The Revenant is expected to clean up – winning at least 3 of the 6 categories (Picture, Director, Actor). This will be the year Leo takes his rightful place at the throne & Inarritu claims modern directorial supremacy. Inarritu will move into the ranks of greats like Steven Spielberg & Oliver Stone as a two time winner. Inarritu could become the first director to win back-to-back Best Director awards since 1950 (Joseph L. Mankiewicz) and only the third director ever to do so.
Supporting Actor is the most controversial – Stallone is leading in the model, primarily because the SAG winner wasn’t nominated for an Oscar (Idris Elba – Beasts of No Nation). In fact, only Christian Bale & Mark Rylance were nominated for both the SAG & Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Bookmakers still have Stallone as the favorite to win the award, which isn’t entirely off base, but I suspect this will be a category many could get wrong. (If I was pressed, I’d have to go with Christian Bale as my personal pic – played Michael Burry an investor with Asperger syndrome who has a glass eye in the Big Short)
If a reader wants objective news coverage, shouldn’t it be available? Personally, if I want to get some objective news coverage, I go to the New York Times. It seems I’m not alone: this newspaper is considered an elite news source and has won 112 Pulitzer prizes, more than any other newspaper. It’s the most popular local metropolitan newspaper and has the most popular website of the nation’s newspapers. In this blog post, we try to explore just how objective the New York Times really is.
How can the objectivity of a document be measured?
One way is to compare the target document to other documents that are agreed to be subjective or objective beforehand. For example, movie reviews can be considered subjective. In a review, an author tries to give his viewpoint of the movie, and if the author is trustworthy, people take his viewpoint seriously. On the other hand, a movie synopsis just says what happened in a movie without offering an opinion or interpretation of the events.
How the Producers Guild Awards tie affects our pick
We hate to toot our own horn, but here goes: we correctly picked winners in 5 out of the big 6 Oscar categories last year. We did it using a complex predictive model (that’s “stat geek” speak for a giant, very mathy equation). So we’ve been feeling pret-ty good about our chances for a repeat performance in 2014.
Then, our data scientists got a big surprise (and these guys are kind of hard to surprise)
Double winners—12 Years a Slave and Gravity—were announced at the Producers Guild Awards (PGA) January 19th. This was surprising for two reasons: first, it’s the first tie in the 25-year history of the PGA. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the PGAs have historically been the number one predictor of the Best Picture Oscar winner.
We accurately predicted 5 out of 6 winners in the top categories for the 2013 Oscars: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Director. And we’re back here in 2014 to do it all again.
We weren’t surprised, but we were pretty proud. See, here at Farsite, we use advanced analytics to solve our clients’ business questions. Being “stat geeks” our whole lives, we knew our statistical approach to Oscar predictions made sense.
What we didn’t expect was to blow anyone’s mind.
“I know there is no scientific way of predicting the Oscars®,” said Scott Feinberg, awards analyst for the Hollywood Reporter, when he spoke to the Wall Street Journal about Farsite’s capabilities. He went on to say that statistical models wouldn’t work because they didn’t account for the “underground intelligence” he and other pundits share.