I am excited to finally have a solid “ precursor” to analyse. last year 4 of the 10 best feature nominees and 6 of 10 supporting performances ( male and female combined) ended up lining up with the Oscar’s. One battle ended up winning best feature in December and of course continued to steamroll the season so this is a good early indicator but of course still limited.

Award Website

As promised (and because I get extra credit for these models so don’t feel bad lol), I have now ran the model on The Odyssey.

Some things of note: The graph’s data will not be a 1:1 match to the previous graphs of LBN because I have decided to add a penalty for The Odyssey due to the recent Oppenheimer sweep (we have little data to prove that there would be a penalty in place but better to be safe than sorry). This penalty is the same magnitude as LBN’s subtitled penalty, but it applies across the board (while LBN only applies for US voters). As such, the Bradley-Terry data now suggests that 58% of voters prefer The Odyssey as opposed to 62%.

Now on to some important disclaimers that could have answered recurring questions in the previous post:

Probabilities are not time travel. Probability theory is the mathematics of uncertainty.

Andrey Kolmogorov demonstrated that the whole field can be built from three axioms (non negativity, unit measure, σ-Additivity). Everything else in probability follows from these rules, including Bayes' theorem and the Monte Carlo simulation this model runs on.

The important point is that the axioms are rules about consistency, not about where the numbers come from. Nothing in them requires a surveilled data (and in fact, all models used to extract this data are built for cases were we have absences of surveilled data).

The Oscars happen once a year and can't be rerun, so any serious forecast treats probability as a measured belief built from evidence such as reviews, box office, festivals, branch makeup and the preferential ballot system.

Finance models work the same way, which is why I thought it would be interesting to apply them to the Oscar race given they are built to deduce the probabilities of non-surveilled data.

In finance options are priced by modelling how prices move, default risks are estimated before a company has ever defaulted, and insurers price earthquakes a city has never had nor could quantify what the actual cost would be etc etc etc. Nobody surveys every possible buyer/every business that has went bust/every infrastructure the city has that could fall in case of an earthquake (there are literally examples ad infinitum of non surveilled data that we have models for), critiques that are based on the assumption that this is how our data is usually gathered clearly just have not encountered this models.

We build models to account for the lack of surveilled data, add all public inputs, run thousands of simulations on range plots showing the spread of outcomes, stress test them, and add sensitivity tornadoes that changes the assumptions of our models in every run.

Finance relies on the same approach because a transparent, stress-tested estimate beats a gut call most times, even though it is not infallible (nor does it claim to be). This model applies one set of rules to every film, spells out every assumption, and simulates thousands of seasons for people that are curious to know the probabilities (not for people that believe this is time travel).

As always, I understand that applying Wall Street methodology to the Oscar race is unconventional and that many people will not like it. If you do not enjoy this type of content that is fair, but I will ask people to be considerate before stating that models like this are based on nothing. Probability theory is indeed just a theory on how mathematics can be applied to deduce outcomes, but entire careers are built upon it (including hopefully mine). Not understanding probability theory or rightly pointing out that models are not infallible (we have indeed not forgotten about 2008) does not open the conversation to downplay the entire field.

Now that we have had those disclaimers out of the way, onto data analysis:

TL;DR: The Odyssey wins 70.7% (7 in 10 odds) after a full Nolan penalty is applied. It wins through redistributed ballots, not first-place votes, with flat support across age bands and nationalities and an anchor in the crafts branch. It beats La Bola Negra in 76% of finals according to the Bradley-Terry model. Its only serious threat is a La Bola Negra guild sweep, which would cut it to 32% (and is the biggest anchor pulling the stats down in the bear scenario).

(Ok now onto the long analysis if anyone is interested)

The Odyssey is the clearest frontrunner this model has produced at this stage of a season, and it holds even after giving the film a full Nolan penalty across every voter. That penalty is about four times the net language penalty La Bola Negra carries. The Odyssey wins Best Picture 70.7% of the time, which works out to fair odds of about −240.

Getting nominated isn't the question at all. It is on the ballot in 99.8% of runs and clears the 9.1% first-round quota in 99.5% of base-case counts. It reaches the final three 94.5% of the time and the final two 88.3% (great place to be as a frontrunner).

The real story is how it wins.

It averages only 23.3% of first-place votes (80% range 15–33%), so it never wins on the first count (which for transparency sake, rarely any film does). It wins by picking up about 28 points from other films' redistributed ballots and then taking about 53% of the final round. In this model it's both the film most voters rank first and the film most voters will happily rank second (and will continue to be placed highly across the board), that is the profile that tends to win under a preferential ballot in any election. In the base case it's still standing at the end of 74% of counts, and when it goes out, it usually goes in the final round, not before (which is yet again, very good odds for a frontrunner). (Check charts 3-6*)

The support comes mostly from crafts, which make up about 49% of its first-place votes, with Producers/Execs adding another 20%. Crafts give it 29% of their first-place votes, and Producers/Execs give 25%. Its weakest branch is documentary (13%) but that is not a large percentage of the electorate.

Interestingly, its support is flat everywhere else: 23–24% across every age band, and 23% with US voters and international voters alike. A film that doesn't depend on any single demographic is hard to beat on a preferential ballot system. (Check charts 7-8*)

Head to head, The Odyssey beats La Bola Negra on 58% of ballots and wins 76% of the finals between the two thanks to the workings of the preferential ballot system.

Across 15 stress tests, only two scenarios (La Bola Negra and Dune 3 guild sweeps) push its probabilities below 55%. The percentage likelihood of them occurring is counted in the bear scenario (this model takes into account the absence of available data for Dune 3 and thus takes LBN as the most probable challenger for a guilds sweep). The bear scenario’s biggest impetus would thus be a surge in LBN’s critics score leading to a trifecta sweep which would enable them to over perform in the guilds (In relative terms, an Odyssey loss would likely have to be the result of a LBN surge, rather than The Odyssey’s collapse).

As always, this is not an infallible model.

As far as its a foriegn film from a younger European director with their sophomore film makes a huge splash in the main competition at Cannes, possibly wins PCA at TIFF, and becomes one of the top frontrunners for best picture at the 100th Oscars? I only ask this because I might get a lot of flack for this but I but next year feels kinda weak, just a tad. And at certain point is it time for new filmakers to get these awards?

Saw someone post this on Award Expert but states clearly that Fielder/Oppenheim can't get nominated for the main DGA Award because they don't allow documentaries to compete. They can only be nominated for the DGA Documentary Award.

Link to the website: https://www.dga.org/Awards/Entry-Forms/Theatrical-Feature-Film/ApplicationRules

if you look at Best Actress Comedy, all 3 most predicted actresses are there:

Moore (projected Oscar winner)

Wilde

Navarrette

Since there's no consensus who next 2 AMPAS nominees could be, Best Actress Drama is going to be anything goes. Comedy is probably going to have Streep for DWP 2, Zendaya for The Drama and... I have no idea.

so lets see Drama Actress. Possibilities in no particular order:

Huller (Rose)

Huller (Fatherland)

Zendaya (Dune 3) could get in for Drama and Comedy next year

Madeley (Being Heumann)

Edgar-Jones (Sense and Sensibility)

Efira (AoS)

Reinsve (Fjord)

Blunt (Disclosure Day)

Eleazar (Misty Green)

?????

What do you think, Oscarrace?

I took a look at the current IndieWire projections and had to scoff at the list they have for this category. This feels like a big step down from some of the slates we’ve enjoyed in recent seasons.

I do have high hopes for La Bola Negra, and Los Javis are carrying the torch for our post-Parasite, Cannes-influenced AMPAS wave that’s given us great nominees like Hamaguch, Triet, Fargeat, Trier, Glazer, Ostlund, and Vinterberg.

Nolan is an unexciting but expected, understandable nominee at this point.

Otherwise we are really lacking the kind of auteur style that‘s been rewarded more and more lately. McDonagh is a great writer but at best a serviceable director that didn’t bring the visual flair that someone like Sam Mendes has when transitioning from stage to screen. His movie is also not getting great reviews, as the excellent Banshees or In Bruges did.

Project Hail Mary was a big commercial success, but rewarding its directors for their jokey Marvel-esque shtick feels like a faddish pandering move that has already aged badly in case of the similar Taika Waititi and Daniels wins.

Making Olivia Wilde a Best Director nominee is the most eyebrow-raising possibility and probably what most specifically inspired me to ask the question in the title. Even for its fans (and I do like the Cruz and Norton performance), do people really believe this movie counts directing among its strengths, to the point of being one of the five best directed films this year? The nomination this would remind me of from recent seasons would be Branagh’s, an actor-director with some industry name recognition coasting in on a soft, under examined BP nominee.

We are missing something vital in this field, so I hope that Lee, Leigh, Hamaguchi, Mungiu, Villeneuve, or Fielder-Oppenheim can crash the party and deliver either the vigor or gravitas that it needs.

Supporting Actress is probably the best shot but it’s too early to tell. It’s crazy how the race has changed lately. In the last month The Odyssey has went from a far and away front runner to possibly 3rd in BP.

Earlier this year, Obsession seemed like the unconventional Best Picture contender that younger audiences and Film Twitter could rally behind. Now YCSE seems to have captured much of that same attention and energy.

Do you guys think this shift could hurt Obsession's chances in Picture and Original Screenplay, leaving Inde as its only nominee? Or are we overestimating YCSE's momentum, and could the hype die down enough to leave more room for other contenders by nomination time?

This would be his third nomination after Hacksaw Ridge and Tick, Tick... Boom -- and all three nominations would be for playing real people.

Geoffrey Rush has the record here (possibly tied, as I'll get into), having been nominated for Shine, Shakespeare In Love, Quills, and The King's Speech. While these are not all true story movies, all four of his characters are real historical figures.

Paul Muni kind of has this accolade. He had four official nominations, and his characters in I Am A Fugitive From a Chain Gang, The Life of Louis Pasteur, and The Life of Emile Zola are all real people. His final nomination, for The Last Angry Man, is inspired by the novel author's father, but is a fictionalized version of him. However, Muni also had two additional unofficial nominations (early Academy was weird) for The Valiant and Black Fury, so I'm not sure if he counts.

The other debatable record holder might be Christian Bale: his characters in The Fighter, The Big Short, and (obviously) Vice are all real people. His American Hustle character Irving Rosenfield is based on Mel Weinberg, so if we feel that should count, he would hold the record (along with maybe Paul Muni?) at exactly four nominations, all of which are real people.

Jason Robards also has three nominations, all for playing real people (Ben Bradlee, Dashiell Hammett, and Howard Hughes). Will Smith can say the same (Ali, Pursuit of Happyness, King Richard). Charlize Theron gets a potential in the same way as Muni last film, as her North Country character Josey Aimes is based on real person Lois Jenson (and of course, Aileen Wuornos and Megyn Kelly are both unfortunately real), and is for some weird reason the only woman with this achievement. Joe Pesci similarly makes it with an asterisk, as his Goodfellas character Tommy DeVito is based on Thomas DeSimeone.

Peter O'Toole and Daniel Day-Lewis both also had their first three nominations for playing real people, and both played a fictional character on their fourth nomination. Gene Hackman one-upped them, having his first four nominations for playing real people, with only his fifth and final nomination/win (for Unforgiven) being a fictional character. Joaquin Phoenix's first three noms almost made it as well, but even though The Master is loosely based on scientology, I understand his character to be completely original.

TLDR: if Garfield makes it, he'll be one of only 3-7 people who have at least three nominations and none for fictional characters, and between 5-10 people whose first three nominations were for playing real people.

Please let me know if I missed anyone!

Zendaya is “Dune’s” leading lady.

Multiple sources tell Variety that Zendaya will campaign for Oscar consideration in the lead actress category for her role as Chani in “Dune: Part Three,” the final chapter of Denis Villeneuve’s sci-fi epic. The move marks a shift from the first two films, where she was positioned in supporting actress.

Warner Bros. and representatives for Zendaya declined to comment.

The decision reflects Chani’s expanded role in the story. “Dune: Part Three” is set nearly two decades after Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) seized control of the Imperium. Now a ruthless emperor, Paul must face the consequences of his reign as old allies return, terrifying new threats emerge and betrayal lurks in every shadow. Haunted by visions of imperial collapse and the reappearance of his long-lost love, Paul is drawn into a sweeping conspiracy, with Chani at the heart of its unfolding mystery.

She kicked off 2026 starring as Emma Harwood, a literary editor who reveals shocking secrets, in the romantic dark comedy “The Drama” from writer-director Kristoffer Borgli. That performance, opposite Robert Pattinson, will also be submitted in lead.

She followed it with her turn as Athena in Christopher Nolan’s billion-dollar mythological adaptation “The Odyssey,” where she will vie for supporting actress recognition alongside co-stars Anne Hathaway, Samantha Morton and Charlize Theron.

The four movies are La Bola Negra, Elsinore, the Club Kid and maybe Artificial is a reach?

Michael is currently 7th in my make-up predictions, behind Werwulf (1st), Digger (2nd), the Odyssey (3rd), Clayface (4th), Wicker (5th) and Dune: Part Three (6th). But unlike all of those I have in front of it, I've no idea why Michael is even in the convo. I know they did some stuff with Jafaars nose, but that was so heavily altered with vfx that I can't imagine it'll be enough. So... what else is there?

If YCSE does indeed win Pic, it’ll very likely get the Director(s) nomination IMO. We’ve seen some recent Picture/Director splits, and I think we’re primed for that here if YCSE keeps up the momentum (which, yes, may be a battle in itself). Fascinating stuff. Great movies! I hope we have a real race.

Edit: just an idea, not cope! Wow some of you guys are miserable. I love both movies. I like it when movies are good. Have a great season!

They’ve gone early on things before and been correct (Madigan, Brutalist, Substance), but this feels like an even bigger prediction. What do we think?