Golden Globe Odds

[Susan]

For those who are interested in following the awards.Betting odds taken from BoDog:

PICTURE
3/5   Return of the King - WINNER
11/4  Cold Mountain
9/2   Mystic River
6/1   Master & Commander
10/1 Seabiscuit  
 
Best Actor / Drama
4/5  Sean Penn Mystic River  - WINNER
5/2  Ben kingsley The House of Sand and Fog
7/2  Russell Crowe Master and Commander  
8/1  Jude Law Cold Mountain
8/1  Tom Cruise The Last Samurai    
 
Best Actress / Drama
3/2  Cate Blanchett Veronica Geurin
5/2  Charlize Theron Monster  - WINNER
9/2  Nicole Kidman Cold Mountain
5/1  Evan Rachel Wood Thirteen
8/1  Scarlett Johansson Girl with the Pearl Earring  
12/1 Uma Thurman Kill Bill
 
Best Motion Picture / Musical or Comedy  
1/1  Big Fish
9/5  Lost in Translation - WINNER
6/1  Love Actually  
7/1  Finding Nemo
10/1 Bend it like Beckham
 
Best Actor / M or C
4/5  Bill Murray Lost in Translation   - WINNER
3/1 Johnny Depp Pirates of the Caribbean  
3/1 Jack Nicholson Something's Gotta Give  
8/1  Billy Bob Thornton [i[Bad Santa[/i]
15/1 Jack Black School of Rock    
 
Best Actress / M or C  
6/5  Diane Keaton Something's Gotta Give  - WINNER
5/2  Helen Mirren Calender Girls
3/1  Diane Lane Under the Tuscan Sun
5/1  Scarlett Johansson Lost in Translation
15/1 Jamie Lee Curtis Freaky Friday
 
Best Director / Motion Picture    
1/2  Peter Jackson LOTR: return of the king  - WINNER
7/2  Anthony Minghella Cold Mountain
5/1 Clint Eastwood Mytic River
10/1 Sofia Coppola Lost in Translation
12/1 Peter Weir Master and Commander

 Golden Globe best picture winners have won over 70% of the time for Oscar. Because there are so many categories the odds go down, but they are good indicators of who will be nominated. No fantasy film has ever won an oscar. Films rarely acknowledged are horror, comedies and fantasy by the über-conservative academy where alot of personal favoratism and prejudices reside.

All I know is if seabiscuit wins i'm going to cut my wrists!



Post Edited (01-26-04 19:19)

[raj]

My guesses (not that I agree with my predictions):
Picture:
Return of the King
Actor
Sean Penn (the globies are by the Hollywood foreign press, and Sean went to baghdad to schmooze with Saddam)
Actress:
Nicole Kidman
Director:
Peter Jackson

And because Billy Murray is up there, I'll resurrect his SNL comment for the lesser categories:  "Who cares"

[The Burgomaster]

Hmmmm . . . looks like GIGLI didn't make the list . . .

[Susan]

>>Hmmmm . . . looks like GIGLI didn't make the list <<

maybe it'll sweep the mtv awards...

[raj]

Have any of the actors actually shown up at the Razzies?  It seems to me an actor would get some mileage out of actually admitting that their movie sucked.

[dean]

Yeah I remember someone actually recieved a Razzie once, maybe Tom Green for Freddy got Fingered.

Don't think he got that much mileage though...

Go Bill Murray for best actor; I watched Lost In Translation today and it and he was pretty damn good [though haven't really seen the other nominees so they could be better!]

It would be cool if Scarlet Johanssen won two best actress awards, just because of the very idea.

[Grumpy Guy]

I'm hoping for Retun of the King for best picture and Peter Jackson for best director.  Pretty stiff competition, though.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Some interesting choices. At least I've seen some of them this time. I think "LOTR: Return of the King" better be satisfied with the Golden Globe, if it wins, for best picture. I wouldn't bet on it for an Oscar. (1) The Academy usually does not vote for genera films for Besst Picture. (2)If the Academy does the right thing, there are probably pictures out there more worthy of the honor, such as "American Splendor," "Lost in Translation," "Mystic River," etc.

[Susan]

>>The Academy usually does not vote for genera films for Besst Picture<<

There are exceptions, the year "Titanic" won was interesting since that movie was more of a pop culture phenomenon that grossed bazillions. Considering those against it were "Good will hunting", "La confidential" (a critic favorite), "The full monty" ( a popular small pic) and "as good as it gets" - a nicholson film. While it was a favorite film that year I don't think the oscars gives our awards to the favorites, lastly a cameron big budget film with hearthrob actors..lol

One never knows - some years i feel there's an overwhelming pressure on them to deliver what we want. I think LOTR 3 is a very strong contender this year with good reason, it reminds us of the very reason we go to the movies...to be swept away in a fantasy. While nominated i would have never given the oscar to the last 2 LOTR films - but this one I think would deserve it. I think it'll be upsetting if it goes for a lesser popular film because of strong performances (overall i feel the film must be equally as strong as the actors in it) I was horified the year "shakespeare in love" won over "Saving private ryan" and "Life is beautiful" (the last two were two very unique and memorable viewing experiences while the winner was the dull obvious choice)

While often i'll totally back up a small film that is extraordinary over a more "popular" film up for an oscar, I don't think we can dismiss this one. I always have to remind myself that the oscars should also be about what we love. While spiderman may gross a billion dollars it's by no means an oscar film so gross isn't what i mean but popularity, something that really stands out. I'm glad the fantasy genre is being acknowledged and i think it would be the bold move to pick it over an easy critic favorite that audiences didn't quite embrace like "seabiscuit"



Post Edited (01-04-04 15:56)

[jmc]

I think the only chance ROTK would have is if there's a weak field overall.   I think the first film probably had the best chance of winning--that was a pretty bad year for films and a lot of the better ones that year didn't even get nominated.

TITANIC is one of those that history has already started to turn its back on.  The academy got swept up in the mass hysteria, though some of it also was that again, there wasn't a very strong field of nominees.   The academy might be hesitant to go for another blockbuster--particularly a genre film.

Sean Astin might pick up a nomination for acting, but I wouldn't be surprised if ROTK doesn't do any better than the previous two films on Oscar night.  

What I really hope is that AMERICAN SPLENDOR wins some kind of award, because it was the best film I saw in 2003, bar none.

[Vermin Boy]

Freddy vs. Jason was robbed! ;)

[BoyScoutKevin]

If one looks at the DGA (Director Guild Association) nominations for best director: "Lost in Translation," "LOTR: Return of the King," "Master and Commander," "Mystic River," and "Seabiscuit," I think you'll see the five films nominated for Best Picture. Though, "Cold Mountain" may take the place of "Seabiscuit."

I think the age factor comes into play in regards to "LOTR: Return of the King." The critics group made up of the newspaper, radio, and television critics in the metropolitan area where I live picked "LOTR: Return of the King," as the best film of the year. Now I don't know who all of them are, but, I can bet most of them are younger then I am. Now compare this to Roger Ebert's selections, who I know is older then I am. While he liked "LOTR: Return of the King," it was not his best picture of the year. I don't think it even made his top ten.

Something else about the Oscars. While most years, the Best Director and the Best Film are for the same film, there maybe a split decision like last year. The Best Director and Best Film going to two different films. Especially if "Mystic River" wins for Best Film. As Clint Eastwood already has his Best Director Oscar for "The Unforgiven," the Academy may give this year's Best Director to Sophia Coppola for her "Lost in Translation." If only to honor all the women directors who have labored tiredlessly, if anonymously, in Hollywood.

[Susan]

>>Though, "Cold Mountain" may take the place of "Seabiscuit."
<<

Let's hope.  I saw "Cold Mountain" yesterday and it's really well done.  I don't want seabiscuit to be the dark horse that wins by a nose

Now I can't imagine them not nominationg LOTR or peter jackson. But I also wonder what other categories it may be up for (the main ones, not score and cinematography and all that). Is sean astin a longshot? It was really his movie

one thing i hate about oscars is token awards, when they give someone an award to satisfy others, but not always deservedly so. Then again the oscars have always been a pretty biased award show. I only have high hopes for it, and it is also a great platform for lesser known films to get the spotlight and draw audience members to a film they may otherwise have never seen. People need to broaden their taste

[trekgeezer]

It doesn't matter what we think, the fix in already.

My one question about  these awards: How can a film win best picture and the director not automatically win ?  I know that in the Academy that different folks vote for these things, but doesn't  make sense how one can win  without the other.

[jmc]

It's happened before....Spielberg won best director for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN but SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE got best picture.  But they always say that if a movie doesn't get nominated in both Director and Best Picture that there's no way it can win Best Picture.  

There might have been one other recent one where Best Director didn't match Best Picutre--might have been Stephen Soderberg but I don't remember.  It was the year he got two nominations for TRAFFIC and ERIN BROCKOVICH.  Or maybe he didn't win.  I need to look it up.

I think in the case of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN some people admired Spielberg's work but the movie itself might have turned people off for various reasons.   I personally thought SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE was a better movie.  

I've heard that the Golden Globes don't have quite the integrity of the Oscars because more of the voters are foreign and the studios basically wine and dine them into voting one way or another.   There was some expose of it on television recently.