|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 13, 2020 18:38:25 GMT
Except The Irishman actually (though I’m still not predicting it to win). Every other contender missed at least one of the major precursor or nomination or both. (SAG, DGA, PGA for precursors, Director, Acting, Writing and Editing for nominations). While none of these are iron clad they statistically should hurt a films chances. Further showing that since the expansion predicting solely on statistics is outdated.
1917 (no acting or editing nod, no SAG)
Once Upon a Time (no editing nod)
Joker (no DGA or SAG)
Parasite (no acting nod)
Jojo (No Directing nod) was honestly surprised to see this was its only miss
I think the DGA, PGA and SAG will clear things up a bit but predicting the winner on only nominations and precursors at this point is very difficult.
PS. For the record I am predicting Once Upon a Time at the moment.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 13, 2020 18:43:28 GMT
I think 1917 is, on paper, the frontrunner at the moment. There is a possibility that the correlation between Editing and Best Picture is just that, a correlation, but that statistic has proved to be far too strong and indicative in the past for me to dismiss it. But, weirdly, I don't feel like OUaTiH missing Editing has hurt its PGA chances much, and it has to be the frontrunner if it wins PGA.
Perhaps this year will prove, once for all, just how important having an Editing nomination is for a movie to win Best Picture. Should be a very exciting race between 3 (maybe 4) contenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 13, 2020 18:49:34 GMT
I think 1917 is, on paper, the frontrunner at the moment. There is a possibility that the correlation between Editing and Best Picture is just that, a correlation, but that statistic has proved to be far too strong and indicative in the past for me to dismiss it. But, weirdly, I don't feel like OUaTiH missing Editing has hurt its PGA chances much, and it has to be the frontrunner if it wins PGA. Perhaps this year will prove, once for all, just how important having an Editing nomination is for a movie to win Best Picture. Should be a very exciting race between 3 (maybe 4) contenders. “On paper” I would disagree (That would probably be the Irishman, which has missed nothing) with 1917 being in the lead but my point is “on paper” has started to become more irrelevant. 1917 has pretty good excuses for its misses. (One take, small ensemble, young men don’t normally do well in lead actor) But I agree it may be a 4 horse race. I’m going with Once Upon a Time right now because of its strong chances at both writing and acting wins, which has been big in the expanded field era. |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 13, 2020 18:51:37 GMT
“On paper” I would disagree (That would probably be the Irishman, which has missed nothing) with 1917 being in the lead but my point is “on paper” has started to become more irrelevant. 1917 has pretty good excuses for its misses. (One take, small ensemble, young men don’t normally do well in lead actor) But I agree it may be a 4 horse race. 1917 won Best Picture and Best Director at the Globes, though. That's part of the equation too. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 13, 2020 18:56:15 GMT
“On paper” I would disagree (That would probably be the Irishman, which has missed nothing) with 1917 being in the lead but my point is “on paper” has started to become more irrelevant. 1917 has pretty good excuses for its misses. (One take, small ensemble, young men don’t normally do well in lead actor) But I agree it may be a 4 horse race. 1917 won Best Picture and Best Director at the Globes, though. That's part of the equation too. Personally I don’t care much about the Globes. Small group that shares no members with the academy. Also has two BP winners so the stats are skewed. The guilds can make the globes irrelevant on a hurry. |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 13, 2020 19:00:12 GMT
Personally I don’t care much about the Globes. Small group that shares no members with the academy. Also has two BP winners so the stats are skewed. The guilds can make the globes irrelevant on a hurry. With the Globes, it's not so much about the overlap or what they think than it is about the visibility that they can give to an awards contender. The guilds are obviously the most important precursors (well, maybe not SAG after the merger with AFTRA), but the Globes have their place. |
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155 
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 13, 2020 19:03:19 GMT
Meh, I think the editing argument is self canceling
|
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Jan 13, 2020 19:03:23 GMT
I think 1917 is gonna be this year's Gravity.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 13, 2020 19:05:44 GMT
I think 1917 is gonna be this year's Gravity. More like Avatar |
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 13, 2020 19:17:38 GMT
I think 1917 is gonna be this year's Gravity. More like Avatar You mean it loses both BP AND BP?? Pretty please with sugar on top!! |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 13, 2020 19:47:32 GMT
Why not getting an editing nod is such a disadvantage???
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 13, 2020 19:49:52 GMT
Why not getting an editing nod is such a disadvantage??? It may or may not be and might be a coincidence but very few films have won Best Picture without an editing nod. |
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 13, 2020 19:53:11 GMT
Why not getting an editing nod is such a disadvantage??? It may or may not be and might be a coincidence but very few films have won Best Picture without an editing nod. I guess this one will make the difference, then. |
|
