Hey guys - cool off. Aren't we all trying to make money. I play both both sides of the fence - I am a bookmaker but I also bet. There is hard and fast rule to pros. They come in all shapes and sizes. You cant even imagine the diffrence between a pro in the US and one in the UK or Australia.
I do know that the Oscars are one of the few events every year when most books/bookies are out of their depth. Added to that there is a huge discrepancy in prices. Take the Best Actor race - you can play Sean Penn at -150 and now in the UK the exchanges have Murray at as big as +215. The Golden rule is shop around but clearly only with reputable books.
Lets call a truce and concentrate on making money. With the SAG's coming up in just over a week there still may be a sting in the tail to several of the acting categories.
I do know that the Oscars are one of the few events every year when most books/bookies are out of their depth. Added to that there is a huge discrepancy in prices. Take the Best Actor race - you can play Sean Penn at -150 and now in the UK the exchanges have Murray at as big as +215. The Golden rule is shop around but clearly only with reputable books.
Lets call a truce and concentrate on making money. With the SAG's coming up in just over a week there still may be a sting in the tail to several of the acting categories.
Aghashloo wins because of the roadmap to peace theme, she will for sure get a block of voters, and I think Zitwigger rubs enough people the wrong way. I will put more on Jackson and LOTR at post time if there still 1/5 and not higher. those 2 have zero chance of losing.
JP,
Best actress
I certainly agree with your comments re the poster on GD who logically explained why Keisha Castle - Hughes must have huge support in Hollywood. The problem she faces is that Charlize Theron is an ambitious lady who doing everything she possibly can to snatch the statuette. Having said that we have seen big shocks at the SAG's in recent years with both Halle Berry and Helen Hunt being virtually unfancied ( 9-1 and 8-1 respectively) before their victories there before going on to win Oscar Gold.
Best Actor
It is very funny to have 2 actors up for gold who hate awards. I certainly agreed with your assessment a few days ago that Murray may have been ahead but since then we have seen Penn realize that the Oscar is his for the taking and is now playing the game. Certainly Murray is on the drift on the betting exchanges in London while Penn seems to be strong in the market.
Both Robbins and Renee appear to be well clear in the supporting categories partly because of the Academy's annoying tendency to reward actors for their collective body of work over a period of years or to reward somebody who was overlooked for a far better role a year or two earlier. How the hell did Crowe win for that hamming in Gladiator!
The one thing I have learnt over the years is to ignore my own view of a performance ( I saw Whale Rider for the first time last night and thought that K C-H was good but not quite in the class of Watts and I havent seen Monster) but more importantly to look for the signs - anything from the politics to the obvious personal preferences of the academy voters - that a particular nominee is on track for glory.
One can only hope that there are some upsets in the SAG's otherwise we are in danger of having one of the most boring Oscar's in years except of course for Seabiscuit's memorable romp to Cinematography glory!
Best actress
I certainly agree with your comments re the poster on GD who logically explained why Keisha Castle - Hughes must have huge support in Hollywood. The problem she faces is that Charlize Theron is an ambitious lady who doing everything she possibly can to snatch the statuette. Having said that we have seen big shocks at the SAG's in recent years with both Halle Berry and Helen Hunt being virtually unfancied ( 9-1 and 8-1 respectively) before their victories there before going on to win Oscar Gold.
Best Actor
It is very funny to have 2 actors up for gold who hate awards. I certainly agreed with your assessment a few days ago that Murray may have been ahead but since then we have seen Penn realize that the Oscar is his for the taking and is now playing the game. Certainly Murray is on the drift on the betting exchanges in London while Penn seems to be strong in the market.
Both Robbins and Renee appear to be well clear in the supporting categories partly because of the Academy's annoying tendency to reward actors for their collective body of work over a period of years or to reward somebody who was overlooked for a far better role a year or two earlier. How the hell did Crowe win for that hamming in Gladiator!
The one thing I have learnt over the years is to ignore my own view of a performance ( I saw Whale Rider for the first time last night and thought that K C-H was good but not quite in the class of Watts and I havent seen Monster) but more importantly to look for the signs - anything from the politics to the obvious personal preferences of the academy voters - that a particular nominee is on track for glory.
One can only hope that there are some upsets in the SAG's otherwise we are in danger of having one of the most boring Oscar's in years except of course for Seabiscuit's memorable romp to Cinematography glory!
It's the same story every year, though. Every year, people say that "this year is going to be the most boring, predictable year" and, there are ALWAYS upsets!!! Can you think of a year in recent memory where there weren't at least one or two upsets? There were several last year, and, there are several each year.
As for supporting actress, I don't think Zellwegger is anywhere near as close to a lock as you think she is. People didn't like her film, and, for every person that loved her performance, there is another one who hated it, as hammy and overdone. She had a very polarizing performance. Plus, Clarkson and Aghadashloo (especially the latter) have tons of momentum going into this. In fact, I think that, if I were to pick one race where I was almost certain that an "upset" was going to take place, it was this one. There are all the ingredients in place. A film that wasn't well received, a performance that was split down the middle, NO buzz on her part, and TONS of buzz from her competition. All the ingredients there are in place.
As for actress, I agree with you. Theron is the clear cut frontrunner, and, she will probably go on to win this thin (I think she has about a 60% chance of winning this), but, don't count out the young Maori girl yet. I've seen her performance, and Charlize's and, Keaton's and Watt's, and, Keisha's was the finest of the lot. It wasn't the flashiest or loudest, but, in terms of techinical acting, she was the best of the bunch. Tell me that scene where she cries while up on stage didn't make your eyes water!!! Furthermore, do you remember that Julia Roberts single handedly won Denzel's oscar for him a couple of years ago with her very public campaining, for that piece of garbage that was Training Day? Well, she's doing it again....for Keisha. And, so are some other very, very high profile celebrities. Do NOT be shocked if she wins this thing.
JP
As for supporting actress, I don't think Zellwegger is anywhere near as close to a lock as you think she is. People didn't like her film, and, for every person that loved her performance, there is another one who hated it, as hammy and overdone. She had a very polarizing performance. Plus, Clarkson and Aghadashloo (especially the latter) have tons of momentum going into this. In fact, I think that, if I were to pick one race where I was almost certain that an "upset" was going to take place, it was this one. There are all the ingredients in place. A film that wasn't well received, a performance that was split down the middle, NO buzz on her part, and TONS of buzz from her competition. All the ingredients there are in place.
As for actress, I agree with you. Theron is the clear cut frontrunner, and, she will probably go on to win this thin (I think she has about a 60% chance of winning this), but, don't count out the young Maori girl yet. I've seen her performance, and Charlize's and, Keaton's and Watt's, and, Keisha's was the finest of the lot. It wasn't the flashiest or loudest, but, in terms of techinical acting, she was the best of the bunch. Tell me that scene where she cries while up on stage didn't make your eyes water!!! Furthermore, do you remember that Julia Roberts single handedly won Denzel's oscar for him a couple of years ago with her very public campaining, for that piece of garbage that was Training Day? Well, she's doing it again....for Keisha. And, so are some other very, very high profile celebrities. Do NOT be shocked if she wins this thing.
JP
One more thing. Charlize's movie has received a ton of bad press. For example, did you see 20/20 last night? They did a feature on it. The film was horribly innacurate, and, frankly, it was difficult for alot of the same people who are voting, to sit through. Whale Rider is an uplifting film, whereas MOnster is a total downer. Remember too that, the Academy rarely rewards remorseless Monsters (pun intended), especially the women. Kathy Bates won for a role that was almost a parody. Sure, she was a monster, but a pretty funny one (you're a very dirty birdy...LOL). And, Charlize, in her role, is about as bad as one person can get.
These are all factors to consider.
JP
These are all factors to consider.
JP
JC,
I think you are slipping somewhat into the "selling myself on the long shots" trap.
The bad press surrounding "Monster" means nada for its Oscar chances. We have tons of nominees who aren't exactly poster childs of community outreach programs. (Wife beaters, bar brawlers, last year a pedophile atually WON, etc, etc.) Hollywood is somewhat secular and John Stossel whining about how a movie (LOL!) is "inaccurate" is like telling people the ocean has a lot of water. It's what they do.
"Remember too that, the Academy rarely rewards remorseless Monsters (pun intended), especially the women."
Wha-?
1990: Pesci for "Goodfellas" (gangster) and Irons (murderer) for "Reversal of Fortune."
'91: Hopkins for "Silence" (insane serial killer).
'92: Hackman in "Unforgiven" (killer).
'95: Spacey in "Usual Suspects" (killer).
'01: Washington in "Training Day" (killer).
I'd say that's a pretty solid history of rewarding the morally bankrupt.
Also consider how many tmes (8) an actor has won in the past ten years alone for portraying an actual human being. AND factor in their unofficial history of rewarding pretty people who - oh, the horror! - get ugly for the cameras.
If all of these contestants were even money, we'd all bet on Theron without a thought.
Keisha's award nom (IMO, of course) is reward enough. All the previous teen/tween winners at the Oscars were in the Supporting category. I actually think the real dark horse here is Naomi Watts, who has a lot of silent support and also got plenty scummy as a drug addict in "21 Grams."
You also have to love the split-vote theory, where a bunch of fence-straddlers dilute the votes for the frontrunners and someone unexpected winds up taking it. Since Theron is way too expensive, I kind of like Watts here.
I think you are slipping somewhat into the "selling myself on the long shots" trap.
The bad press surrounding "Monster" means nada for its Oscar chances. We have tons of nominees who aren't exactly poster childs of community outreach programs. (Wife beaters, bar brawlers, last year a pedophile atually WON, etc, etc.) Hollywood is somewhat secular and John Stossel whining about how a movie (LOL!) is "inaccurate" is like telling people the ocean has a lot of water. It's what they do.
"Remember too that, the Academy rarely rewards remorseless Monsters (pun intended), especially the women."
Wha-?
1990: Pesci for "Goodfellas" (gangster) and Irons (murderer) for "Reversal of Fortune."
'91: Hopkins for "Silence" (insane serial killer).
'92: Hackman in "Unforgiven" (killer).
'95: Spacey in "Usual Suspects" (killer).
'01: Washington in "Training Day" (killer).
I'd say that's a pretty solid history of rewarding the morally bankrupt.
Also consider how many tmes (8) an actor has won in the past ten years alone for portraying an actual human being. AND factor in their unofficial history of rewarding pretty people who - oh, the horror! - get ugly for the cameras.
If all of these contestants were even money, we'd all bet on Theron without a thought.
Keisha's award nom (IMO, of course) is reward enough. All the previous teen/tween winners at the Oscars were in the Supporting category. I actually think the real dark horse here is Naomi Watts, who has a lot of silent support and also got plenty scummy as a drug addict in "21 Grams."
You also have to love the split-vote theory, where a bunch of fence-straddlers dilute the votes for the frontrunners and someone unexpected winds up taking it. Since Theron is way too expensive, I kind of like Watts here.
Royler, none of the people you mentioned were women, and, none of the people you mentioned are in the category of cold, heartless murderers as Wournos (Theron) is. Gene Hackman was in a western for pete's sake, and, as bad as Hannibal the Cannibal was, there was something loveablve about the serial murderer. Myabe I didn't express myself that clearly, but, none of the characters that you mentioned, not one of them, other than Washington in training day, is in the category of an absolutely detestable person as Wournos was. Not one of them.
JP
JP
Royler, remember that I didn't use the word villain. Becuase, villains are rewarded occasionally (although not frequently women villains), but, rather, cold blooded, absolutely destestable villains, like Denzel in Training Day, where you absolutely despise the character when you walk out of the movie theater. Don't know if I'm expressing myself for you to understand me.
I don't think anyone walked out of the Usual Suspects and felt pure, unadulterated hatred towards Keiser Souzey (spelling?), or even Hannibal Lecter. People may have been frightened by him, but they didn't despise him, necessarrily. Ditto Hackman, Kathy Bates, etc.
Also, let's not forget the trend that says that actors playing the roles of real people (like Eileen Wournos) are also rarely rewarded.
JP
I don't think anyone walked out of the Usual Suspects and felt pure, unadulterated hatred towards Keiser Souzey (spelling?), or even Hannibal Lecter. People may have been frightened by him, but they didn't despise him, necessarrily. Ditto Hackman, Kathy Bates, etc.
Also, let's not forget the trend that says that actors playing the roles of real people (like Eileen Wournos) are also rarely rewarded.
JP
I think bringing it down to "how many times has the academy rewarded people playing cold and heartless people/killers/whatever" is over-analyzing the entire situation. I don't see any of the academy voters coming out of the movie and saying "that was an incredible performance... but what a bad, bad person that was... I won't vote for them.". Some of the Academy may be mindless, but they are intelligent enough to seperate an on-screen character portrayal and a real-life award.
As for Watts -- I was unimpressed with her performance in 21 Grams... I certainly didn't find it Oscar-caliber.
As for Watts -- I was unimpressed with her performance in 21 Grams... I certainly didn't find it Oscar-caliber.
"Also, let's not forget the trend that says that actors playing the roles of real people (like Eileen Wournos) are also rarely rewarded."
That's not at all true...as stated in my above post, there have been 8 actors in the past decade awarded for portrayals of real people.
At any rate, I do understand your point, re: sympathetic villains and real monsters, but keep in mind that Wournos is portrayed as a victim in this movie...tied up, raped, etc.
Granted, my other examples are of roles where people enjoyed the more cartoonish or broadly played bad guys. But it's just too brazen a transformation not to be recognized.
That's not at all true...as stated in my above post, there have been 8 actors in the past decade awarded for portrayals of real people.
At any rate, I do understand your point, re: sympathetic villains and real monsters, but keep in mind that Wournos is portrayed as a victim in this movie...tied up, raped, etc.
Granted, my other examples are of roles where people enjoyed the more cartoonish or broadly played bad guys. But it's just too brazen a transformation not to be recognized.
I've cut and pasted another site's post that might better illustrate my point.
posted Wed February 11 2004 05:35 PM
Here's what I was thinking...
Since Kathy Bates won for MISERY, no woman has won the Oscar for playing a surly mega bitch - A VILLAIN - w/ no redeeming values like Charlene's serial killing lush, Aileen Wuronos.
90 - Bates, a foul mouthed lunatic. It was campy, tho. Charlene ain't no Kathy Bates, after all, and Bates was intentioanlly campy & boisterous while Charlene only comes off that way because of an amateurish production and amateurish talent. In this year, however, the VILLAIN WON!
91 - Jodie Foster, hero woman cop. No villain here.
92 - Emma Thompson, proper English lady. No villain here.
93 - Holly Hunter, mute bride & mother, affectionate & loves music, very gentle. No villain here.
94 - Jessica Lange, housewife. A bitch, but a housewife. No vilain here.
95 - Susan Sarandon, she's a NUN! No villain here.
96 - Frances McDormand, a PREGNANT hero cop. No villain here.
97 - Helen Hunt, small time waitress, mother committed to her sick son, light & heartfelt stuff. No villain here.
98 - Gwyneth Paltrow, a gender-bending wannabe actress who does it all for love. No villain here.
99 - Hilary Swank, a very empathetic character & victim of narrowminded hate. No villain here.
00 - Julia Roberts, girl power! Bitchy but for good reason. No villain here.
01 - Halle Berry, woman on the verge brought into the prospect of a new life after tragedy. No villain here.
02 - Nicole Kidman, celebrated author & deep thinker. No villain here.
And that brings us to our current race. If Charlene wins, it will be the first Oscar in 13 years that goes to someone playing a really disgusting character, a butcher, a hooker, a REAL monster.
If we start traveling further back into Oscar history, you have to go back to '75 to find a VILLAIN that won Best Actress w/ Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEXT. Is she really a VILLAIN, tho?
71, Jane Fonda won for KLUTE, but she was an endearing hooker w/ a heart of gold, no villain. Charlene's heart is black as night, cold as ice, hard as steel. Grizzly.
Ya gotta go all the way back to 58 to find another jail bird who pined for Oscar - Susan Hayward, who WON, in I WANT TO LIVE - but she was falsely accused out of spite! Not a villain!
Then you have 1948 when Jane Wyman - a deaf mute in JOHNNY BELINDA - commits murder to keep her child, and goes to trial for it. THIS is as close as we can get to the murdering sod Charlene plays, and it's not very close at all.
Does anyone REALLY consider Bette Davis in JEZEBEL a villain?
THE SIN OF MADELON CLAUDET (31) saw Helen Hayes turn to crime & prostitution to put her sone through medical school. This is more a story of the things a mother will do for their children, the sacrifice!
No, sweeties, dare I say the Academy has a weak history in rewarding VILLAINS in the lead actress category. That's exactly what Charlene's murdering bulldog is. A villain. If her shooting that poor old man in the head as he begs to be allowed to see his grandchild born didn't make you want to shoot her back, please spit in my glass 'cause I need more ice in this here gin & tonic.
If Charlene wins, she'll be only the SECOND (maybe third) full blown VILLAIN to win the Best Actress Oscar. Only Kathy Bates' psycho is on her page, but baby, Charlene's way out of her league w/ a thespian like Bates.
Hoping the AMPAS sees through the smoke & mirrors of a camp-laden chuckle fest w/ no redeeming values, they'll choose to reward true heart & kindness - dignity! - in Keisha Castle-Hughes.
Hell, all four other gals reach some level of endearment w/ their audience, while Charlene only makes one startle backwards and scream, "LOOK! OMG! SHE AIN'T GOT NO EYEBROWS!"
posted Wed February 11 2004 05:35 PM
Here's what I was thinking...
Since Kathy Bates won for MISERY, no woman has won the Oscar for playing a surly mega bitch - A VILLAIN - w/ no redeeming values like Charlene's serial killing lush, Aileen Wuronos.
90 - Bates, a foul mouthed lunatic. It was campy, tho. Charlene ain't no Kathy Bates, after all, and Bates was intentioanlly campy & boisterous while Charlene only comes off that way because of an amateurish production and amateurish talent. In this year, however, the VILLAIN WON!
91 - Jodie Foster, hero woman cop. No villain here.
92 - Emma Thompson, proper English lady. No villain here.
93 - Holly Hunter, mute bride & mother, affectionate & loves music, very gentle. No villain here.
94 - Jessica Lange, housewife. A bitch, but a housewife. No vilain here.
95 - Susan Sarandon, she's a NUN! No villain here.
96 - Frances McDormand, a PREGNANT hero cop. No villain here.
97 - Helen Hunt, small time waitress, mother committed to her sick son, light & heartfelt stuff. No villain here.
98 - Gwyneth Paltrow, a gender-bending wannabe actress who does it all for love. No villain here.
99 - Hilary Swank, a very empathetic character & victim of narrowminded hate. No villain here.
00 - Julia Roberts, girl power! Bitchy but for good reason. No villain here.
01 - Halle Berry, woman on the verge brought into the prospect of a new life after tragedy. No villain here.
02 - Nicole Kidman, celebrated author & deep thinker. No villain here.
And that brings us to our current race. If Charlene wins, it will be the first Oscar in 13 years that goes to someone playing a really disgusting character, a butcher, a hooker, a REAL monster.
If we start traveling further back into Oscar history, you have to go back to '75 to find a VILLAIN that won Best Actress w/ Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEXT. Is she really a VILLAIN, tho?
71, Jane Fonda won for KLUTE, but she was an endearing hooker w/ a heart of gold, no villain. Charlene's heart is black as night, cold as ice, hard as steel. Grizzly.
Ya gotta go all the way back to 58 to find another jail bird who pined for Oscar - Susan Hayward, who WON, in I WANT TO LIVE - but she was falsely accused out of spite! Not a villain!
Then you have 1948 when Jane Wyman - a deaf mute in JOHNNY BELINDA - commits murder to keep her child, and goes to trial for it. THIS is as close as we can get to the murdering sod Charlene plays, and it's not very close at all.
Does anyone REALLY consider Bette Davis in JEZEBEL a villain?
THE SIN OF MADELON CLAUDET (31) saw Helen Hayes turn to crime & prostitution to put her sone through medical school. This is more a story of the things a mother will do for their children, the sacrifice!
No, sweeties, dare I say the Academy has a weak history in rewarding VILLAINS in the lead actress category. That's exactly what Charlene's murdering bulldog is. A villain. If her shooting that poor old man in the head as he begs to be allowed to see his grandchild born didn't make you want to shoot her back, please spit in my glass 'cause I need more ice in this here gin & tonic.
If Charlene wins, she'll be only the SECOND (maybe third) full blown VILLAIN to win the Best Actress Oscar. Only Kathy Bates' psycho is on her page, but baby, Charlene's way out of her league w/ a thespian like Bates.
Hoping the AMPAS sees through the smoke & mirrors of a camp-laden chuckle fest w/ no redeeming values, they'll choose to reward true heart & kindness - dignity! - in Keisha Castle-Hughes.
Hell, all four other gals reach some level of endearment w/ their audience, while Charlene only makes one startle backwards and scream, "LOOK! OMG! SHE AIN'T GOT NO EYEBROWS!"
Royler and SOS, whether they do it consciously or not, alot of people, from what I understand, didn't even sit through the entire movie, when it was initially being screened. I read somewhere that alot of people walked out part way through the movie because it was so difficult to watch.
And, if 8 people have won in the past 10 year, youa re talking about 40 awards (sup actor/actress, lead actor/actress), and only 8 have gone to actors portraying real people.
Not saying that she won't win. In fact, if she was even money, I would probably jump on her, but, her front runner status is much more tenuous than people think. She is NOT a lock to win this award. Is she the fave? Yes. Will she win? Probably...but not certainly.
JP
And, if 8 people have won in the past 10 year, youa re talking about 40 awards (sup actor/actress, lead actor/actress), and only 8 have gone to actors portraying real people.
Not saying that she won't win. In fact, if she was even money, I would probably jump on her, but, her front runner status is much more tenuous than people think. She is NOT a lock to win this award. Is she the fave? Yes. Will she win? Probably...but not certainly.
JP
