Some people are trying to short sell the stats. They think it's all going to collapse, that's why they are backing TR. The stats have TBS a slight favourite, but some people think it and can't win P it s like to win one other award. TBS and "Spotlight" can break that because t a lesser stat to break than SAG Ensemble and screenplay. In recent years, a pattern has been emerging where BP winners have been winning three or four awards and even films with lots of nominations, such as TKS and "12 Years Slave". There seems to be divide between tech films and major category films and the former wins lots of tech awards but the latter wins few including BP. And these anaemic BP winners usually win BP with screenplay. Going from winning four or three to two is not that big of a hurdle, and certainly there in line with recent pattern. I wouldn't think it was possible before the noughties and before the preferential ballot but it's in this era, it seems very achievable.

since 2001 when BAFTA moved to before the Oscar, it has matched BP 8/15. That's 8 right and 7 wrong. In the same period, the "Golden Globe" has matched BP 7/15. BAFTA and GG have missed BP at the same time four times: "The Aviator", "Brokeback Mountain", "Atonement", and "Boyhood". Those four times when BAFTA and GG matched each other but missed BP, the PGA got two right. The two it got wrong were the same as BAFTA and GG, "The Aviator" and BBM. So, when BAFTA and GG match each other but don't match PGA, the PGA winner has won BP: "No Country for Old Men" and "Birdman". Although, both have won the DGA and SAG too. In the same period, BFCA has matched BP 11/15. They have only got four wrong: "Sideways", BBM, TSN and "Boyhood". Those four films won the most critical awards and are more of a critics' films, so it's not surprising that Academy went for something different. Out of six big precursors, the three main guilds, BAFTA, GG and BFCA, TR has won three (DGA, BAFTA and GG), "Spotlight" has two(SAG and BFCA) and TBS has one(PGA). Looking at that you would think, TR is favourite then followed by "Spotlight" and TBS in third. Actually the stats say the reverse. One thing that has become very clear to me is that BBM is the biggest anomaly, in this century at least but probably ever. It had won every single award except SAG Ensemble but lost BP to the SAG Ensemble winner.

The Oscar voters who liked Dances with Wolves , Brave heart , The Patriot , Gladiator are sure to like Revenant ...those folks have not got highbrow tastes in movies ; they just want to go to the movies and see a good action adventure movie and with T R they will be well satisfied

The fact that Inirritu won last year will not hinder them from voting for him again ...it's possible that there is a split like with Gravity and 12YRS but I doubt it

Spotlight is an important movie that has more of a documentary style about it with an unpleasant subject matter ...they aren't going to go for that and ignore TR ,I'm sure

The Big Short could win but by the time the voters have ticked off Inirritu for BD and Leo for B A , it just seems to me that it's highly unlikely they will go for TBS ...well I mean what else it is going to win ?

I hated Dances with Wolves, Braveheart and The Patriot. And I thought Gladiator was okay. But those were all simply straightforward, conventional, and bland historical pictures. But I liked The Revenant.

Like TR or not, I would not classify it along with those: it is far more cinematically adventurous, and is far more of an individual expression of the artistic vision of its creators, than any of those films. Whether or not you liked it (and damn, Inarritu is annoying) does not detract from the foregoing.

Spotlight may be "important" in terms of its subject matter, but it is hardly highbrow. It has no virtues of any particular cinematic kind -- it is simply very nicely written and well acted. That is no small accomplishment, and there is room for good movies of that kind, but it is not "highbrow" and has no relevance whatsoever to the history of cinema.

I'm with you. I hated Dances with Wolves and Braveheart. I was sure I wouldn't like TR but it blew me away

What exactly is your definition of highbrow? Just wondering, because Spotlight certainly fits the actual definition of the word (an adjective synonymous with intelligence). And "no relevance whatsoever to the history of cinema"? Wow, that's pretty impressive that you've figured that out already. Because, you know, usually history is decided a long time after the fact and all.

Wikipedia: "Highbrow" can be applied to music, implying most of the classical music tradition; to literature —i.e., literary fiction and poetry; to films in the arthouse line".

I don't think Spotlight is highbrow. In fact, it's the epitome of middlebrow. It's a well done popular entertainment about an accepted "issue" without cinematic virtues or any particular originality in form or any strong personal artistic vision, but with good acting and good writing and reasonably intelligent in dealing with its story. It's like, to me, Kramer vs. Kramer, or Mystic River, or Quiz Show, all fine movies indeed. But yeah, I am quite confident in saying that none of these films is likely to appear significantly in the index of a history of the art of film.

When you click through on Wiki to the art film page, it says "An art film is typically a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. An art film is "intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal"

Let's see. Is Spotlight:

Serious? CHECK
Independent? CHECK
A film? CHECK
Aimed at a niche market? CHECK
Not at a "mass market audience"? I'd say CHECK
Intended to be a serious artistic work? CHECK (def their intention)
Experimental? NOPE (although it says art films are "often experimental, not always)

It pretty much fits that definition as well. But the actual definition of highbrow is "scholarly or rarefied in taste". Spotlight is ABSOLUTELY a scholarly film. You seem to only apply the word to the aesthetic value of a film and not to the writing or the thematic content of a work. Which seems odd.

I ABSOLUTELY apply the definition to the aesthetic value of film, and much less so to the writing or thematic content of the work. I value most highly films that use, or attempt to use, the medium of film to achieve a singular and personal artistic vision. That is what differentiates a film from a book, or a play, or a TV show.

I value to a much smaller degree films whose accomplishment is "merely" good writing and good acting, but that do not use or attempt to use the medium of film in a striking, personal way. I say "merely" in quotes because I do not think it is a small feat to make a well written and well acted film like Spotlight. I enjoyed it. I think it is a fine movie. It is not, however, to me a particularly original or filmic rendering of its story and themes. It has no distinct personality representing the individual artistic perspective of its creators. Spotlight could have been made by any number of efficient directors.

Sorry, that is just how I "rank" movies. For those reasons, I consider, for instance, Carol, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Donnie Darko, Cache, Mulholland Drive, The Babadook (the most striking and brilliant horror film in ten years), Ida, A Separation, as great films that will be remembered in film history as serious artistic accomplishments.

And to me, Spotlight is a fine, but a lesser achievement AS A FILM. Would it be a disgraceful BP winner? Certainly not. MOST BP winners are not of the first rank as films, in my opinion. 98% of movies made are not of the first rank as films, IMO.

Is TR of the rank of the films I mentioned? -- I don't think so. But it is, to me, more compelling than Spotlight as an effort at an artistic achievement and aesthetic statement. And for the same reasons, TR is to me something quite different from Dances with
Wolves and Braveheart, which is where this conversation, and the comparison, arose.

I thought The Big Short was a mess, but I admired its film-making verve and energy and would therefore rate it higher than Spotlight. I felt like I was being exposed to Adam McKay's personal vision of how to tell that story in film-maker's terms. I don't get any such feeling from Spotlight. And I always have a preference for a film that is challenging and adventurous as a film, but is messy and even something of a failure, than a film that is conventional but very well accomplished simply in its script and acting.

But you think TR is? Maybe in the pretentious and vacuous index.

I struggle with that. I went to TR dreading it, and then found that I was impressed by its vision and the scope of its ambition. I like when films try to do something different, and represent a filmmaker's individual vision, and feel like they were made by a distinct personality, and have some passion to them. I don't think TR was entirely successful, and I don't think it was a masterpiece, and AGI is f-ing annoying, but at least TR was TRYING to do something personal within the medium of film. I admire that, although I acknowledge that to some it might be pretentious. Next to it, most of the other nominated films except MMFR seem small, conventional, something we've seen before.

So in the context of a discussion of whether TR is like Dances with Wolves and Braveheart, two utterly conventional and tedious films, I disagreed with alfred5. Maybe it is pretentious, maybe it is a mess -- I suppose I'd have to see it a second time to think more clearly about it -- but I think it was a challenging and ambitious mess.

I remember pretty well the 2000 race, because that is the year I found this site and started following the Oscar race. I have been steadily reading this site ever since. I have commented very occassionally, because I prefer reading Sasha´s articles and the people´s comments here; and because I highly dislike people's supporting their favorite films by attacking the other films or ridiculizing other user´s comments supporting other films.

I was thinking the other day, if The Revenant is winning, how many instances we have had a best picture winner without a SAG Ensemble nomination and a PGA win? I did some research, and if I did it correctly, it has happened only once (since 1995, when the SAG awards started being handed out) and it was exactly that year: Braveheart was not nominated for Best Ensemble in SAG and did not win PGA, but ended up winning the best picture Oscar, as we all know.

In the last decade or so we have seen many statistics being broken or happening with few precedents:

- More frequent splits picture/director: 2005,2012,2013. (it happened less frequently in the past).
- Best picture without director nominated had not happen since 1989.
- Five non-US directors winning best director in a row.
- Four acting nominees from the same movie (one in each category) had not happened since 1981, and it happened two years in a row: 2012 and 2013.
- Best picture winner without editing nomination had not happened since 1980, it happened last year.

So my final reflection is that statistics are not so relevant nowadays, the voters simply vote what they like and they do not care about statistics....I believe The Revenant has the momentum right now, because it keeps winning awards. You could make a case for all three (Revenant, Spotlight or Big Short) but I guess The Revenant will probably win (not that it is my favorite film).

Sorry for the lengthy comment...but I rarely contribute and I wanted to share my thoughts about this exciting year. The last year I recall full of bombs was 2002 and I would not mind seeing that again :-)

I remember 2000. Great year with fantastic nominees, i personally would pick Crouching Tiger but i can't never be mad with Gladiator that is such a beautiful work made by Scott (poor guy...). About this year, i still have no idea but i hope that they, at least, split the techinal categories between The Revenant and Mad Max...

The Revenant reminds me of Braveheart insomuch the plot is basic and so predictable and some of the lines just corny ; neither are very thoughtful movies , but let's face it the working folks in the Guilds are none too intellectual in their tastes ...if they went for such movies a Braveheart and Gladiator then Revenant will surely appeal to them

"if they went for such movies a Braveheart and Gladiator"

How long ago was that again?...

The evidence for The Revenant winning just isn't convincing enough. That much has got nothing to do with statistics. Your case is weak and based on subjective arguments that are easily contradicted. Like the one above.

I propose we play a game: whatever arguments you come up with, I bet I can come up with two equally valid counter-arguments for each!

(You'll have to wait a while for my reply, though, because I need to go to bed now. I've stayed up much too late as it is. So, take your time and come up with good arguments - you'll need to!)

I'm not interested in arguing how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin ; you folks are in denial , rather like the final conclusions of a homicide investigation when all of the peripheral suspects have been eliminated by a process of Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning , the person who is left , no matter how unlikely ,is the one ''who dunnit ''...The Revenant is the one who done it

The Revenant IS one of the peripheral suspects... :) YOU are in denial.

"I'm not interested in arguing"

I thought so...

It pains me to do this, because I REALLY don't want The Revenant to win (still pulling for Spotlight), but there is certainly some compelling arguments to make for The Revenant winning. DGA/Globes/BAFTA (nothing to sniff at, despite the weakness inherent in missing PGA and SAG) combined with Leo's strength in Best Actor, the fact that some major stats WILL be broken this year no matter what, and the feeling I get that Revenant seems to be the one getting the late breaking momentum at the exact time voters are turning in ballots seems to portend a Revenant win. Big box office doesn't hurt either. Big Short has a very good shot as well, and Spotlight is unfortunately the dark horse at this point.

"Big box office doesn't hurt either."

There's no actual, statistical evidence that it helps, though, either.

"DGA/Globes/BAFTA (nothing to sniff at"

Absolutely! But PGA+ACE+WGA, plus extra screenplay/WGA/SAG Ensemble nominations is clearly a better combination. For me, this is unquestionable. Even if you ignore the missing nominations, I'd probably still go with the PGA+ACE+WGA winner, if it was going against a DGA winner that had lost both of those crucial precursors, while being eligible for both (there's a stat there that I mentioned somewhere else, with only one exception in 26 years - Million Dollar Baby.) Yes, even if the latter had also won the BAFTA and GG Drama (and nothing else all season, mind you!) WITH the snubs... it's not even close.

"and the feeling I get that Revenant seems to be the one getting the late breaking momentum at the exact time voters are turning in ballots"

That's the one argument I accept as 100% valid. That the momentum could trump the stats. I don't believe it will (for various reasons discussed here and elsewhere, by myself and others), but it could, and that is the key argument for the Revenant camp. (Apart from the BAFTA+DGA combo, but that one's trumped by the more important wins and extra nominations - statistically - for The Big Short, as I said.)

"combined with Leo's strength in Best Actor"

To me that's not an argument. So, The Revenant is winning Best Actor - plenty of movies have won that, but not BP. Probably a majority.

"the fact that some major stats WILL be broken this year no matter what"

But that happens at least every other year. It was the same last year, it was the same the year of Argo, arguably The King's Speech (critics awards stats or guild stats were bound to break), etc. - and, again, the least amount of stats, by far (and, actually no really important ones - no industry stats), will break if The Big Short is the winner. And only one if Spotlight wins (the ACE nomination stat.) Unless you consider BAFTA stats key, which I don't. Which is what happens pretty much every year - one big stat, at most, gets a new exception. Not three or more, like with The Revenant...

Sasha takes pride in being a contrarian and go against the flow ; she reminds me a little of the late Christopher Hitchens insomuch that she sometimes allows her beliefs to cloud and impair her judgement and then proudly goes down with the sinking ship

I'm certainly no expert on movies ; in fact I only have a passing interest when they intertwine with politics and history , but it's becoming clear to me that the folks who stubbornly refuse to recognise the inevitability of he Revenant winning have been blind sided by statistics ; If they were to forget completely that Inirritu won last year , then it instantly comes into clear focus that he will definitely win this year !

Statistics are there to be broken ; a million to one events happen every day with accidents, diseases etc ...indeed , life on this planet exists because of million to one chances ; it is the process of evolution.. and no matter how great the chances against an event happening , given infinite time it eventually will happen ...life on this planet ( and probably many others ) exists simply because of a series of one in a million coincidences ..it never took the hand of God , just merely random chance, the process of evolution and infinite time

Indeed , the whole of human history pivots and turns on random chance and mere coincidence

Youtube // War of the Worlds // Jeff Wayne ....The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one AND YET , they still come !

"...she sometimes allows her beliefs to cloud and impair her judgement ."

A person's beliefs are the very foundation of his or her judgement. Beliefs are the basis by which we all assess and make judgements about things.

We all believe whatever we believe and our beliefs help us judge to what to think.

I would be suspicions of people who ignore their own beliefs and offer to "judge things" based on what somebody else believes.

I understand what you're trying to say, but yeesh, what a casually insulting way to say it.

I would not come to your website (if you had one) and tell you that <stong>your judgement is impaired just because we disagree.

I don't get to decide whose judgement is "impaired" and neither do you.

This is roughly the kind of thing (well, not the worst of them, but one of them) I've been getting from Andrew... over and over and over... See! I knew you wouldn't just let it go! Nor should you.

Well then , come next sunday night we are going to find out whose judgement has weight and whose doesn't ...we are trying to predict the winner and some of us are going to be right and some of us clearly wrong ; we will find out shortly

All this bickering between people. Until the ballots are actually counted, NO ONE IS MORE RIGHT THAN ANYONE ELSE. Frontrunners and favorites are in the eye of the beholder.

"Until the ballots are actually counted, NO ONE IS MORE RIGHT THAN ANYONE ELSE."

Some people are acting like The Revenant has already won, and whoever is predicting it has already been proven right. Good luck convincing them!...

I really hope this TBS vs TR war of comments ends.
Anyway, it's all just a week away and it's such an exciting race so we should be happy that this is not an ARTIST, ARGO or a HURT LOCKER year where one film basically sweeped everything (almost).
I'd rather be grateful for the suspense than have a boring dull race

Except for the likely depressing outcome that Revenant sweeps everything

Yes. It's been the most exciting race in years, with not even 2 but 3 top contenders, which has contributed to all the stats debates.

Toots said it best:

No sensible person ignores the stats. And no sensible person slavishly follows them. It's as simple as that.

The most exciting race in a long time, yes, but perhaps one of the weakest groups of frontrunners ever. How The Revenant, The Big Short and Spotlight became the 3 movies fighting for the top prize, especially considering all the other great stuff that could've been there instead, is a mystery.

Quite the contrary! (You seem to be the only one saying that...) I personally think it's the best in a long time, tied with 2012 anyway, my other favorite year. In my top 8 of the year are The Big Short, Room, Brooklyn, The Revenant, Bridge of Spies, and Mad Max. Amazing movies. Same was true in 2012 when we had Lincoln, Amour, Zero Dark Thirty, Silver Linings, Django, and Life of Pi, all in my top 8 as well.

These non-nominated movies are ALL better than The Revenant and The Big Short (Room, Spotlight, Mad Max, Bridge Of Spies and The Martian are better than those two as well):
PHOENIX
CREED
CAROL
INSIDE OUT
BEASTS OF NO NATION
THE HATEFUL EIGHT
SON OF SAUL
ANOMALISA
SICARIO
JOY
MISSISSIPPI GRIND
IT FOLLOWS
STAR WARS EP VII
EX MACHINA
DHEEPAN
THE END OF THE TOUR
STEVE JOBS
YOUTH
GRANDMA
LOVE & MERCY
WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS

In addition to every one of the movies listed above (including Revenant and Big Short), these other movies are also better than Brooklyn:

MISTRESS AMERICA
WHILE WE'RE YOUNG
THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY

Maybe I'm the only one saying this, but I'll keep saying it. LOUDLY. The fact that a bunch of people disagree doesn't invalidate my opinion.

I definitely agree with these:

"CREED
INSIDE OUT
BEASTS OF NO NATION
SICARIO
STAR WARS EP VII
EX MACHINA
WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS"

And I haven't seen these:

"PHOENIX
SON OF SAUL
JOY
DHEEPAN
THE END OF THE TOUR"

Whether Steve Jobs (and 1-2 others) are better than The Big Short, I'm still undecided on...

Phoenix was my favorite of the year.

Oh, no, I definitely plan on seeing it. :) Just after the ceremony (I'm busy trying to finish watching the Oscar-nominated movies I haven't seen yet, until then.)

Absolutely valid! I just find it surprising. I mean, I can totally see how people think The Revenant is garbage, though I disagree. But it's hard for me to see how people miss the brilliance of The Big Short. It's like people missing the brilliance of Goodfellas.

And I also have a hard time seeing how some those movies you mentioned (of those I've seen) are really all that great: especially Inside Out, Beasts of No Nation, Steve Jobs. Though I agree with your high ranking of It Follows and Ex Machina, and I really liked Phoenix too.

The Big Short has about 1/8 of the greatness of Goodfellas, as far as I'm concerned. Inside Out is really fantastic and hard not to like. Surprised you don't. But I get that Steve Jobs is divisive (to me a sign of greatness) and that Beasts isn't everyone's cup 'o tea (also can be seen as a sign of greatness though).

Of course not, it is YOUR opinion. Like everyone else have theirs which is as you suggest, completely valid.

I never invalidated anyone's opinion. Not once.

I didn't say you did. I agreed that a bunch of people disagreeing doesn't invalidate your opinion. I also said that your opinion is valid as everyone else's.

He knows his opinion is completely. That's why expressed it.

Room is certainly great. Spotlight, Mad Max, Bridge Of Spies and The Martian are all really good. The Big a Short and Brooklyn are extremely meh to me. The Revenant is over-indulgent twaddle.

Who are you predicting and how confident are you in that prediction

I agree.

Off topic, but this is a message that should prevent many other such off topic comments from me (and not only) from happening in the future, so I hope you'll forgive me for this one bit of (in my view, necessary) spam!

This Andrew situation has got to stop right now. He continues to ignore my arguments and just repeat the same bullshit over and over, and provoke me every chance he gets. He is an evil troll and, therefore, from now on, he's on 'ignore,' in my book, except for the standard responses I will list below. Whenever he actually brings up something of worth (which he actually does, from time to time), my response will not be a reply to him, but a post of my own addressing his points, as though someone else had made them. If he replies to my comment, he will, again, receive one of the replies below.
I have better things to do with my life than try to get a broken record to stop skipping. I need to devote my time here to the people that make this site great, not the ones that take away from that.

From now on, the only responses he's ever getting out of me are:
- 'SLANDER' (Whenever he claims I said something I didn't.)
- 'BROKEN RECORD' (Whenever he rehashes the same old tired arguments myself and others have already refuted.)
- 'TROLL' (Whenever he's being purposely malicious towards me in some way other than the above.)
- '' (Whenever he's not being malicious towards me - which shouldn't be very often - or I just don't care enough to respond.)
- PLUS quotes (of whatever length I feel is appropriate) from this message, whenever absolutely necessary. Without any comments; just the quotes and the appropriate standard reply, as listed above. He's not getting a single word out of me from now on that isn't included in this message.

Make no mistake - he WILL try to provoke me again. Probably within minutes. And, in his infinite stupidity, he WILL think he has a chance of being successful. In that respect, he'll be proven wrong swiftly and unequivocally. Fun's over, troll!

'TROLL' (Whenever he's being purposely malicious towards me in some way other than the above.)

I don't have time to go look, Claudiu.

If anyone is being malicious toward anyone else, you should all please call it to my attention. If it's a malicious or insulting attack that crosses the line, then we'll delete it.

If the person making those attacks won't stop, then that person can be dealt with in other ways.

By the way, probably best not to call someone a "troll" if the complaint is that he says mean things to you. Calling somebody a troll is not exactly polite either.

You also talk in your comment here about Andrew's "infinite stupidity" -- do you think that's an ok thing to say? I don't.

If you guys want to sling the word "troll" around, I don't care. But then don't be surprised if somebody slings an insult back at you.

You know we like you, Claudiu. You and I have had some personal emails back and forth and we understand each other. It's great to have you here in the comments.

But I'm looking back through the past 20-30 of Andrew's comments and I don't see that he's doing anything very wrong.

I do find that Andrew has pointed out to you that you have called him "delusional, a troll, told I need to get help, get my memory tested."

I'd need to see evidence that Andrew is any more rude to you than you are to him.

From what I see, honestly and truly,Andrew only ever replies to you about once out of every 20 or 25 comments. Usually all the contributions Andrew makes to conversations here have nothing to do with you. From what I see, Andrew gets along fine with everyone else.

Your plan is good though, Claudiu. If Andrew or anyone else bugs you -- you don't have to answer.

If the fact that I quoted some earlier insulting comments (by both of us), in an attempt to be thorough (and not show only my side of the argument), is a problem, then I fully agree that you remove those specific phrases from my comments, and I will rephrase whatever is removed, if necessary, to be 100% politically correct. But NOT the full comments.

past is past, Claudiu. We can just move on, k?

Andrew isn't asking you stop writing what you want to write. He's only asking that you not ask him to stop writing what he wants to write.

And I'm not taking sides. Just trying to keep the peace! :)

(We're not in the habit of deleting whole lengthy comments if there's just a word or two that's too harsh. If ever you see a comment that totally gets tossed it's always a brief piece of poison with no redeeming value and nothing worth saving to salvage) (I'd never trash a long comment that anyone has put a lot of thought into.)

Now, you guys please try to play nice :)

I'm not asking him to stop writing what he wants to write. :) I had been asking him to stop making veiled insults at my expense, in various shapes or forms. He refused, so I decided to ignore him. My two lengthy replies to you were simply attempts at defending myself from the claim that my accusations towards him were unfounded. I believe they were entirely founded, and that's what I was trying to prove.

Again, I don't need you to agree with me, necessarily, that he was being subtly insulting, though that would be nice. :) I just need you to see that it's valid for me to feel that way, given his attitude towards me in the messages I've quoted, and that he's clearly made it personal and hasn't been at all nice to me, to say the least. Other than that, I'm fine. I just wanted to explain my point of view, to you, in particular, since I value your opinion so much. And to whoever else may have been reading his slanderous remarks.

I've been attacked publicly but, sure, only HE should get the right to a rebuttal. This is shameful! (On his part, I mean - I know and trust your sense of justice too much to think you would ever make the wrong decision here.)