02:21,320
Speaker 2: people and some predictors and markets are sweeping on it

1169
01:02:21,320 --> 01:02:23,560
Speaker 2: in certain spots just a little bit. I'm going to

1170
01:02:23,680 --> 01:02:25,919
Speaker 2: roll with it at plus three hundred, and I hope

1171
01:02:25,920 --> 01:02:29,920
Speaker 2: it pays off. All right, Let's get into Best Cinematography

1172
01:02:30,440 --> 01:02:35,200
Speaker 2: and the nominees. No mad Land minus four hundred, manc

1173
01:02:35,520 --> 01:02:39,200
Speaker 2: plus three fifty, News of the World fourteen to one,

1174
01:02:39,480 --> 01:02:42,320
Speaker 2: Judas in The Black Messiah seventeen to one, in the

1175
01:02:42,360 --> 01:02:48,960
Speaker 2: Trial of the Chicago Seven at twenty to one. Colin.

1176
01:02:49,600 --> 01:02:54,120
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean for me, No Madland from from a

1177
01:02:54,120 --> 01:02:57,680
Speaker 5: cinematography standpoint, really hit home with me. People that don't

1178
01:02:57,720 --> 01:02:59,760
Speaker 5: know before I was at the Action Network. I flew

1179
01:02:59,760 --> 01:03:02,000
Speaker 5: to hundred times a year and saw the world. And

1180
01:03:02,680 --> 01:03:05,760
Speaker 5: there's a scene where Francis McDormand is in the Avenue

1181
01:03:05,800 --> 01:03:09,480
Speaker 5: of the Giants north of San Francisco, where she's walking

1182
01:03:09,520 --> 01:03:13,320
Speaker 5: amongst the trees. There is a specific tree that is

1183
01:03:13,360 --> 01:03:16,680
Speaker 5: big enough for you to crawl in and live. My

1184
01:03:17,120 --> 01:03:20,360
Speaker 5: most famous family photo is me and my kids in

1185
01:03:20,400 --> 01:03:22,840
Speaker 5: that tree. It's like bigger than a two story house.

1186
01:03:23,480 --> 01:03:25,800
Speaker 5: Cinematography wise. I mean that's what I've got from a

1187
01:03:25,800 --> 01:03:29,680
Speaker 5: cinematography standpoint. This is not nineteen seventeen, this is not Deacons.

1188
01:03:30,480 --> 01:03:35,520
Speaker 5: There is no powerhouse here in this category. So to me,

1189
01:03:36,040 --> 01:03:38,560
Speaker 5: I don't this isn't a precursor to winning Best Picture.

1190
01:03:39,320 --> 01:03:41,400
Speaker 5: It's in no play for me. But I will say

1191
01:03:41,440 --> 01:03:45,680
Speaker 5: that mank is most nominated. It's got a lot of

1192
01:03:45,720 --> 01:03:49,800
Speaker 5: Hollywood ties to it, and that's the one if I

1193
01:03:49,840 --> 01:03:51,360
Speaker 5: was going to take some money here, that's the one

1194
01:03:51,360 --> 01:03:51,920
Speaker 5: that I would hit.

1195
01:03:53,080 --> 01:03:54,720
Speaker 2: I just think there's no way you're not given. No

1196
01:03:54,760 --> 01:03:57,000
Speaker 2: mad Win like, No Madlin's the talk of the season.

1197
01:03:57,360 --> 01:03:59,440
Speaker 2: This is It's award like. I think it's got to

1198
01:03:59,440 --> 01:04:01,760
Speaker 2: get this one. I mean the numbers back it up.

1199
01:04:02,360 --> 01:04:06,280
Speaker 2: Eleven of the twelve or ninety two percent of Critics

1200
01:04:06,400 --> 01:04:10,240
Speaker 2: Choice winners in this category have gone on to win

1201
01:04:10,240 --> 01:04:12,640
Speaker 2: at the Oscar. No Maduin won it the Critics Choice.

1202
01:04:13,280 --> 01:04:18,440
Speaker 2: It's got over ninety percent of the expert vote. Anything

1203
01:04:18,680 --> 01:04:22,000
Speaker 2: with more than fifty three percent has been undefeated. So

1204
01:04:22,440 --> 01:04:25,960
Speaker 2: there's really nothing to point me scored an underdog. I

1205
01:04:26,000 --> 01:04:28,720
Speaker 2: think this is no Madland's category. I think minus four

1206
01:04:28,800 --> 01:04:32,760
Speaker 2: hundred is actually low in this one. Or for No Madlan,

1207
01:04:32,840 --> 01:04:34,960
Speaker 2: I'd bet that up to about minus nine hundred. That's

1208
01:04:35,000 --> 01:04:36,520
Speaker 2: one where I actually think the jukes are little well,

1209
01:04:36,600 --> 01:04:38,320
Speaker 2: so I'm wrong with No mad Wan. Here.

1210
01:04:38,400 --> 01:04:40,920
Speaker 5: They did a fantastic job of filming some of the

1211
01:04:40,920 --> 01:04:45,480
Speaker 5: most beautiful parts of the United States. And funny enough

1212
01:04:45,600 --> 01:04:49,680
Speaker 5: that the city that went underneath, you know, because the

1213
01:04:49,680 --> 01:04:53,000
Speaker 5: factory left town in case you didn't know, within an hour,

1214
01:04:53,080 --> 01:04:55,720
Speaker 5: that is now where the Tesla factory is. So it's

1215
01:04:55,800 --> 01:04:57,760
Speaker 5: kind of interesting that that is a ghost town and

1216
01:04:57,800 --> 01:05:01,440
Speaker 5: now Tesla has put their factory there. So I'm sure

1217
01:05:01,480 --> 01:05:03,360
Speaker 5: that you know that town doesn't exist and have a

1218
01:05:03,440 --> 01:05:06,400
Speaker 5: zip code anymore, but now it does. And I'm not

1219
01:05:06,400 --> 01:05:08,600
Speaker 5: sure if that's Tesla related, but I found that that

1220
01:05:08,840 --> 01:05:12,320
Speaker 5: entire part of the story completely interesting. But I No

1221
01:05:12,360 --> 01:05:14,040
Speaker 5: mad Land hit me there at the fact that they

1222
01:05:14,040 --> 01:05:16,880
Speaker 5: did a really good job of when she went from

1223
01:05:16,960 --> 01:05:19,880
Speaker 5: job to job showing how beautiful parts of the United

1224
01:05:19,920 --> 01:05:20,439
Speaker 5: States are.

1225
01:05:21,640 --> 01:05:24,040
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, And you know, we just talked about adaptive

1226
01:05:24,040 --> 01:05:26,360
Speaker 2: screenplay with No Madlan, and like, if you just step

1227
01:05:26,400 --> 01:05:28,680
Speaker 2: back and think about what No mad Wan is and

1228
01:05:28,720 --> 01:05:31,440
Speaker 2: what it like, what it is as a movie, and

1229
01:05:31,480 --> 01:05:33,400
Speaker 2: what it is to this award season, like, I could

1230
01:05:33,760 --> 01:05:36,520
Speaker 2: you know, cinematography, I think that that should be a

1231
01:05:36,560 --> 01:05:40,400
Speaker 2: lock like screenplay. No, Madwan isn't necessarily a screenplay movie.

1232
01:05:40,560 --> 01:05:43,320
Speaker 2: It's a cinematography movie. So yeah, I'm I'm I'm not

1233
01:05:43,400 --> 01:05:46,640
Speaker 2: even gonna entertain any any dogs in this one. We

1234
01:05:46,920 --> 01:05:51,000
Speaker 2: go to Best Film Editing and the nominee Found a

1235
01:05:51,080 --> 01:05:56,280
Speaker 2: Metal minus one eighteen, the Trial of the Chicago Seven

1236
01:05:56,720 --> 01:06:02,480
Speaker 2: minus one ten, No Madlin plus six fifty, the Father

1237
01:06:02,840 --> 01:06:07,920
Speaker 2: twenty to one, Promising young Woman forty to one. WHOA.

1238
01:06:07,960 --> 01:06:10,000
Speaker 2: This is another one where these odds just I mean,

1239
01:06:10,040 --> 01:06:14,000
Speaker 2: you have the essentially like two co favorites. Katie, what

1240
01:06:14,040 --> 01:06:16,560
Speaker 2: are you thinking for Best Film Editing?

1241
01:06:17,320 --> 01:06:18,480
Speaker 3: I'm going to go with a little bit of a

1242
01:06:18,520 --> 01:06:22,160
Speaker 3: square take again here when we're splitting the how this

1243
01:06:22,320 --> 01:06:25,160
Speaker 3: is weighed between Sound of Metal and Trial Chicago Seven,

1244
01:06:25,320 --> 01:06:28,000
Speaker 3: I'm also talking about Trial the Chicago Seven quite a

1245
01:06:28,040 --> 01:06:29,240
Speaker 3: bit on this episode.

1246
01:06:29,400 --> 01:06:32,120
Speaker 4: I promise I like some of these other bets.

1247
01:06:32,200 --> 01:06:34,200
Speaker 3: It just happens to be when I'm drawn to in

1248
01:06:34,200 --> 01:06:36,320
Speaker 3: some of these categories, and this is one of them.

1249
01:06:36,440 --> 01:06:39,160
Speaker 3: So first, all the credit goes to our colleague Colin

1250
01:06:39,240 --> 01:06:44,320
Speaker 3: Witchurch for this nugget, But between their Drama and comedy categories.

1251
01:06:44,480 --> 01:06:48,280
Speaker 3: The American Cinema Editor Awards have recognized the eventual winner

1252
01:06:48,400 --> 01:06:51,680
Speaker 3: of this Oscar in thirteen of the past twenty years,

1253
01:06:51,920 --> 01:06:54,200
Speaker 3: and Trial of the Chicago Seven took the Eddie for

1254
01:06:54,400 --> 01:06:56,480
Speaker 3: Drama Editing this year, which it makes a.

1255
01:06:56,440 --> 01:06:56,919
Speaker 2: Lot of sense.

1256
01:06:57,000 --> 01:06:59,840
Speaker 3: Unlike Sound of Metal, Chicago Seven doesn't have a singular

1257
01:07:00,000 --> 01:07:02,160
Speaker 3: point of view that you're watching the entire movie. It

1258
01:07:02,160 --> 01:07:05,200
Speaker 3: flips between a ton of different people. It also focuses

1259
01:07:05,320 --> 01:07:09,440
Speaker 3: on different storylines, and it flexes between those. It's the obviously,

1260
01:07:09,480 --> 01:07:11,640
Speaker 3: it's the trial, it's the flashbacks of the riots, it's

1261
01:07:11,680 --> 01:07:13,880
Speaker 3: the stories of the main characters, and all of that

1262
01:07:14,360 --> 01:07:19,160
Speaker 3: takes quite a bit of masterful effort to edit it together,

1263
01:07:19,400 --> 01:07:21,400
Speaker 3: especially when you consider the fact that the meat of

1264
01:07:21,400 --> 01:07:25,720
Speaker 3: this movie is mostly talking, which is really hard to

1265
01:07:25,760 --> 01:07:28,480
Speaker 3: put that together in a really compelling way. So I

1266
01:07:28,520 --> 01:07:32,320
Speaker 3: really like this for editing. Again, perhaps it is a

1267
01:07:32,320 --> 01:07:34,040
Speaker 3: square take, but it is a hill.

1268
01:07:33,920 --> 01:07:36,840
Speaker 2: I'm willing to die on. Yeah, it's this is a

1269
01:07:36,840 --> 01:07:40,760
Speaker 2: tough one for me. Initially, I was looking at you know,

1270
01:07:40,960 --> 01:07:43,760
Speaker 2: just like I was kind of stuck between Trial and

1271
01:07:43,840 --> 01:07:46,959
Speaker 2: Sound of Metal and making the case for each one.

1272
01:07:47,040 --> 01:07:49,440
Speaker 2: But I think I'm actually going to go with the

1273
01:07:49,440 --> 01:07:52,400
Speaker 2: long shot and Nomad Wayne here at Plas six fifty.

1274
01:07:52,600 --> 01:07:57,280
Speaker 2: And that's because, so for one, we've seen the American

1275
01:07:57,400 --> 01:08:02,920
Speaker 2: Cinema Editors Guild Ord and the BAFTA, which are two precursors,

1276
01:08:03,800 --> 01:08:06,840
Speaker 2: they diverged in this case, so you had Trial to

1277
01:08:06,880 --> 01:08:10,720
Speaker 2: Chicago seven when the American Cinema. You had Sound a

1278
01:08:10,800 --> 01:08:14,680
Speaker 2: Metal when the Basta. But a few times, you know,

1279
01:08:14,720 --> 01:08:17,519
Speaker 2: we've seen about fourteen to fifteen percent of the time

1280
01:08:18,280 --> 01:08:21,439
Speaker 2: over these past couple of decades when it diverges, neither

1281
01:08:21,560 --> 01:08:24,639
Speaker 2: ends up winning. And this has also been a pretty

1282
01:08:24,680 --> 01:08:28,160
Speaker 2: unpredictable category even for the experts. You've about forty four

1283
01:08:28,160 --> 01:08:32,160
Speaker 2: percent of the time you've seen a film that's not

1284
01:08:32,400 --> 01:08:36,160
Speaker 2: the considered the front runner by the experts win, including

1285
01:08:36,200 --> 01:08:40,400
Speaker 2: films that got zero percent, three percent, fourteen percent, fourteen

1286
01:08:40,439 --> 01:08:44,439
Speaker 2: percent of the experts vote. So we've seen films that

1287
01:08:44,600 --> 01:08:48,519
Speaker 2: aren't really that that heralded by experts win in this

1288
01:08:48,640 --> 01:08:52,120
Speaker 2: category quite a few times. And it kind of goes

1289
01:08:52,120 --> 01:08:54,519
Speaker 2: back to what you were saying about Nomadlin earlier, Katie,

1290
01:08:54,520 --> 01:08:58,639
Speaker 2: where this is the front runner for Best Picture and

1291
01:08:58,880 --> 01:09:01,000
Speaker 2: we so we know it's we know it's well liked,

1292
01:09:01,000 --> 01:09:04,240
Speaker 2: and we know it's very appreciated and maybe even a

1293
01:09:04,240 --> 01:09:08,320
Speaker 2: little unappreciated. In a technical category like this, it is

1294
01:09:08,360 --> 01:09:10,840
Speaker 2: getting about eleven percent of the expert boats and again

1295
01:09:11,080 --> 01:09:14,160
Speaker 2: we've seen wins from films with zero percent, three percent,

1296
01:09:14,439 --> 01:09:18,400
Speaker 2: fourteen percent. Barely have of the number ones for the

1297
01:09:18,439 --> 01:09:22,360
Speaker 2: experts have actually won since they started tracking, So you know,

1298
01:09:22,640 --> 01:09:26,120
Speaker 2: it's it's pretty split between Sound of Metal and Trial

1299
01:09:26,120 --> 01:09:28,559
Speaker 2: to Chicago seven. But we do see eleven percent of

1300
01:09:28,560 --> 01:09:33,880
Speaker 2: the experts with Nomadland and some other precursors that I

1301
01:09:33,960 --> 01:09:36,080
Speaker 2: like as well, going with that, So I'm going to

1302
01:09:36,120 --> 01:09:39,160
Speaker 2: go no Medland plus sixty fifty.

1303
01:09:40,000 --> 01:09:42,280
Speaker 3: I actually agree with you because as we were approaching

1304
01:09:42,280 --> 01:09:45,400
Speaker 3: this category after talking about Nomadland in the context of

1305
01:09:45,520 --> 01:09:48,960
Speaker 3: screenplay and cinematography, and I saw the plus six fifty,

1306
01:09:49,000 --> 01:09:51,320
Speaker 3: I was like, wow, maybe this should also be included

1307
01:09:51,320 --> 01:09:54,880
Speaker 3: in how we're discussing ways to invest in this movie

1308
01:09:54,920 --> 01:09:58,080
Speaker 3: without vetting it for Best Picture. So I like that take,

1309
01:09:58,640 --> 01:09:58,960
Speaker 3: and it.

1310
01:09:58,920 --> 01:10:01,519
Speaker 2: Makes a lot of sense too if if you think

1311
01:10:01,600 --> 01:10:04,160
Speaker 2: Fund of Metal is a truck for that for the

1312
01:10:04,200 --> 01:10:07,800
Speaker 2: Sound Award, because you know, then you know you don't

1313
01:10:07,800 --> 01:10:10,640
Speaker 2: feel like the voting body has feels like they have

1314
01:10:10,680 --> 01:10:13,000
Speaker 2: to give it to the found of Metal. I think

1315
01:10:13,040 --> 01:10:15,840
Speaker 2: you're trial Chicago seven is definitely in play as well,

1316
01:10:15,880 --> 01:10:21,200
Speaker 2: but it's it's tough. We have two nominees that are

1317
01:10:21,200 --> 01:10:26,920
Speaker 2: both favorites at you know, better than minus one hundred juice, right,

1318
01:10:26,960 --> 01:10:30,160
Speaker 2: so it's like better than even money. So yeah, I

1319
01:10:30,160 --> 01:10:31,960
Speaker 2: think you just go with the long shot here. If not,

1320
01:10:32,840 --> 01:10:35,639
Speaker 2: probably stay away because you're not really getting value good

1321
01:10:35,720 --> 01:10:38,200
Speaker 2: value on minus one eighteen and minus one ten for

1322
01:10:38,320 --> 01:10:41,760
Speaker 2: two favorites. That's already over one hundred percent IMPI probability

1323
01:10:41,840 --> 01:10:42,240
Speaker 2: right there.

1324
01:10:42,360 --> 01:10:48,120
Speaker 8: So this is Action Network podcast producer Matt Mitchell here

1325
01:10:48,160 --> 01:10:50,360
Speaker 8: to tell you our friends at bet mgm have a

1326
01:10:50,360 --> 01:10:53,120
Speaker 8: great news sign up offer for our listeners, a six

1327
01:10:53,400 --> 01:10:56,840
Speaker 8: hundred dollars risk free first bet. Here's how it works.

1328
01:10:57,240 --> 01:10:59,519
Speaker 8: If you don't already have an account at bet mgm,

1329
01:10:59,840 --> 01:11:02,360
Speaker 8: just sign up, make your first deposit, and place that

1330
01:11:02,439 --> 01:11:05,639
Speaker 8: initial wager. If the bet wins, you get all the money.

1331
01:11:05,960 --> 01:11:09,000
Speaker 8: If it doesn't win, bet mgm will refund you in

1332
01:11:09,080 --> 01:11:12,120
Speaker 8: free bets up to six hundred dollars. It's that simple.

1333
01:11:12,600 --> 01:11:14,960
Speaker 8: Just click on the link in this episode description to

1334
01:11:15,000 --> 01:11:18,200
Speaker 8: get started. Bet mgm has been a great podcast partner,

1335
01:11:18,360 --> 01:11:21,000
Speaker 8: and they've got all the features gamblers like us love,

1336
01:11:21,400 --> 01:11:24,760
Speaker 8: like live betting and daily odds boosts past. They're compatible

1337
01:11:24,840 --> 01:11:28,000
Speaker 8: with Betsinc. So when you place a wager at BETMGM,

1338
01:11:28,080 --> 01:11:30,960
Speaker 8: that bet can automatically be tracked in your action app.

1339
01:11:31,400 --> 01:11:33,719
Speaker 8: So open an account today and make your first bet

1340
01:11:33,800 --> 01:11:36,640
Speaker 8: risk free up to six hundred dollars. Just click on

1341
01:11:36,680 --> 01:11:39,639
Speaker 8: the link in this episode description to get started. Must

1342
01:11:39,680 --> 01:11:42,040
Speaker 8: be twenty one or older and physically located in Michigan,

1343
01:11:42,080 --> 01:11:46,640
Speaker 8: New Jersey, Colorado, Indiana, West Virginia, and Iowa, Virginia, Tennessee, Nevada, PA, Pennsylvania.

1344
01:11:46,760 --> 01:11:49,439
Speaker 8: Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem called one eight hundred and

1345
01:11:49,479 --> 01:11:51,960
Speaker 8: five two to two forty seven hundred in Colorado with Nevata,

1346
01:11:52,000 --> 01:11:54,759
Speaker 8: one eight hundred gambler in New Jersey, Pennsylvania in West Virginia,

1347
01:11:54,800 --> 01:11:56,960
Speaker 8: one eight hundred and nine with it in Indiana. One

1348
01:11:56,960 --> 01:11:58,760
Speaker 8: eight hundred and twenty seven zero seven to one one

1349
01:11:58,840 --> 01:12:01,439
Speaker 8: seven in Michigan, undred eight nine nine seven eight nine

1350
01:12:01,439 --> 01:12:03,600
Speaker 8: in Tennessee. Twenty one hundred bets off in Iowa or

1351
01:12:03,640 --> 01:12:06,200
Speaker 8: one eight five three two thirty five hundred in Virginia.

1352
01:12:06,280 --> 01:12:09,760
Speaker 8: Betsin not available in the data. Thanks for listening. Now

1353
01:12:09,800 --> 01:12:10,800
Speaker 8: back to the show.

1354
01:12:12,840 --> 01:12:17,880
Speaker 2: Let's keep it moving. Bet director and the nominees. Chloe

1355
01:12:18,040 --> 01:12:23,160
Speaker 2: Jao Nomadland, huge favorite at minus three thousand, three hundred

1356
01:12:23,200 --> 01:12:27,240
Speaker 2: and thirty five. David Fincher from mank ten to one.

1357
01:12:27,640 --> 01:12:31,800
Speaker 2: How can I put this nicely? They're just waiting to

1358
01:12:32,080 --> 01:12:35,000
Speaker 2: loasy remind me never again to work with a washed

1359
01:12:35,080 --> 01:12:39,360
Speaker 2: up alcoholic who they noted Lee Isaac Chung minerree seventeen

1360
01:12:39,439 --> 01:12:43,519
Speaker 2: to one, Emerald Fennel Promising young Woman at twenty to one,

1361
01:12:44,000 --> 01:12:49,280
Speaker 2: and Thomas Vinterberg from another round at twenty five to one.

1362
01:12:49,400 --> 01:12:52,920
Speaker 5: Colin, Yeah, I mean for me, Chloe Joo. But I

1363
01:12:53,040 --> 01:12:56,880
Speaker 5: have to admit I am completely shook, completely shook that

1364
01:12:56,960 --> 01:13:00,200
Speaker 5: Sam Mendez did not win for nineteen seventeen line last

1365
01:13:00,240 --> 01:13:03,679
Speaker 5: year since two thousand and only four Directors Guild Award

1366
01:13:03,680 --> 01:13:07,759
Speaker 5: Best Directors did not align with the OSCARS. Nineteen seventeen

1367
01:13:07,960 --> 01:13:13,000
Speaker 5: was a technical masterpiece, so I'm laying off. She absolutely

1368
01:13:13,040 --> 01:13:17,120
Speaker 5: went for nomad Land, but I won't be betting this category, Katie.

1369
01:13:17,520 --> 01:13:20,040
Speaker 3: So of the long shots I've mentioned so for our

1370
01:13:20,439 --> 01:13:24,439
Speaker 3: this is probably my favorite of the bunch. Chloe Joo

1371
01:13:24,600 --> 01:13:28,080
Speaker 3: one Best Director at the DGAs, which historically should be

1372
01:13:28,560 --> 01:13:32,000
Speaker 3: in her favor and for her chances to win at

1373
01:13:32,000 --> 01:13:32,760
Speaker 3: the Oscars.

1374
01:13:32,800 --> 01:13:34,080
Speaker 4: But as Ben z.

1375
01:13:34,040 --> 01:13:36,160
Speaker 3: Osmer of Oscar Metrics, who we've talked a lot about

1376
01:13:36,200 --> 01:13:39,799
Speaker 3: so far, has highlighted, eighty nine percent of DJA winners

1377
01:13:39,840 --> 01:13:43,280
Speaker 3: go on to win the Oscar two. However, and this

1378
01:13:43,320 --> 01:13:46,320
Speaker 3: is a big however, for of the past ten DGA

1379
01:13:46,360 --> 01:13:49,559
Speaker 3: winners have not won at the Oscars, including Sam Mendez

1380
01:13:49,560 --> 01:13:51,639
Speaker 3: for nineteen seventeen last year, which we just talked about.

1381
01:13:51,680 --> 01:13:53,840
Speaker 4: I think all three of us are shook on this call.

1382
01:13:54,240 --> 01:13:56,720
Speaker 3: This was a category I actually faded Sam Mendez and

1383
01:13:56,920 --> 01:14:00,519
Speaker 3: last year except I went with Tarantino called that correctly.

1384
01:14:01,040 --> 01:14:01,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.

1385
01:14:01,600 --> 01:14:04,920
Speaker 3: There are just two non historical factors that I think

1386
01:14:05,000 --> 01:14:07,120
Speaker 3: could come into play for voters here. The first is

1387
01:14:07,160 --> 01:14:10,759
Speaker 3: that mank was a project started by David Fincher's late father.

1388
01:14:11,479 --> 01:14:13,439
Speaker 3: It's also about the writing of one of the greatest

1389
01:14:13,439 --> 01:14:16,200
Speaker 3: movies of all times, Citizen Kane. So I'll be the

1390
01:14:16,240 --> 01:14:18,719
Speaker 3: first to admit that I have probably leaned a little

1391
01:14:18,720 --> 01:14:22,240
Speaker 3: bit too much on narrative here, but generally I do

1392
01:14:22,320 --> 01:14:27,040
Speaker 3: think that this factors into how voters think about the

1393
01:14:27,120 --> 01:14:30,439
Speaker 3: categories overall and how to award different movies. So I'm

1394
01:14:30,479 --> 01:14:32,559
Speaker 3: play saying a small wager on Fincher.

1395
01:14:33,600 --> 01:14:36,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is the you know, the first runner up.

1396
01:14:36,200 --> 01:14:41,280
Speaker 2: So definitely understand that I was really shook from Mendez

1397
01:14:41,360 --> 01:14:44,280
Speaker 2: last year. And it felt like the same thing with

1398
01:14:44,360 --> 01:14:46,880
Speaker 2: Chloe Joo. You know, went on a Favorites podcast and

1399
01:14:46,960 --> 01:14:49,960
Speaker 2: you talked about and we'll get to this, but you know,

1400
01:14:50,040 --> 01:14:53,880
Speaker 2: fading nomad land for Best Picture and thinking okay, you know,

1401
01:14:53,960 --> 01:14:56,840
Speaker 2: for Best Director, it's a little shakier. You know, Jao

1402
01:14:56,920 --> 01:15:00,759
Speaker 2: has been considered a lot for the the award season.

1403
01:15:00,840 --> 01:15:04,640
Speaker 2: So I went back and I tried to see if

1404
01:15:04,680 --> 01:15:08,599
Speaker 2: we could see it coming with Mendez, and I must

1405
01:15:08,600 --> 01:15:12,400
Speaker 2: say I'm a lot less shook about Mendez after looking

1406
01:15:12,439 --> 01:15:15,400
Speaker 2: into the numbers a little bit more because last year,

1407
01:15:15,439 --> 01:15:21,639
Speaker 2: when Mendez was considered the prohibited favorite, he actually wasn't

1408
01:15:21,680 --> 01:15:25,320
Speaker 2: getting you know, all of the support on gold Derby,

1409
01:15:25,439 --> 01:15:27,680
Speaker 2: like unanimous support, the way he should have been at

1410
01:15:27,680 --> 01:15:31,400
Speaker 2: that favorite Chloe Jao is. But more importantly, again it's

1411
01:15:31,880 --> 01:15:36,360
Speaker 2: these smaller awards shows and they really tell the difference.

1412
01:15:36,400 --> 01:15:41,160
Speaker 2: So last year Sam Mendez was and this is just

1413
01:15:41,280 --> 01:15:44,040
Speaker 2: me counting up the ones that are listed on his Wikipedia,

1414
01:15:44,160 --> 01:15:47,280
Speaker 2: so there could be even more. But I counted twenty

1415
01:15:47,360 --> 01:15:51,240
Speaker 2: other director nominations that Sam Mendez was up for at

1416
01:15:51,280 --> 01:15:53,960
Speaker 2: smaller awards shows, and he won five of them, so

1417
01:15:54,000 --> 01:15:57,280
Speaker 2: he won twenty five percent. For Kloe Jao, I counted

1418
01:15:57,280 --> 01:16:00,280
Speaker 2: twenty five of them this year, and she won twenty rate.

1419
01:16:01,160 --> 01:16:06,080
Speaker 2: Her only losses were at Alliance of Women Film Journalists Awards,

1420
01:16:06,120 --> 01:16:11,000
Speaker 2: where she lost Best Woman Director, What One Best Director,

1421
01:16:11,479 --> 01:16:15,160
Speaker 2: and then a London Film Critics Awards show where she

1422
01:16:15,479 --> 01:16:18,280
Speaker 2: still won Screenwriter of the Year in Film of the Year.

1423
01:16:18,360 --> 01:16:22,880
Speaker 2: So Quloe Jao essentially is undefeated this award season. I

1424
01:16:22,920 --> 01:16:25,760
Speaker 2: think it continues like I'm I was shook Mendez, but

1425
01:16:26,240 --> 01:16:28,599
Speaker 2: I'm not as shock as I was. It's hard for

1426
01:16:28,640 --> 01:16:31,360
Speaker 2: me to have any confidence really in anybody else. I

1427
01:16:31,439 --> 01:16:34,439
Speaker 2: will say, I do think there is some correlation between

1428
01:16:34,439 --> 01:16:38,360
Speaker 2: director and picture, and so you do like an upset

1429
01:16:38,400 --> 01:16:41,840
Speaker 2: for Best Picture with let's say Promising Young Women or

1430
01:16:42,080 --> 01:16:45,960
Speaker 2: min Ree even mank which any one of those nominees

1431
01:16:46,000 --> 01:16:48,200
Speaker 2: that are on the board, I would say, if you

1432
01:16:48,200 --> 01:16:50,880
Speaker 2: can parlay that with the Best Picture win, you would

1433
01:16:50,920 --> 01:16:53,920
Speaker 2: just have ridiculous odds. So that you know I have

1434
01:16:54,040 --> 01:16:56,320
Speaker 2: no problem with that, but I'm back on Klobe Jao train.

1435
01:16:56,479 --> 01:16:59,960
Speaker 2: I'm stam Mendez. That was last year. It's all about Jao.

1436
01:17:00,080 --> 01:17:02,960
Speaker 5: She's money selling me, betting the Jags this fall like

1437
01:17:03,320 --> 01:17:05,080
Speaker 5: that was last week's money. I'm gonna be on Trevor

1438
01:17:05,120 --> 01:17:05,800
Speaker 5: Lawrence this week.

1439
01:17:07,400 --> 01:17:10,320
Speaker 3: My long shot hopes aside, it is very exciting if

1440
01:17:10,360 --> 01:17:12,320
Speaker 3: she does end up winning. I believe she's only the

1441
01:17:12,520 --> 01:17:15,439
Speaker 3: sixth female director to be nominated for this category in

1442
01:17:15,479 --> 01:17:18,840
Speaker 3: Oscar history, So I'm all here for that.

1443
01:17:19,439 --> 01:17:24,120
Speaker 2: Let's get into Best Actor. The five distinguished nominees for

1444
01:17:24,240 --> 01:17:29,000
Speaker 2: Best Actor and a Leading Role are Chadwick Boseman, The Wit.

1445
01:17:29,120 --> 01:17:33,160
Speaker 2: Chadwick Boseman from My Rainey's Black Bottom is the big

1446
01:17:33,200 --> 01:17:36,719
Speaker 2: favorite at minus one thousand, six hundred and sixty seven,

1447
01:17:37,120 --> 01:17:39,679
Speaker 2: and we have Anthony Hopkins from The Father at seven

1448
01:17:39,720 --> 01:17:43,639
Speaker 2: to one, Thank You for Everything, Reesa Meed from Sound

1449
01:17:43,640 --> 01:17:47,839
Speaker 2: of Metal at fourteen to one, Stephen Yune from Minaree

1450
01:17:47,840 --> 01:17:51,080
Speaker 2: at twenty five to one, and Gary Oldman from MANK

1451
01:17:52,120 --> 01:17:52,920
Speaker 2: thirty three to one.

1452
01:17:52,960 --> 01:17:56,320
Speaker 3: Katie, first of all, I've been a Chadwick Boseman fan

1453
01:17:56,479 --> 01:18:00,960
Speaker 3: since forty two. Obviously has become beloved within movie culture,

1454
01:18:01,040 --> 01:18:05,360
Speaker 3: even before his unfortunate and tragic passing. I do believe

1455
01:18:05,400 --> 01:18:08,400
Speaker 3: he has this locked up. I know Colin Wilson has

1456
01:18:08,479 --> 01:18:13,880
Speaker 3: some additional data to offer you in terms of nominees

1457
01:18:13,920 --> 01:18:17,600
Speaker 3: who are nominated posthumously. But that said, there is an

1458
01:18:17,680 --> 01:18:20,480
Speaker 3: argument that there's betting value on Hopkins.

1459
01:18:21,080 --> 01:18:23,600
Speaker 4: Per Oscar Metrics, a British actor.

1460
01:18:23,680 --> 01:18:26,599
Speaker 3: In a British film, which this is, gives a Best

1461
01:18:26,600 --> 01:18:29,920
Speaker 3: Actor nominee a forty three percent chance of winning, and

1462
01:18:30,040 --> 01:18:33,639
Speaker 3: so at plus seven hundred, the odds give Hopkins an

1463
01:18:33,680 --> 01:18:37,240
Speaker 3: implied probability of twelve point five percent of winning.

1464
01:18:37,200 --> 01:18:39,960
Speaker 4: For his role in the Father. But really, what that.

1465
01:18:39,920 --> 01:18:43,120
Speaker 3: Means is that there's a giant edge between those historical

1466
01:18:43,120 --> 01:18:45,800
Speaker 3: trends I mentioned and the actual odds.

1467
01:18:45,880 --> 01:18:48,360
Speaker 5: And look, I get it. Chadwick Boseman's performance in this

1468
01:18:48,400 --> 01:18:53,439
Speaker 5: movie was absolutely fantastic. The intense scene where he states

1469
01:18:53,479 --> 01:18:56,360
Speaker 5: God hates you with all of fury in his heart.

1470
01:18:56,880 --> 01:18:59,840
Speaker 5: Jesus doesn't love you. I heard her say, Jesus help me,

1471
01:19:00,000 --> 01:19:02,240
Speaker 5: and you turned your back on me. I'll cut your

1472
01:19:02,240 --> 01:19:05,479
Speaker 5: heart out. This is pretty powerful shit. It makes you

1473
01:19:05,520 --> 01:19:09,640
Speaker 5: sit back in your chair and the acting is so flawless.

1474
01:19:10,920 --> 01:19:12,840
Speaker 5: It was one of those things where I had to think,

1475
01:19:12,960 --> 01:19:14,839
Speaker 5: let me think of a best actor in my lifetime

1476
01:19:14,840 --> 01:19:17,640
Speaker 5: that had such a powerful scene. I remember just for

1477
01:19:17,760 --> 01:19:20,599
Speaker 5: weeks thinking about Leonardo DiCaprio crawling out of an ice

1478
01:19:20,680 --> 01:19:22,519
Speaker 5: river in the revenue, like, how many takes do you

1479
01:19:22,560 --> 01:19:25,000
Speaker 5: have to do? You can't see gi crawling out of

1480
01:19:25,000 --> 01:19:28,360
Speaker 5: an ice river? He actually did that, right. Matthew McConaughey's

1481
01:19:28,360 --> 01:19:32,799
Speaker 5: body transformation for Dallas Spyers Club ridiculous, just ridiculous levels.

1482
01:19:32,840 --> 01:19:35,519
Speaker 5: And not even Denzel Washington in Training Day had his

1483
01:19:35,640 --> 01:19:39,519
Speaker 5: scene or a line that is what Boseman was able

1484
01:19:39,520 --> 01:19:42,320
Speaker 5: to pull off. Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, with the challenging

1485
01:19:42,360 --> 01:19:45,040
Speaker 5: part of that role could pull off what Chadwick Boseman

1486
01:19:45,120 --> 01:19:48,519
Speaker 5: just did. I get it. There's sentiment that posthumous nomination

1487
01:19:48,600 --> 01:19:52,200
Speaker 5: equals a victory. That's not true. I know that's being said.

1488
01:19:52,240 --> 01:19:55,599
Speaker 5: But only Peter Finch in nineteen seventy six Heath Ledger

1489
01:19:55,680 --> 01:19:57,519
Speaker 5: in two thousand and nine have won the award after

1490
01:19:57,560 --> 01:20:00,640
Speaker 5: passing away. Boseman makes the seventh actor all time with

1491
01:20:00,680 --> 01:20:05,160
Speaker 5: the posthumus nomination. So to throw like the love on

1492
01:20:05,240 --> 01:20:08,760
Speaker 5: Bosa on the love on Chadwick Boseman to throw like

1493
01:20:08,840 --> 01:20:11,280
Speaker 5: some water on it. You still have to pay attention

1494
01:20:11,320 --> 01:20:13,760
Speaker 5: to analytics. You can't get caught up in emotion with

1495
01:20:13,840 --> 01:20:17,040
Speaker 5: all of this. And what needs to have attention is

1496
01:20:17,040 --> 01:20:19,759
Speaker 5: the Baptists. The Baptists are a huge part of Best Actor,

1497
01:20:20,080 --> 01:20:23,800
Speaker 5: particularly when the winner is British, and it's not just

1498
01:20:24,320 --> 01:20:28,559
Speaker 5: any British guy, it's Sir Anthony Hopkins. So the historical

1499
01:20:28,600 --> 01:20:31,599
Speaker 5: records for Best Actor increase for a British actor when

1500
01:20:31,600 --> 01:20:34,960
Speaker 5: the movie is British produced. Look at the Father joint

1501
01:20:35,000 --> 01:20:38,679
Speaker 5: production between the British and French. We have a British

1502
01:20:38,760 --> 01:20:42,360
Speaker 5: actor in a British produced movie. Per Oscar Metrics, that

1503
01:20:42,439 --> 01:20:45,919
Speaker 5: nominee has a forty three percent chance of winning. Anthony

1504
01:20:45,960 --> 01:20:49,000
Speaker 5: Hopkins is the vet by that percentage all the way

1505
01:20:49,040 --> 01:20:52,040
Speaker 5: down to plus one thirty three. I know that's crazy,

1506
01:20:52,240 --> 01:20:53,680
Speaker 5: but let me tell you what I think is going

1507
01:20:53,760 --> 01:20:56,120
Speaker 5: to happen on SAT. There's going to be two crowds.

1508
01:20:56,120 --> 01:20:59,920
Speaker 5: There's going to be the Chadwick Bozeman posthumus crowd vetting,

1509
01:21:00,320 --> 01:21:02,759
Speaker 5: and then there's going to be the Anthony Hopkins crowd betting.

1510
01:21:03,280 --> 01:21:05,760
Speaker 5: And I just think that Hopkins is going to take

1511
01:21:05,840 --> 01:21:07,720
Speaker 5: enough steam on that dog number where it's going to

1512
01:21:07,800 --> 01:21:09,720
Speaker 5: come down, and we've already seen it. I mean some

1513
01:21:09,760 --> 01:21:11,559
Speaker 5: of the numbers we've seen out there. We've seen Chadwick

1514
01:21:11,600 --> 01:21:14,479
Speaker 5: Boseman go from minus twenty five hundred down to minus

1515
01:21:14,520 --> 01:21:17,160
Speaker 5: sixteen hundred, and I don't think that's going to continue. Now.

1516
01:21:17,439 --> 01:21:20,280
Speaker 5: Hopkins odds haven't moved that much, but they're going to.

1517
01:21:20,760 --> 01:21:23,280
Speaker 5: I mean we, I mean there are some experts and

1518
01:21:23,400 --> 01:21:26,640
Speaker 5: editors that are picking Anthony Hopkins, and I think the

1519
01:21:26,680 --> 01:21:29,679
Speaker 5: average casual voter is going to see the name Anthony

1520
01:21:29,680 --> 01:21:33,920
Speaker 5: Hopkins and just automatically write it in as a bet,

1521
01:21:34,000 --> 01:21:36,280
Speaker 5: which is going to move the odds. Money moves the odds,

1522
01:21:36,320 --> 01:21:40,040
Speaker 5: not leaks. So I think Anthony Hopkins deserves a bet

1523
01:21:40,160 --> 01:21:43,800
Speaker 5: based on the value of the number, based on the performance.

1524
01:21:44,439 --> 01:21:46,560
Speaker 5: Chadwick Boseman is the win here, but I'm going to

1525
01:21:46,640 --> 01:21:48,960
Speaker 5: wait to see if Hopkins can eat that number down.

1526
01:21:49,160 --> 01:21:51,320
Speaker 5: If you can eat that number down for me, I'll

1527
01:21:51,360 --> 01:21:54,280
Speaker 5: happily take it. But Anthony Hopkins is a live dog here.

1528
01:21:54,320 --> 01:22:00,400
Speaker 2: Absolutely upset alert. I'm going to open people will get

1529
01:22:00,400 --> 01:22:03,400
Speaker 2: on Hopkins so I can get Bozeman at better odds.

1530
01:22:03,439 --> 01:22:08,519
Speaker 2: Because I'm looking at the predictions and the top twenty

1531
01:22:08,560 --> 01:22:12,240
Speaker 2: four users. So gold Derby also tracks is just high.

1532
01:22:12,479 --> 01:22:15,439
Speaker 2: It tracks predictions of it's like, you know, ten five

1533
01:22:15,439 --> 01:22:18,160
Speaker 2: to ten thousand person user base, or at least you

1534
01:22:18,160 --> 01:22:19,880
Speaker 2: know that's the amount of people that actually enter. They

1535
01:22:19,960 --> 01:22:22,120
Speaker 2: probably have a much bigger user base, but they they

1536
01:22:22,240 --> 01:22:24,639
Speaker 2: they're their top twenty four users. So essentially the people

1537
01:22:24,640 --> 01:22:27,280
Speaker 2: in like the top one percent. They tracked those from

1538
01:22:27,320 --> 01:22:30,120
Speaker 2: year to year as well, and they their number one

1539
01:22:30,160 --> 01:22:34,679
Speaker 2: has never actually lost in this category, and they have Bozeman.

1540
01:22:35,400 --> 01:22:38,160
Speaker 2: We've only seen one exception over the past decade where

1541
01:22:38,600 --> 01:22:41,519
Speaker 2: even the expert or editor, you know, number one choice

1542
01:22:41,560 --> 01:22:44,760
Speaker 2: has not won. It was Casey Affleck in twenty seventeen.

1543
01:22:45,240 --> 01:22:48,080
Speaker 2: But Kasey Affleck didn't just win a bafter that year.

1544
01:22:48,080 --> 01:22:52,080
Speaker 2: He won BAFTA Golden Globe Critics Choice twenty six of

1545
01:22:52,160 --> 01:22:55,519
Speaker 2: the thirty of his thirty two smaller acting nominations that

1546
01:22:55,560 --> 01:22:58,880
Speaker 2: he was up to, and he lost the Screen Actors Guild.

1547
01:22:59,000 --> 01:23:02,240
Speaker 2: So I just don't, like, I know, Hopkins won the BASTA,

1548
01:23:03,160 --> 01:23:05,680
Speaker 2: but I just don't see his body of work in

1549
01:23:05,720 --> 01:23:09,439
Speaker 2: this particular situation matching like because act like you could

1550
01:23:09,520 --> 01:23:11,400
Speaker 2: argue he should have been the favorite like that that

1551
01:23:11,479 --> 01:23:13,920
Speaker 2: the one year where I kind of threw everything off.

1552
01:23:13,960 --> 01:23:16,840
Speaker 2: I mean, he won pretty He won twenty some odd

1553
01:23:17,040 --> 01:23:19,280
Speaker 2: smaller things. He pretty much won at every festival. He

1554
01:23:19,400 --> 01:23:22,479
Speaker 2: won three different precursors. He only lost one. Hopkins me,

1555
01:23:22,720 --> 01:23:24,960
Speaker 2: he really only has the basta. He lost at the SAG,

1556
01:23:25,280 --> 01:23:28,080
Speaker 2: the Golden Globes, the Critics Choice. He only won four

1557
01:23:28,200 --> 01:23:31,439
Speaker 2: smaller acting nominations. So I think it's gonna be Bozeman.

1558
01:23:32,320 --> 01:23:34,719
Speaker 2: I get it with Hopkins, but I just don't think,

1559
01:23:35,360 --> 01:23:37,080
Speaker 2: especially in a year like this, I just don't think.

1560
01:23:37,200 --> 01:23:39,960
Speaker 2: I don't think enough voters will go with Hopkins. Don't

1561
01:23:40,000 --> 01:23:43,919
Speaker 2: bonesman here always agitate somebody with that old philosophy bullshit.

1562
01:23:43,960 --> 01:23:45,920
Speaker 3: You be talking, you stay out of my way about

1563
01:23:45,960 --> 01:23:48,040
Speaker 3: what I do and say I'm a all person.

1564
01:23:48,320 --> 01:23:49,400
Speaker 7: Just let me alone.

1565
01:23:49,520 --> 01:23:54,160
Speaker 2: But go to Best Actress. And here are the nominees

1566
01:23:54,240 --> 01:23:56,800
Speaker 2: for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role.

1567
01:24:00,240 --> 01:24:03,479
Speaker 2: Kerry Mulligan from Promising Young Women at plus one twenty five,

1568
01:24:03,960 --> 01:24:07,759
Speaker 2: Vioa Davis from Ma Rainey's Black Bottom at plus two hundred,

1569
01:24:08,200 --> 01:24:12,679
Speaker 2: Francis McDormand from Nomadwin plus four hundred Andred Day from

1570
01:24:12,840 --> 01:24:16,719
Speaker 2: the United States versus Billie Howiday at plus six hundred,

1571
01:24:16,760 --> 01:24:20,240
Speaker 2: and then Vanessa Kirby from Pieces of a Woman at

1572
01:24:20,360 --> 01:24:22,200
Speaker 2: plus two thousand.

1573
01:24:23,080 --> 01:24:26,000
Speaker 4: Their performances were all outstanding.

1574
01:24:25,600 --> 01:24:29,120
Speaker 2: And before we dive into Best Actress, let's hear from

1575
01:24:29,120 --> 01:24:33,479
Speaker 2: Action Network editor and veteran OSCARS gambler Colin Whitchurch was

1576
01:24:33,520 --> 01:24:37,479
Speaker 2: a very interesting take on how to approach this Best

1577
01:24:37,680 --> 01:24:40,160
Speaker 2: Actress horse race. I don't know.

1578
01:24:40,240 --> 01:24:43,120
Speaker 5: I've had a sinking feeling all night right up till

1579
01:24:43,200 --> 01:24:45,160
Speaker 5: here something about it.

1580
01:24:46,160 --> 01:24:49,120
Speaker 7: By far the most interesting of the major categories is

1581
01:24:49,200 --> 01:24:52,479
Speaker 7: Best Actress. These odds have zigzagged all over the place,

1582
01:24:52,520 --> 01:24:55,400
Speaker 7: and current favorite Kerrie Mulligan's price actually lists her at

1583
01:24:55,400 --> 01:24:58,719
Speaker 7: plus odds for the first time since early February. Shortly

1584
01:24:58,760 --> 01:25:01,200
Speaker 7: thereafter she moved to my one ninety and had been

1585
01:25:01,320 --> 01:25:04,519
Speaker 7: around there until recently when Buzz revealed with Davis changed

1586
01:25:04,600 --> 01:25:08,600
Speaker 7: the game considerably. Davis, whose performance as Ma Rainey was

1587
01:25:08,640 --> 01:25:10,719
Speaker 7: the best acting performance of the year across the board

1588
01:25:10,720 --> 01:25:13,640
Speaker 7: and absolutely deserves to win the award, didn't come out

1589
01:25:13,680 --> 01:25:16,120
Speaker 7: of nowhere, of course, but as recently as mid March

1590
01:25:16,120 --> 01:25:18,479
Speaker 7: she was tracking around the fourth best odds, behind both

1591
01:25:18,520 --> 01:25:22,519
Speaker 7: Francis McDormand and Andre Day, along with mulligan and honored

1592
01:25:22,520 --> 01:25:24,920
Speaker 7: by the Screen Actors Guild lowered her odds but made

1593
01:25:24,960 --> 01:25:27,000
Speaker 7: her far from a guarantee you when you consider the

1594
01:25:27,040 --> 01:25:30,840
Speaker 7: fact that the BAFT is honored McDormand further complicating things

1595
01:25:30,920 --> 01:25:33,479
Speaker 7: is the fact that mulligan wasn't honored by either And

1596
01:25:33,520 --> 01:25:36,560
Speaker 7: there's only been one time in history where the Academy

1597
01:25:36,560 --> 01:25:39,519
Speaker 7: Award Best Actress winner wasn't honored by either the SAG

1598
01:25:39,720 --> 01:25:42,400
Speaker 7: or the BAF does it happened in nineteen ninety four,

1599
01:25:42,800 --> 01:25:44,640
Speaker 7: which just so happens to be the first year of

1600
01:25:44,720 --> 01:25:47,240
Speaker 7: the SAG Awards. I know that's a lot to process,

1601
01:25:47,360 --> 01:25:50,639
Speaker 7: but hang on, there's even more to complicate things. Andre

1602
01:25:50,840 --> 01:25:53,760
Speaker 7: Day was awarded by the Hollywood Forum Press Association for

1603
01:25:53,800 --> 01:25:57,040
Speaker 7: Best Actress Drama at the Golden Globes. The Globes, as

1604
01:25:57,040 --> 01:26:00,240
Speaker 7: you know, split their awards into two categories, Drama and

1605
01:26:00,240 --> 01:26:03,719
Speaker 7: Comedy Musical. But the last time neither of the Globe's

1606
01:26:03,760 --> 01:26:06,240
Speaker 7: Best Actress awards went to the actress who won at

1607
01:26:06,240 --> 01:26:09,320
Speaker 7: the Academy Awards was two thousand and one. That year,

1608
01:26:09,800 --> 01:26:12,240
Speaker 7: Hallie Barry won the Oscar for Monsters Ball, while the

1609
01:26:12,240 --> 01:26:14,960
Speaker 7: Globes went to Nicole Kidman for Mulan Rouge and Sissy

1610
01:26:14,960 --> 01:26:17,759
Speaker 7: Spacek for in the Bedroom. The other time that happened

1611
01:26:17,760 --> 01:26:20,559
Speaker 7: was in nineteen ninety four, the same year The SAgs

1612
01:26:20,560 --> 01:26:22,600
Speaker 7: and baff Does got it wrong. So to sum it

1613
01:26:22,640 --> 01:26:26,519
Speaker 7: all up, Mulligan the favorite, winning this award would mean

1614
01:26:26,560 --> 01:26:29,280
Speaker 7: the Academy Awards Best Actress wouldn't have won at the

1615
01:26:29,360 --> 01:26:33,200
Speaker 7: SAgs baf Does or Golden Globes, something that's only happened

1616
01:26:33,240 --> 01:26:37,200
Speaker 7: once in history, twenty six years ago. Given all the chaos,

1617
01:26:37,240 --> 01:26:39,200
Speaker 7: the best advice I can give is to close your

1618
01:26:39,200 --> 01:26:41,560
Speaker 7: eyes and throw a dart. In other words, this is

1619
01:26:41,600 --> 01:26:44,120
Speaker 7: a chance to take a stab on the best odds

1620
01:26:44,160 --> 01:26:46,680
Speaker 7: available to you at the time among the four actresses.

1621
01:26:47,120 --> 01:26:49,080
Speaker 7: That means a bet on day at plus six hundred

1622
01:26:49,080 --> 01:26:51,320
Speaker 7: at the time of this recording is the best bet

1623
01:26:51,360 --> 01:26:54,120
Speaker 7: I can offer. But the odds are changing constantly, so

1624
01:26:54,160 --> 01:26:56,240
Speaker 7: whichever of the four has the highest odds at the

1625
01:26:56,240 --> 01:26:58,360
Speaker 7: book of your choice at the time of your wager

1626
01:26:58,520 --> 01:26:59,719
Speaker 7: would work just the same.

1627
01:27:00,120 --> 01:27:00,760
Speaker 2: That's it for me.

1628
01:27:01,360 --> 01:27:03,920
Speaker 7: Good luck betting the oscars and back to you guys.

1629
01:27:04,160 --> 01:27:06,639
Speaker 2: All right, So this one is this is I mean,

1630
01:27:06,680 --> 01:27:08,479
Speaker 2: this is it. This is the category right here. You

1631
01:27:08,520 --> 01:27:13,280
Speaker 2: have nobody as a better than even money favorite. The

1632
01:27:13,360 --> 01:27:17,400
Speaker 2: favorite is at plus money Kerry Mugan plus one twenty five. Katie,

1633
01:27:17,400 --> 01:27:19,800
Speaker 2: I'm gonna start with you, who's your best bet for

1634
01:27:19,840 --> 01:27:20,640
Speaker 2: Best Actress?

1635
01:27:21,000 --> 01:27:23,360
Speaker 3: First of all, I agree with what Colin was saying.

1636
01:27:23,720 --> 01:27:25,800
Speaker 3: This is a wide open race, so it really just

1637
01:27:25,840 --> 01:27:28,640
Speaker 3: comes down to what odds are available to you and

1638
01:27:28,680 --> 01:27:30,040
Speaker 3: taking the best ones possible.

1639
01:27:30,400 --> 01:27:32,639
Speaker 4: I also like Andre Day for.

1640
01:27:32,720 --> 01:27:36,960
Speaker 3: Very reasons similar to Colin, History favors actors who play

1641
01:27:37,400 --> 01:27:38,320
Speaker 3: historical figures.

1642
01:27:40,680 --> 01:27:47,520
Speaker 6: There nothing I can't do on nothing I can say

1643
01:27:49,320 --> 01:27:55,400
Speaker 6: set folks don't criticized media, but I'm going to do

1644
01:27:56,560 --> 01:27:57,920
Speaker 6: just as well.

1645
01:27:58,000 --> 01:28:03,760
Speaker 3: To especially in the Best Actress category, and that also

1646
01:28:03,760 --> 01:28:06,640
Speaker 3: applies to Viola Davis. So Oscar Magics actually is a

1647
01:28:06,720 --> 01:28:09,479
Speaker 3: very interesting tidbit for when two of the five nominees

1648
01:28:09,520 --> 01:28:13,559
Speaker 3: have played non fiction instead of fictional characters, you would

1649
01:28:13,560 --> 01:28:16,600
Speaker 3: expect the two nonfiction nominees twin forty percent of the

1650
01:28:16,600 --> 01:28:20,360
Speaker 3: time in a five person field. Obviously, but historically closer

1651
01:28:20,360 --> 01:28:23,400
Speaker 3: to fifty percent of winners who have portrayed real life

1652
01:28:23,479 --> 01:28:26,240
Speaker 3: characters end up winning this when it's a two to

1653
01:28:26,320 --> 01:28:28,120
Speaker 3: three in the five person field.

1654
01:28:28,479 --> 01:28:30,360
Speaker 4: The knock on Viola.

1655
01:28:30,160 --> 01:28:33,160
Speaker 3: Davis is her age, which I know Colin will get

1656
01:28:33,200 --> 01:28:36,879
Speaker 3: into right now, because historically this award has not favored

1657
01:28:37,120 --> 01:28:38,560
Speaker 3: women in their fifties.

1658
01:28:38,880 --> 01:28:39,320
Speaker 2: That' said.

1659
01:28:39,800 --> 01:28:42,920
Speaker 3: We just saw Renee Zellegger buck this trend last year,

1660
01:28:43,080 --> 01:28:46,960
Speaker 3: upset Cynthia Revo Renee I believe, was fifty one at

1661
01:28:46,960 --> 01:28:49,839
Speaker 3: the time that she accepted the award. So I'm willing

1662
01:28:49,920 --> 01:28:54,360
Speaker 3: to bet that if any actress is able to follow

1663
01:28:54,400 --> 01:28:57,840
Speaker 3: in that same path, Viola Davis, who is beloved by many,

1664
01:28:57,880 --> 01:29:01,040
Speaker 3: including the Academy, could follow that same path. So I'm

1665
01:29:01,040 --> 01:29:04,719
Speaker 3: actually splitting my bet on this between Viola Davis and

1666
01:29:04,720 --> 01:29:05,280
Speaker 3: andre Day.

1667
01:29:05,880 --> 01:29:06,120
Speaker 2: Yeah.

1668
01:29:06,200 --> 01:29:08,000
Speaker 5: I mean a lot of those metrics are what led

1669
01:29:08,000 --> 01:29:10,960
Speaker 5: me to my pick, which is Andrew Day. And you know,

1670
01:29:11,000 --> 01:29:13,960
Speaker 5: if you go through the historical analysis, it's what got

1671
01:29:14,040 --> 01:29:16,240
Speaker 5: us on Cynthia Evo of fifty to one last year,

1672
01:29:16,320 --> 01:29:18,200
Speaker 5: that madness that took the number all the way down

1673
01:29:18,240 --> 01:29:20,120
Speaker 5: I think to twelve to one, maybe nine to one

1674
01:29:20,160 --> 01:29:22,960
Speaker 5: at certain books. It got us all pretty excited. And

1675
01:29:23,000 --> 01:29:25,280
Speaker 5: then next thing, you know, I'm looking for my bottle

1676
01:29:25,280 --> 01:29:27,720
Speaker 5: of scotch because I got Renee Zellweger's face up there

1677
01:29:27,760 --> 01:29:29,479
Speaker 5: on top of the stage saying you love me, You

1678
01:29:29,520 --> 01:29:32,360
Speaker 5: really love me, like I just take the award and

1679
01:29:32,400 --> 01:29:35,519
Speaker 5: go all right. I want to say thank you to you,

1680
01:29:35,920 --> 01:29:38,400
Speaker 5: and I can't deny the fact that you like me.

1681
01:29:39,240 --> 01:29:41,439
Speaker 4: Right now, you'll like me.

1682
01:29:42,000 --> 01:29:44,240
Speaker 5: I wanted to cash my ticket pretty bad anyways. And

1683
01:29:44,240 --> 01:29:46,240
Speaker 5: I think the reason we were on Cynthia Rebo is

1684
01:29:46,280 --> 01:29:50,240
Speaker 5: because it fit what oscar Metrics says, play a historical character.

1685
01:29:50,640 --> 01:29:54,160
Speaker 5: So we have two historical characters playing Maul Rainey playing

1686
01:29:54,200 --> 01:29:57,280
Speaker 5: Billie Holiday. So for me, those are the only two

1687
01:29:57,320 --> 01:30:00,840
Speaker 5: that you can really consider in this category. The other rule,

1688
01:30:00,920 --> 01:30:03,760
Speaker 5: don't fall between the age of thirty six and sixty. Yes,

1689
01:30:03,840 --> 01:30:07,680
Speaker 5: Renee Zeltwiger is now a data point on a category

1690
01:30:07,720 --> 01:30:11,599
Speaker 5: that's been around since nineteen twenty nine. The percentages still

1691
01:30:11,640 --> 01:30:15,840
Speaker 5: say the Academy loves to award very young ladies or

1692
01:30:15,920 --> 01:30:20,479
Speaker 5: ladies in their sixties Jessica Tandy, Jennifer Lawrence. Right. I

1693
01:30:20,520 --> 01:30:23,280
Speaker 5: mean that's what we're looking at here. So the rules

1694
01:30:23,320 --> 01:30:27,599
Speaker 5: are don't follow that age range. Play historical character that

1695
01:30:27,720 --> 01:30:31,280
Speaker 5: leads us to Biola Davis and Andre Day. Andre Day

1696
01:30:31,360 --> 01:30:34,559
Speaker 5: is the pick here for me. I love Francis McDorman.

1697
01:30:35,160 --> 01:30:38,720
Speaker 2: Ladies and Generalmenen Academy Award winner Francis McDorman.

1698
01:30:39,240 --> 01:30:41,840
Speaker 5: I mean, your darn tutin Fargo is one of the

1699
01:30:41,840 --> 01:30:45,000
Speaker 5: best movies I've ever watched, you bet you, But shitting

1700
01:30:45,080 --> 01:30:48,200
Speaker 5: on your five gallon drome inside your dingdap van are

1701
01:30:48,240 --> 01:30:51,920
Speaker 5: taking a full frontal bath and a natural spring in

1702
01:30:51,960 --> 01:30:54,879
Speaker 5: between your shifts at the Amazon warehouse and your potato

1703
01:30:54,920 --> 01:30:56,920
Speaker 5: farms is just not it for me.

1704
01:30:57,880 --> 01:30:59,280
Speaker 6: And the Oscar goes to.

1705
01:31:00,479 --> 01:31:03,439
Speaker 5: Day six to one, please that's the andred day.

1706
01:31:03,840 --> 01:31:06,200
Speaker 2: I actually cashed a fifty to one ticket on her

1707
01:31:06,240 --> 01:31:09,759
Speaker 2: at the Globe, So that was my Arivo consolation actually

1708
01:31:09,800 --> 01:31:13,080
Speaker 2: like it just came a year later, but shouts to

1709
01:31:13,120 --> 01:31:17,280
Speaker 2: her amazing when they're at the Globes. This category is

1710
01:31:17,360 --> 01:31:20,760
Speaker 2: so fascinating to be First of all, I think the

1711
01:31:20,800 --> 01:31:27,040
Speaker 2: biggest upset in recent memory have been Olivia Coleman, and

1712
01:31:27,320 --> 01:31:31,680
Speaker 2: that was in twenty nineteen over when close right that

1713
01:31:31,840 --> 01:31:34,360
Speaker 2: was you know, nobody saw that coming. Everyone had close

1714
01:31:34,439 --> 01:31:38,719
Speaker 2: penciled in, the experts zero percent ron Coleman. So again

1715
01:31:38,880 --> 01:31:41,360
Speaker 2: I look back at just you know, what could we

1716
01:31:41,400 --> 01:31:44,679
Speaker 2: have expected Coleman if we were just looking a little closer,

1717
01:31:44,880 --> 01:31:48,200
Speaker 2: And the answer is definitely yes. She won a bath

1718
01:31:48,280 --> 01:31:50,800
Speaker 2: to that year she won a Golden Globe, so those

1719
01:31:50,800 --> 01:31:53,719
Speaker 2: there are two of the four precursors. She also won

1720
01:31:53,840 --> 01:31:58,000
Speaker 2: twenty three smaller awards out of thirty five, so she

1721
01:31:58,080 --> 01:32:00,120
Speaker 2: was winning at about a two to one clip. She

1722
01:32:00,160 --> 01:32:03,080
Speaker 2: did lose at the Screen Actors Guild and the Critics Choice,

1723
01:32:03,280 --> 01:32:06,120
Speaker 2: but here there it gets really interesting. All four of

1724
01:32:06,160 --> 01:32:11,559
Speaker 2: the top contenders, Mulligan, Davis, McDermott and Andre Day, they

1725
01:32:11,640 --> 01:32:16,400
Speaker 2: each have one precursor. So Francis mcdormott won the BAFTA,

1726
01:32:17,000 --> 01:32:20,639
Speaker 2: you have Moogan with the Critics Choice, you have Andre

1727
01:32:20,760 --> 01:32:23,240
Speaker 2: Day at the Golden Globes I just mentioned, and then

1728
01:32:23,360 --> 01:32:27,840
Speaker 2: Viola Davis won the SAG. They don't care nothing about me.

1729
01:32:28,760 --> 01:32:32,400
Speaker 5: All they want in my voice, and they're gonna treat

1730
01:32:32,479 --> 01:32:34,160
Speaker 5: me the way I want to be treated, no matter

1731
01:32:34,160 --> 01:32:35,400
Speaker 5: how much it hurt them.

1732
01:32:35,600 --> 01:32:40,880
Speaker 2: So it's split there. Then it's pretty it's all over

1733
01:32:40,880 --> 01:32:43,040
Speaker 2: the place. With the gold Derby experts. I mean, they

1734
01:32:43,040 --> 01:32:46,840
Speaker 2: have Mulligan as a slight favorite, as do the as

1735
01:32:46,840 --> 01:32:50,000
Speaker 2: do the odds, but they're at like below fifty percent

1736
01:32:50,080 --> 01:32:53,840
Speaker 2: in terms of endorsing her. So then you look at

1737
01:32:53,880 --> 01:32:57,280
Speaker 2: some of the smaller nominations, no one really stands out

1738
01:32:57,280 --> 01:32:59,920
Speaker 2: too much. But mcdormant does have the most at twelve.

1739
01:33:00,720 --> 01:33:04,639
Speaker 2: I have Davis with five, Day with three, and mulligan

1740
01:33:04,680 --> 01:33:07,479
Speaker 2: with seven. So like, I just keep going back and forth,

1741
01:33:07,520 --> 01:33:09,479
Speaker 2: and I just just like, after looking at like so

1742
01:33:09,560 --> 01:33:13,040
Speaker 2: many different data points in charts and trying to model

1743
01:33:13,080 --> 01:33:15,400
Speaker 2: this out, I just decided that it should be we

1744
01:33:15,400 --> 01:33:18,240
Speaker 2: should treat this as twenty five. All four of these

1745
01:33:18,240 --> 01:33:21,000
Speaker 2: main contenders have about a twenty five percent chance. I'm

1746
01:33:21,040 --> 01:33:23,880
Speaker 2: not gonna split heres here. I think it's really truly

1747
01:33:23,960 --> 01:33:25,880
Speaker 2: up for grabs, just like the precursors are split. I

1748
01:33:25,920 --> 01:33:29,760
Speaker 2: don't think there's enough going in any one direction to

1749
01:33:29,800 --> 01:33:31,720
Speaker 2: really even say even with the age thing, I mean

1750
01:33:32,040 --> 01:33:34,960
Speaker 2: six of the past nine have actually been in the

1751
01:33:35,000 --> 01:33:37,600
Speaker 2: thirty six to sixty range. I mean, it's just so

1752
01:33:37,800 --> 01:33:41,240
Speaker 2: hard with this group and what's been happening. So I'm

1753
01:33:41,280 --> 01:33:45,120
Speaker 2: going McDermid at four to one and Andre Day at

1754
01:33:45,120 --> 01:33:47,519
Speaker 2: six to one, simple as that they're both under that

1755
01:33:47,600 --> 01:33:52,400
Speaker 2: threshold of anything better than plus three hundred essentially is

1756
01:33:52,439 --> 01:33:55,240
Speaker 2: what I take for any of those four. So right

1757
01:33:55,280 --> 01:33:57,559
Speaker 2: now you're getting Davis is at you know, she's still

1758
01:33:57,560 --> 01:34:01,280
Speaker 2: at two to one. Mulligan's still the favorite, So mcdormit

1759
01:34:01,680 --> 01:34:03,719
Speaker 2: value there. And by the way, I do think mcdormant

1760
01:34:03,720 --> 01:34:05,679
Speaker 2: and Day had the two best performances. Like that's why

1761
01:34:06,280 --> 01:34:08,240
Speaker 2: I had a long shot on Day at the Globes.

1762
01:34:08,320 --> 01:34:11,479
Speaker 2: But remember the Globes is a smaller awards ceremony. I

1763
01:34:11,520 --> 01:34:13,479
Speaker 2: think it's like one hundred people or something like that.

1764
01:34:13,520 --> 01:34:16,479
Speaker 2: Even under that, not too confident that she'll repeat, but

1765
01:34:16,880 --> 01:34:19,439
Speaker 2: I think the odds are better than six to one.

1766
01:34:19,520 --> 01:34:21,600
Speaker 2: And same thing for mcdormant. I mean, I think the

1767
01:34:21,600 --> 01:34:23,760
Speaker 2: odds are better than four to one. Again, this is

1768
01:34:23,760 --> 01:34:26,800
Speaker 2: the film that that's the talk of the season. This

1769
01:34:26,880 --> 01:34:29,640
Speaker 2: is her film, Like she acted with a bunch of

1770
01:34:29,720 --> 01:34:32,080
Speaker 2: real people, and like I think I believe it was

1771
01:34:32,080 --> 01:34:34,760
Speaker 2: even her that like got everything together with kloe Jao.

1772
01:34:34,880 --> 01:34:37,160
Speaker 2: Like this this is her movie as much as it

1773
01:34:37,200 --> 01:34:40,519
Speaker 2: is as kloe Jao. So mcdormant at four to one

1774
01:34:40,920 --> 01:34:43,639
Speaker 2: great value, Day at six to one, great value. But really,

1775
01:34:43,720 --> 01:34:46,280
Speaker 2: if the odds shift and things go crazy, anyone you

1776
01:34:46,320 --> 01:34:48,519
Speaker 2: could get for better than three to one, I think

1777
01:34:48,600 --> 01:34:54,280
Speaker 2: is worth the bet. Thank you well. And finally it

1778
01:34:54,320 --> 01:34:55,559
Speaker 2: all comes down to this.

1779
01:34:57,320 --> 01:35:01,240
Speaker 5: The best picture and the moment Dijon.

1780
01:35:01,600 --> 01:35:05,320
Speaker 2: No Madland minus six seventy The Trial of the Chicago

1781
01:35:05,439 --> 01:35:09,559
Speaker 2: seven at six to one, Minery fourteen to one, Promising

1782
01:35:09,560 --> 01:35:12,799
Speaker 2: Young Woman seventeen to one, Judas in the Black Messiah

1783
01:35:12,880 --> 01:35:15,760
Speaker 2: thirty three to one, manc Thirty three to one, down

1784
01:35:15,840 --> 01:35:18,880
Speaker 2: to the Medal fifty to one, and The Father one

1785
01:35:19,000 --> 01:35:21,960
Speaker 2: hundred the one. We're probably gonna have a lot of

1786
01:35:22,000 --> 01:35:24,200
Speaker 2: back and forth on this one. This is the category

1787
01:35:24,240 --> 01:35:26,120
Speaker 2: that most people are interested in. We saved it for

1788
01:35:26,240 --> 01:35:29,479
Speaker 2: last how and I'll start with you, what's the formula?

1789
01:35:30,000 --> 01:35:32,200
Speaker 5: The formula for picking Best Picture is to have more

1790
01:35:32,240 --> 01:35:34,479
Speaker 5: nominations than the average of your peers, and the bar

1791
01:35:34,560 --> 01:35:37,120
Speaker 5: of this year is six point three nominations. In twenty

1792
01:35:37,160 --> 01:35:40,840
Speaker 5: twenty one, Mank is leading the pack at ten. There

1793
01:35:40,880 --> 01:35:43,840
Speaker 5: are plenty of similarities between Mank and Once Upon a

1794
01:35:43,840 --> 01:35:45,960
Speaker 5: Time in Hollywood from last year Once Upon a Time

1795
01:35:45,960 --> 01:35:48,880
Speaker 5: in Hollywood. Last year, like had more nominations than anybody,

1796
01:35:49,200 --> 01:35:51,920
Speaker 5: and still it didn't. I think it was fourth on

1797
01:35:51,960 --> 01:35:54,680
Speaker 5: the board in odds for the Best Picture, didn't pull

1798
01:35:54,720 --> 01:35:57,799
Speaker 5: a lot of things. Brad Pitt got the best supporting.

1799
01:35:58,200 --> 01:36:00,360
Speaker 6: I got to add this to my tender profile.

1800
01:36:02,040 --> 01:36:03,880
Speaker 5: And I feel like Mank is kind of falling down

1801
01:36:03,920 --> 01:36:06,679
Speaker 5: that same path. It's a movie about the industry. It's

1802
01:36:06,680 --> 01:36:09,400
Speaker 5: got the total number of nominations. Once upon a time

1803
01:36:09,439 --> 01:36:11,840
Speaker 5: didn't even hold a torch to a movie a powerhouse

1804
01:36:11,920 --> 01:36:14,200
Speaker 5: like Parasite.

1805
01:36:13,120 --> 01:36:16,280
Speaker 2: Make actually reminds me of the other Netflix movie that

1806
01:36:16,520 --> 01:36:18,840
Speaker 2: The Irishman, Like it, doesn't it feel kind of similar

1807
01:36:18,880 --> 01:36:21,320
Speaker 2: where it's like this is that movie, like this is

1808
01:36:21,320 --> 01:36:23,599
Speaker 2: that Netflix movie and it looks great until a bunch

1809
01:36:23,600 --> 01:36:26,080
Speaker 2: of other movies come out and then it's like, I

1810
01:36:26,120 --> 01:36:26,599
Speaker 2: don't know.

1811
01:36:27,000 --> 01:36:29,320
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I mean The Irishman was twenty three hours

1812
01:36:29,320 --> 01:36:31,240
Speaker 5: long too, so I mean you could fit in all

1813
01:36:31,320 --> 01:36:33,880
Speaker 5: seasons of True Detective in that time. So you know, No,

1814
01:36:33,920 --> 01:36:37,880
Speaker 5: mad No Madland did win Best Flick at the Director's Guild.

1815
01:36:37,960 --> 01:36:40,439
Speaker 5: The producers grilled Best Flick.

1816
01:36:40,560 --> 01:36:43,680
Speaker 2: Is that is that we just it's all so, I mean, no,

1817
01:36:43,800 --> 01:36:46,439
Speaker 2: Madland did win Best Picture Best Flick, but that doesn't

1818
01:36:46,479 --> 01:36:47,280
Speaker 2: make it an auto winner.

1819
01:36:47,320 --> 01:36:52,040
Speaker 5: Here, the biggest element after nomination size is having candidates

1820
01:36:52,080 --> 01:36:54,760
Speaker 5: in the big boy categories. And this is where I

1821
01:36:54,880 --> 01:36:58,519
Speaker 5: was just choking on nineteen seventeen. Last year, nineteen seventeen

1822
01:36:58,560 --> 01:37:01,120
Speaker 5: didn't have Best Actor, didn't have Best Actress, Best Supporting,

1823
01:37:01,280 --> 01:37:04,400
Speaker 5: they didn't have the they didn't have the categories that

1824
01:37:04,560 --> 01:37:06,759
Speaker 5: some of these others do. You have to have director,

1825
01:37:06,920 --> 01:37:09,800
Speaker 5: you have to have editing, you have to have screenplay.

1826
01:37:10,439 --> 01:37:14,120
Speaker 5: So with that being said, Promising Young Woman has all

1827
01:37:14,160 --> 01:37:17,919
Speaker 5: three of those categories, with the Best Actress nod to boot.

1828
01:37:18,280 --> 01:37:20,280
Speaker 5: This is my long shot to pick to take down

1829
01:37:20,400 --> 01:37:23,519
Speaker 5: Nomad Land. Give me Promising Young Woman. Buy it now,

1830
01:37:23,600 --> 01:37:27,360
Speaker 5: because the more people learn about how crazy this film is.

1831
01:37:27,479 --> 01:37:30,560
Speaker 5: I mean, Parasite was nuts. Last fifteen minutes of Parasite,

1832
01:37:30,800 --> 01:37:36,599
Speaker 5: Gangbusters batshit crazy. Promising Young Woman batshit crazy at the end,

1833
01:37:36,720 --> 01:37:41,040
Speaker 5: so I feel like we've hit all the big boys. Director, editing, screenplay,

1834
01:37:41,120 --> 01:37:43,760
Speaker 5: Best Actress nod. This is my pick. Take it now

1835
01:37:43,800 --> 01:37:44,840
Speaker 5: before this steam comes in.

1836
01:37:45,400 --> 01:37:47,760
Speaker 3: I really like Promising Young Women too, and I first

1837
01:37:47,920 --> 01:37:50,760
Speaker 3: need to apologize to Emerald Fanell. I left her out

1838
01:37:50,760 --> 01:37:54,519
Speaker 3: when we were discussing Best Director in the context of

1839
01:37:54,920 --> 01:37:56,960
Speaker 3: before this year, there had only been five women who

1840
01:37:56,960 --> 01:38:00,160
Speaker 3: were nominated for this award. This year there are to

1841
01:38:01,000 --> 01:38:04,599
Speaker 3: Koloi Jou and Emerald Fanel. I loved Promising Young Women.

1842
01:38:04,840 --> 01:38:08,080
Speaker 3: That definitely had the wow factor column that you mentioned.

1843
01:38:08,520 --> 01:38:10,479
Speaker 3: It is one of those movies where you don't want

1844
01:38:10,479 --> 01:38:12,519
Speaker 3: to spoil it for other people, so I won't go

1845
01:38:12,640 --> 01:38:15,240
Speaker 3: into details, but I really like this for a lot

1846
01:38:15,240 --> 01:38:15,559
Speaker 3: of the.

1847
01:38:15,479 --> 01:38:17,120
Speaker 4: Reasons you've already outlined.

1848
01:38:17,400 --> 01:38:21,080
Speaker 3: I'm actually splitting my bet again between The Promising Young

1849
01:38:21,120 --> 01:38:24,040
Speaker 3: Women and Trial of the Chicago Seven, So right now

1850
01:38:24,080 --> 01:38:26,200
Speaker 3: I'm just going to focus on making the case for

1851
01:38:26,240 --> 01:38:29,720
Speaker 3: the latter. So while Best Rector is a pretty good

1852
01:38:29,720 --> 01:38:34,120
Speaker 3: predictor of Best Picture aka Nomadland should be the favorite

1853
01:38:34,160 --> 01:38:37,920
Speaker 3: for Best Picture considering historical trends and the betting odds

1854
01:38:38,000 --> 01:38:41,840
Speaker 3: favorite JOW winning Best Director, which we've covered deeply so far.

1855
01:38:42,120 --> 01:38:45,080
Speaker 3: But when history has bucked that trend, there's precedent for

1856
01:38:45,160 --> 01:38:49,280
Speaker 3: the winner of Best Ensemble at the SAG Awards pulling

1857
01:38:49,320 --> 01:38:53,000
Speaker 3: off the Best Picture upset. So since the SAgs introduced

1858
01:38:53,040 --> 01:38:55,680
Speaker 3: the award for a Best Ensemble, which was only a

1859
01:38:55,760 --> 01:38:58,920
Speaker 3: year after they started this was in nineteen ninety five,

1860
01:38:59,280 --> 01:39:02,360
Speaker 3: there have been nine instances that the Best Director winners

1861
01:39:02,400 --> 01:39:06,200
Speaker 3: at the Oscars haven't also won Best Picture, and in

1862
01:39:06,240 --> 01:39:09,800
Speaker 3: five of those nine instances, the upsets were pulled off

1863
01:39:09,800 --> 01:39:13,639
Speaker 3: by films that also had won Best Ensemble at the SAgs.

1864
01:39:14,160 --> 01:39:16,920
Speaker 3: Spotlight was the most recent example of this, which was

1865
01:39:17,080 --> 01:39:19,680
Speaker 3: I think about five years ago, this past year or

1866
01:39:19,800 --> 01:39:23,400
Speaker 3: this year Trial of the Chicago Seven was this year's

1867
01:39:23,400 --> 01:39:26,960
Speaker 3: winner for Best Ensemble, which is why Aaron Sorkins film

1868
01:39:27,160 --> 01:39:29,200
Speaker 3: is again one of the two dogs. I am taking

1869
01:39:29,280 --> 01:39:32,920
Speaker 3: as long shots in this category because the common theme

1870
01:39:33,240 --> 01:39:35,839
Speaker 3: for this category is that we are all aboard the fade.

1871
01:39:35,880 --> 01:39:40,400
Speaker 2: No Mandlam trade, Yeah, Nomad Wind at minus six seventy,

1872
01:39:40,600 --> 01:39:44,600
Speaker 2: that's an implied probability of eighty seven percent. It's the

1873
01:39:44,720 --> 01:39:47,240
Speaker 2: rightful favorite. It should be the favorite, there's no question,

1874
01:39:47,479 --> 01:39:50,760
Speaker 2: but eighty seven percent is really high. And when you

1875
01:39:50,880 --> 01:39:54,400
Speaker 2: consider what's been happening, and again the preferential ballot, it's

1876
01:39:54,439 --> 01:39:57,960
Speaker 2: different or the best Picture. They rank each of the

1877
01:39:58,000 --> 01:40:01,280
Speaker 2: eight films. Then if Benny, if the top one gets

1878
01:40:01,360 --> 01:40:03,759
Speaker 2: more than half the first place votes, it's the winner.

1879
01:40:03,800 --> 01:40:06,760
Speaker 2: If not, they keep taking off the last place one

1880
01:40:06,800 --> 01:40:11,200
Speaker 2: and redistributing the votes so that essentially there's not this

1881
01:40:11,439 --> 01:40:15,760
Speaker 2: like huge disparity between in like some polarizing film ends

1882
01:40:15,840 --> 01:40:19,680
Speaker 2: up winning. And so this has only been around for

1883
01:40:19,720 --> 01:40:22,439
Speaker 2: about a decade, and that's why I think you have

1884
01:40:22,479 --> 01:40:26,200
Speaker 2: to look at recent trends more than ever with Best Picture,

1885
01:40:26,240 --> 01:40:29,120
Speaker 2: and there really are some crazy ones. First of all,

1886
01:40:29,640 --> 01:40:32,000
Speaker 2: No Madwan is the consensus favorite. It's the number one

1887
01:40:32,800 --> 01:40:35,400
Speaker 2: from the gold Derby experts, number one from their editors,

1888
01:40:35,439 --> 01:40:37,320
Speaker 2: even number one from when you look at their entire

1889
01:40:37,960 --> 01:40:41,559
Speaker 2: user base. The number one film the expert number one

1890
01:40:41,640 --> 01:40:44,719
Speaker 2: has lost each of the past five years in Best Picture.

1891
01:40:45,120 --> 01:40:49,000
Speaker 2: The number one film according to the editors has lost

1892
01:40:49,040 --> 01:40:51,599
Speaker 2: in six of the last seven years. And then one

1893
01:40:51,640 --> 01:40:53,320
Speaker 2: of the years it was split so there was just

1894
01:40:53,400 --> 01:40:57,000
Speaker 2: two number ones at fifty to fifty. So and then

1895
01:40:57,160 --> 01:41:00,439
Speaker 2: the number one film as voted by the thousands of

1896
01:41:00,560 --> 01:41:03,439
Speaker 2: users has lost in each of the last six years.

1897
01:41:04,160 --> 01:41:07,400
Speaker 2: No Madwan also won a BASTA. The BAFTA winner has

1898
01:41:07,439 --> 01:41:11,280
Speaker 2: not won the Best Picture at the Oscars six years

1899
01:41:11,280 --> 01:41:13,519
Speaker 2: in a row. Each of the last six years, the

1900
01:41:13,560 --> 01:41:16,280
Speaker 2: first five of the preferential at one all five hasn't

1901
01:41:16,280 --> 01:41:19,920
Speaker 2: won in the last six. So you literally have like

1902
01:41:20,240 --> 01:41:25,280
Speaker 2: all this this data just thing that whatever the number

1903
01:41:25,320 --> 01:41:31,519
Speaker 2: one Hick consensus favorite is, it's literally not what's gonna

1904
01:41:31,520 --> 01:41:35,080
Speaker 2: win at the Oscar. Now. No Madland, I think, I

1905
01:41:35,120 --> 01:41:37,040
Speaker 2: will say this, I think, more so than any of

1906
01:41:37,080 --> 01:41:40,080
Speaker 2: the films of those last five years, I think No

1907
01:41:40,120 --> 01:41:43,080
Speaker 2: Madwan can buck the crend I think it's getting a

1908
01:41:43,120 --> 01:41:45,680
Speaker 2: little bit more support and it is I think the

1909
01:41:45,720 --> 01:41:49,080
Speaker 2: probability is higher than I would have said for nineteen

1910
01:41:49,200 --> 01:41:54,200
Speaker 2: seventeen or a Roma or Wah Wah Land or films

1911
01:41:54,240 --> 01:41:58,360
Speaker 2: like that. But it just hasn't been happening for these

1912
01:41:58,600 --> 01:42:00,679
Speaker 2: for these favorites as it is. And then you look

1913
01:42:00,720 --> 01:42:04,679
Speaker 2: at okay, which films have been winning and no surprise

1914
01:42:05,120 --> 01:42:09,800
Speaker 2: because of the preferential ballot. The number two, the number

1915
01:42:09,800 --> 01:42:12,680
Speaker 2: two films as ranked by the experts, has won each

1916
01:42:12,720 --> 01:42:15,880
Speaker 2: of the past five years. There's been a there's been

1917
01:42:15,920 --> 01:42:18,479
Speaker 2: one foot where there were two number two's, or you

1918
01:42:18,479 --> 01:42:20,559
Speaker 2: could say two number three is whatever you want to

1919
01:42:20,560 --> 01:42:22,880
Speaker 2: call it. The number two film is ranked by the

1920
01:42:22,960 --> 01:42:26,360
Speaker 2: users has won each of the past six years. Uh.

1921
01:42:26,600 --> 01:42:30,439
Speaker 2: And then we have seen two of the last eight,

1922
01:42:30,479 --> 01:42:33,879
Speaker 2: so a quarter have not had a Best Director nomination.

1923
01:42:34,600 --> 01:42:38,720
Speaker 2: What is this all favor Trial to Chicago seven. All

1924
01:42:38,800 --> 01:42:42,080
Speaker 2: of these data points favorite Trial to Chicago seven, which

1925
01:42:42,240 --> 01:42:45,840
Speaker 2: is in perfect position if no Madwaan were to slip

1926
01:42:45,920 --> 01:42:50,679
Speaker 2: up Pril to Chicago seven. It's the film nobody really hates,

1927
01:42:50,720 --> 01:42:53,599
Speaker 2: even if maybe it's not like it's not as it's

1928
01:42:53,640 --> 01:42:57,640
Speaker 2: not as polarizing as a nomad Wan which you know,

1929
01:42:57,800 --> 01:43:00,519
Speaker 2: some people, hey, there was no real plot or whatever,

1930
01:43:00,600 --> 01:43:03,160
Speaker 2: there was, there wasn't a lot to it for some

1931
01:43:03,160 --> 01:43:06,040
Speaker 2: people that didn't appreciate the technical aspects of the cinematography.

1932
01:43:06,360 --> 01:43:09,520
Speaker 2: Then you have Promising Young Women, another film, very polarizing.

1933
01:43:09,880 --> 01:43:12,640
Speaker 2: So for me, Prial to Chicago seven is like that

1934
01:43:12,800 --> 01:43:15,760
Speaker 2: perfect film, which it was actually favored for part of

1935
01:43:15,800 --> 01:43:19,360
Speaker 2: the season. It lost that status. But it's that plus

1936
01:43:19,400 --> 01:43:22,559
Speaker 2: six hundred, it's six to one. That is that's absolutely

1937
01:43:22,640 --> 01:43:24,559
Speaker 2: nuts for a film that first of all, again these

1938
01:43:24,640 --> 01:43:27,719
Speaker 2: number two films, these numbers as ranked by the experts

1939
01:43:27,760 --> 01:43:30,040
Speaker 2: as the number two films in the betting market. Whatever

1940
01:43:30,439 --> 01:43:33,559
Speaker 2: he'sn being the winners proble, the Chicago seven has an

1941
01:43:33,560 --> 01:43:37,240
Speaker 2: implied probability of fourteen percent at six to one, I

1942
01:43:37,320 --> 01:43:39,960
Speaker 2: think that should be it should be at least double that,

1943
01:43:40,640 --> 01:43:46,040
Speaker 2: if not more, and goes through I think Trial to

1944
01:43:46,120 --> 01:43:48,960
Speaker 2: Chicago seven is the number one bet here. And then

1945
01:43:49,000 --> 01:43:52,080
Speaker 2: I think I'm going you guys are going with Promising

1946
01:43:52,120 --> 01:43:55,000
Speaker 2: Young Women. I'm gonna go with Minery as my like

1947
01:43:55,080 --> 01:43:59,040
Speaker 2: long shot hedge with with Trial of Chicago seven. I

1948
01:43:59,160 --> 01:44:03,200
Speaker 2: do think that because, as Colin alluded to earlier, Minary

1949
01:44:03,240 --> 01:44:07,880
Speaker 2: has been ineligible for certain awards in categories we haven't

1950
01:44:07,880 --> 01:44:10,679
Speaker 2: seen Minery go head to head with Problem Chicago seven

1951
01:44:10,840 --> 01:44:15,400
Speaker 2: and Nomad Wind quite as often as we would want

1952
01:44:15,479 --> 01:44:19,080
Speaker 2: to kind of completely discount it. It is getting eleven

1953
01:44:19,120 --> 01:44:22,880
Speaker 2: percent of the gold Derby Expert votes. We have seen

1954
01:44:23,080 --> 01:44:27,400
Speaker 2: about eleven twelve percent of films in that range win

1955
01:44:27,640 --> 01:44:30,160
Speaker 2: at the Best Picture. It did win five of eight

1956
01:44:30,280 --> 01:44:33,880
Speaker 2: you know foreign language International film type awards that it

1957
01:44:33,920 --> 01:44:36,559
Speaker 2: was up for, and it did win three of its

1958
01:44:36,560 --> 01:44:40,360
Speaker 2: eleven Best Picture like actual Best Picture, not foreign or international,

1959
01:44:40,560 --> 01:44:43,800
Speaker 2: but you know film nominations it was, it was in,

1960
01:44:43,920 --> 01:44:46,439
Speaker 2: but it really has been It's been rare that it's

1961
01:44:46,479 --> 01:44:48,360
Speaker 2: been up against, you know, promising a woman in Trial

1962
01:44:48,400 --> 01:44:50,880
Speaker 2: of Chicago seven at the same time. And I do

1963
01:44:50,920 --> 01:44:53,639
Speaker 2: think Minare is another one of those films that it's

1964
01:44:53,720 --> 01:44:57,160
Speaker 2: not very polarizing. I do think that it will probably

1965
01:44:57,240 --> 01:45:00,080
Speaker 2: end up third place. I think like in a lot

1966
01:45:00,080 --> 01:45:03,120
Speaker 2: of people's votes, and I think Proud the Chicago seven

1967
01:45:03,120 --> 01:45:05,600
Speaker 2: will end up second in a lot of votes. So

1968
01:45:05,800 --> 01:45:10,519
Speaker 2: essentially we're betting on Nomad Wan being polarizing enough that

1969
01:45:10,520 --> 01:45:13,720
Speaker 2: that second place winner wins, and then we're hedging with

1970
01:45:14,400 --> 01:45:15,960
Speaker 2: I'm going min to read just because I think it's

1971
01:45:16,040 --> 01:45:19,320
Speaker 2: less polarizing than promising young Women's what you guys think you.

1972
01:45:19,360 --> 01:45:20,920
Speaker 5: Got to get off this mentory? So you're gonna make

1973
01:45:21,120 --> 01:45:24,799
Speaker 5: I'm sitting here, I'm literally while you were going off,

1974
01:45:25,120 --> 01:45:31,080
Speaker 5: cycling through multiple numbers, multiple sites looking for prices, and

1975
01:45:31,160 --> 01:45:33,880
Speaker 5: I will just say that Minory at one place is

1976
01:45:33,920 --> 01:45:36,840
Speaker 5: four to one, another place is twenty two to one.

1977
01:45:36,960 --> 01:45:39,360
Speaker 5: Promising young woman at one place is four to one,

1978
01:45:39,800 --> 01:45:42,920
Speaker 5: twenty to one, and another. So here here's the takeaway.

1979
01:45:42,960 --> 01:45:45,080
Speaker 5: First off, yes, I'm going to go throw a max bet,

1980
01:45:45,080 --> 01:45:46,880
Speaker 5: which I think is going to be limited about one

1981
01:45:46,920 --> 01:45:49,719
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty bucks. But I'm going to get Mintory

1982
01:45:49,800 --> 01:45:52,600
Speaker 5: with you, all right, And I've already taken out my

1983
01:45:53,000 --> 01:45:56,439
Speaker 5: twenty to one promising young woman. So I think the

1984
01:45:56,479 --> 01:45:59,559
Speaker 5: best option here is if you have outs, if you

1985
01:45:59,600 --> 01:46:02,280
Speaker 5: have place is to go. I think you avoid no

1986
01:46:02,360 --> 01:46:05,040
Speaker 5: mad Land. You go trial to Chicago seven, try to

1987
01:46:05,040 --> 01:46:08,040
Speaker 5: get that six to one are better. It's out there, Minory.

1988
01:46:08,600 --> 01:46:10,120
Speaker 5: I don't tend to want or better, Chris.

1989
01:46:10,120 --> 01:46:13,040
Speaker 2: What would you say, right, Yeah, I'm going Minery down

1990
01:46:13,080 --> 01:46:16,240
Speaker 2: to about Yeah, I mean anything in the double digits,

1991
01:46:16,400 --> 01:46:17,880
Speaker 2: yeah yeah, And.

1992
01:46:17,880 --> 01:46:20,000
Speaker 5: Promising young woman is out there at twenty to one.

1993
01:46:20,400 --> 01:46:22,880
Speaker 5: I think this is a crapshoot. I think we absolutely

1994
01:46:22,920 --> 01:46:25,479
Speaker 5: have a chance here to get nomad Land beat and

1995
01:46:25,560 --> 01:46:27,400
Speaker 5: it does not hurt. You want to go zero point

1996
01:46:27,400 --> 01:46:28,720
Speaker 5: three to three units or you want to go a

1997
01:46:28,760 --> 01:46:30,559
Speaker 5: half unit. Put one and a half units out on

1998
01:46:30,600 --> 01:46:33,880
Speaker 5: this like it's a freaking golf bet, you know, like

1999
01:46:34,000 --> 01:46:35,760
Speaker 5: you know, we have to so many golfers to try

2000
01:46:35,760 --> 01:46:38,160
Speaker 5: to win, but you're only spending two units. I think

2001
01:46:38,240 --> 01:46:40,720
Speaker 5: that's the plan here, Listen, I don't we haven't talked

2002
01:46:40,720 --> 01:46:43,840
Speaker 5: about Mank, the father Sound of Metal, anybody. I think

2003
01:46:43,840 --> 01:46:47,120
Speaker 5: no shot at winning here. I don't think Mank is

2004
01:46:47,120 --> 01:46:49,320
Speaker 5: going to get enough outside the Hollywood people that vote

2005
01:46:49,360 --> 01:46:51,400
Speaker 5: just for Hollywood movies don' think they're gonna get enough votes.

2006
01:46:51,479 --> 01:46:54,880
Speaker 5: I don't think anything outside of minory promising Young Woman

2007
01:46:55,200 --> 01:46:57,559
Speaker 5: and the Trial of Chicago has a torch to try

2008
01:46:57,600 --> 01:46:58,479
Speaker 5: and beat nomad Land.

2009
01:46:58,880 --> 01:47:01,559
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree this really quick point. By the way,

2010
01:47:01,760 --> 01:47:04,599
Speaker 3: for the case for the Trial of Chicago seven winning

2011
01:47:04,680 --> 01:47:08,960
Speaker 3: on preferential voting on gold Derby. Of the twenty seven

2012
01:47:09,040 --> 01:47:13,880
Speaker 3: experts that have nomad Land ranked first or sixteen, and

2013
01:47:13,960 --> 01:47:16,880
Speaker 3: of those sixteen, ten have trials second. So I do

2014
01:47:16,960 --> 01:47:19,040
Speaker 3: think that's a really strong argument in the case of

2015
01:47:19,040 --> 01:47:20,160
Speaker 3: trial and.

2016
01:47:20,040 --> 01:47:21,840
Speaker 2: One of the things I should have mentioned on top,

2017
01:47:21,880 --> 01:47:24,360
Speaker 2: but one of my favorite reasons for using this gold

2018
01:47:24,360 --> 01:47:27,880
Speaker 2: Derby data is because even more so than they are

2019
01:47:28,080 --> 01:47:33,240
Speaker 2: accurate at predicting winners among the contenders in each category,

2020
01:47:33,760 --> 01:47:38,720
Speaker 2: they are even more accurate at predicting the non contenders.

2021
01:47:38,760 --> 01:47:42,200
Speaker 2: So if a nominee does not even have a single

2022
01:47:42,720 --> 01:47:46,120
Speaker 2: gold Derby vote, whether it be like an expert or

2023
01:47:46,280 --> 01:47:50,200
Speaker 2: edit or whatever, the chances of it winning are like

2024
01:47:50,280 --> 01:47:53,960
Speaker 2: infotestinally small. Like if you go back over the past decade,

2025
01:47:54,600 --> 01:47:57,800
Speaker 2: I think you can count on under five fingers the

2026
01:47:57,800 --> 01:48:01,160
Speaker 2: amount of times that that's happened, the hit rate on

2027
01:48:01,400 --> 01:48:04,120
Speaker 2: just if something is not if it's getting a zero

2028
01:48:04,439 --> 01:48:07,640
Speaker 2: from gold Derby, you can pretty much discount it with

2029
01:48:08,160 --> 01:48:12,599
Speaker 2: a very high confidence interval. And so when you look

2030
01:48:12,800 --> 01:48:17,040
Speaker 2: right now at the predicted potential winners for Best Picture,

2031
01:48:17,800 --> 01:48:20,759
Speaker 2: the ones that are not getting any of are The Father,

2032
01:48:20,920 --> 01:48:23,479
Speaker 2: Judas and The Black Messiah, Maank and Sound of Metal,

2033
01:48:23,560 --> 01:48:27,719
Speaker 2: And no film has won without at least seven percent

2034
01:48:28,040 --> 01:48:30,400
Speaker 2: of the expert vote. And that's what's kind of got

2035
01:48:30,479 --> 01:48:33,360
Speaker 2: me on Mintory over Promising Young Woman right now it

2036
01:48:33,439 --> 01:48:37,120
Speaker 2: has only three point six percent now if somebody which

2037
01:48:37,160 --> 01:48:39,080
Speaker 2: is their vote, all it would take would be you know,

2038
01:48:39,160 --> 01:48:42,000
Speaker 2: one vote kind of being switched around, and that would

2039
01:48:42,040 --> 01:48:44,599
Speaker 2: climb over the hump. So I'm not completely discounting it.

2040
01:48:44,760 --> 01:48:47,160
Speaker 2: But at this point, you know, we've seen the second

2041
01:48:47,240 --> 01:48:50,799
Speaker 2: ranked film have overwhelming success and we have one instance

2042
01:48:50,800 --> 01:48:52,920
Speaker 2: where they were tied, and you know, Minery kind of

2043
01:48:52,920 --> 01:48:56,919
Speaker 2: fits in the probability range whereas Promising Young Woman doesn't.

2044
01:48:57,080 --> 01:48:59,920
Speaker 2: That's really why you know, we're kind of focused in

2045
01:49:00,120 --> 01:49:02,760
Speaker 2: on the films that we are for each category. It's

2046
01:49:02,800 --> 01:49:06,400
Speaker 2: because that's one thing we can do very reliably with

2047
01:49:06,520 --> 01:49:11,480
Speaker 2: this data. With this gold Derby expert data is removed

2048
01:49:11,720 --> 01:49:15,160
Speaker 2: and eliminate the films that are not in contention, and

2049
01:49:15,200 --> 01:49:16,599
Speaker 2: it makes things a lot easier.

2050
01:49:16,920 --> 01:49:18,559
Speaker 5: Completely agree, let's get this money.

2051
01:49:18,680 --> 01:49:21,879
Speaker 2: Get this money, get contempt for your government.

2052
01:49:22,240 --> 01:49:24,120
Speaker 5: I'll tell you miss the show. It's just nothing compared

2053
01:49:24,120 --> 01:49:25,880
Speaker 5: to the contempt my government has for me.

2054
01:49:25,960 --> 01:49:28,160
Speaker 2: It's a yes and no question. When you came to Chicago,

2055
01:49:28,280 --> 01:49:32,120
Speaker 2: were you hoping for a confrontation with the police, came.

2056
01:49:32,000 --> 01:49:34,360
Speaker 5: You a moment with your friend? I've never been on

2057
01:49:34,439 --> 01:49:36,080
Speaker 5: trial for my thoughts before.

2058
01:49:36,439 --> 01:49:39,040
Speaker 2: All right, that's going to do it for our Academy

2059
01:49:39,040 --> 01:49:44,120
Speaker 2: Awards Gambling Spectacular. All right, you've really made this a

2060
01:49:44,240 --> 01:49:47,519
Speaker 2: night to remember it every way. Now let's go party

2061
01:49:47,600 --> 01:49:51,400
Speaker 2: till dawn. As a reminder, our NFL Fantasy Flex Team

2062
01:49:51,439 --> 01:49:55,280
Speaker 2: returns Monday for an NFL Draft betting preview episode, and

2063
01:49:55,400 --> 01:49:58,960
Speaker 2: we'll also have our Kentucky Derby betting preview next Friday.

2064
01:49:59,720 --> 01:50:02,479
Speaker 2: And check out the Favorites Podcast with Chad Millman this

2065
01:50:02,600 --> 01:50:07,280
Speaker 2: week's Thursday Thunderdome episode. Thanks to bet MGM, the official

2066
01:50:07,520 --> 01:50:10,679
Speaker 2: odds provider of the show. Thank you for listening. Please

2067
01:50:10,720 --> 01:50:13,599
Speaker 2: rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts helps us

2068
01:50:13,640 --> 01:50:17,040
Speaker 2: a lot download, Listen on Spotify, and we'll got you

2069
01:50:17,080 --> 01:50:20,800
Speaker 2: next time. On the Action Network podcast for Katie rich

2070
01:50:20,920 --> 01:50:24,439
Speaker 2: Creek and Colin Wilson, I am Chris Raybon. Good luck,

2071
01:50:24,680 --> 01:50:30,679
Speaker 2: don't forget to get this money.

2072
01:50:34,640 --> 01:50:35,679
Speaker 8: We're finished talking