Who do you think will win Best Actor: Chalamet or Oldman

Chalamet was always going to play well with the critics, but Oldman will (barring any controversy) be more of an industry favorite. I also think that Call Me By Your Name will underperform with the Academy. I'm not going to declare a winner yet, but I see a lot of people bailing on Oldman and I think that is really premature.

THE OLD MAN

I could see Chalamet spoiling, just because I don’t think Oldman is widely beloved enough to be given the award just on overdueness.

I can see Darkest Hour it performing way better with Oscar voters than critics ( for a lot of them is the kind of film they detest ) and surprise with a bunch of nominations, incluiding best picture, I can see his thinkings of the world can be a turn off but just watch those interviews on youtube and see what he can do if just talks about his profession, everybody seems to be in ode just listening to him, he's been doing this for decades, maybe is not the first name that comes out in a conversation about great actors working today but many people are aware of who he is. 
While CMBYN is such a critics favourite, I don't see all that passion translate to the Academy, hell, maybe is the Carol of this year. Right now I think Oldman has it.    

The thing is, it was never projected to be a critical favorite. It was always going to be more of an industry player. And Oldman hasn't done terribly thus far; he may be trailing behind Chalet* when it comes to winning things so far, but he's not been ignored, and Oldman has a lot more going for him. He's made it to SAG, the Globes, and I'm willing to bet Darkest Hour performs strongly at BAFTA with nominations. Chalamet's film is actually the one that's underperforming; it's done well to get him this far, but it missed crucial love at SAG. Oldman doesn't need Darkest Hour to perform well overall to win, but Chalamet likely needs the Academy to go hard for his film to do so, because he's a newbie in a category that favors the vets.

EDIT: God, I hate SpellCheck sometimes.

I'm fully aware of the stats.

Oldman was predicted as a critics' favorite by those who think that there's a "follow the leader" mentality of awards bodies to anoint a winner early on. And nobody was talking about Chalamet or his film until it screened, whereas Oldman was predicted the second he was cast, when the only other major contender announced was DDL. But even so, again, Oldman's film is more of what the industry tends to go for over the likes of Chalamet's. Awards bodies historically tend to champion the smaller films and performances, but critics' tastes don't always match with the Academy's.

Yes, there is a chance Chalamet spoils for the win, and he's done quite well to get as far as he has, but he's got far more of an uphill climb than Oldman does. I think for Chalamet to win, he'd have to take at least SAG. But that's the guild that is made up of people who regard Gary Oldman as an acting god, in a role that is absolute catnip for them, and unlike the rest of Hollywood, actors haven't really turned their back on him. I'd be much more keen on Chalamet's chances if SAG had nominated any of his co-stars or the film itself in Ensemble. Oldman doesn't really need the film to do well with precursors because he's got the narrative; all he needs is for people to see it.

He hasn't been lauded much in the past, it's true, but he was also more or less blackballed for over a decade after The Contender and also did a lot of films that aren't exactly awards bait. But he did get in (by the skin of his teeth, it's true) for his least Oldman-y role. I don't agree that Oldman needs his film to be a Best Picture frontrunner to win. The role is the sort of thing they'll fall over to recognize, and he's gotten nigh-universal acclaim. The critics have favored Chalamet, but Oldman's won a few mentions with them, and he's consistently been mentioned any time there are places that release nominations rather than simple wins. He hasn't been overlooked. And even so, judging where a place like Indiana or Vancouver throws their wins means nothing in the industry race. Oldman has the role, he has the acclaim, and dollars to donuts it hits big with BAFTA.

Historically, the odds are in his favor as opposed to Chalamet. If controversy brews in Oldman's camp, then we might see a spoiler, but I see no reason to bail on Oldman just because he hasn't won critics' prizes. The real meat of the race is yet to come.

I'd say Chamalet. The Oscar sometimes surprise and Oldman has not been the apparent winner like we all assumed from the beginning. I think / hope we're for in a big surprise come February anyway.

It's true as many state that critics prizes are something different than the "big" televised awards. It often has been true that they went for different performances. But on the other hand Oldman has never been a darling of the Oscars and seems not exactly loved by his peers. So right now I'd lean towards Chalamet.

Much like Stone and Redmayne, who we also doubted at this point in the race after the first regional grups started handing out their prizes, Oldman was never poised to be a critical sweeper. The SAG underperformance of Call Me by Your Name might prove more telling than we suspect.

I hope not. Chalamet deserves the Oscar for that final shot alone.