@@RyanCasselman Ryan BAFTA nominations are out and it's PURE CHAOS! Time to do the Oscar predictions based on all the nominees and snubs from SAG and Baftas. Few months ago, you and your guest both omitted Margot Robbie in the Best Leading Actress category but you WILL HAVE to predict her for the Oscars at least for a nomination cuz she was nominated literally EVERYWHERE! Leo missed SAG and BATAS which is INSANE so not sure he has the momentum to bag the 5th spot for the Oscars. Payne is DEFINITELY getting into the Directors category now.
Here's an acting stat to consider: In order to win an acting Oscar, the winner needs to do at least one of the following: 1) Win at least one of the Top 4 major critics awards (NBR/NYFCC/LAFCA/NSFC) OR 2) Have the film score at least one additional Oscar nomination in an above-the-line category OR 3) Both of the above The vast majority of acting winners fulfill one of the above stats. Since 2000, only 1 acting winner across all 4 categories won the Oscar without achieving any of the above feats (Jessica Chastain). Chastain had a LOT of factors helping her in that case, chiefly: no Golden Globes being aired that year and as a result SAG taking precedence in terms of predictor; ALL of the Best Actress contenders that satisfied any of the above stats all being previous winners (Cruz satisfied the Top 4 critics while Kidman and Colman satisfied the above-the-line nods); also none of the Actress contenders were in Best Picture nominees that year.
Out of curiosity and boredom, I wanted to go back slightly further than you did to the 2003/2004 award season to look at one of my all-time favorite Best Actor races (Sean Penn in "Mystic River" vs. Bill Murray in "Lost in Translation"), and your formula puts Bill Murray as the winner, however Murray ended up losing to Penn. Very interesting system nonetheless and I can't wait to apply this to the very exciting Murphy vs. Giamatti race once we see who wins at BAFTA and SAG this year.
So happy you made this. I was really hoping for something like this during the last season given how close 3 of the categories were. On a side note, the former chemist in me did not love your pipetting technique lol, but I'll allow it.
these are always so fun. i think murphy is pretty much guaranteed with playing a real guy, but giamati has been doing well. it's definetly gonna be a touch race between emma and lily stone, it's almost certain that davine is taking supporting and it will probs be RDJ but ken might sneak up there?
Giamatti is a one genre actor and he hasn't shown he has a wide array of acting, which could hurt his chances on top of the fact that male led comedies aren't that Popular with AMPAS to begin with
Cillian has really been engaging with the campaign. Doing articles about how he transformed into Oppie, and his acting methods. The voting body love Oppie. I will be more surprised if Paul beats him than if Bradley did.
Very cool. Clarification about the real/transformative points. Is that one point for being real AND one point for being transformative, or just one point period if it is real OR transformative? For instance, Austin Butler got a point for being real, but no additional point for the makeup/transformation? I’m trying to calculate where we stand with the current lineup of likely nominees using your method.
A great video. It's always a pleasure to watch your experiments. On 2020: I predicted Hopkins in 2020 and until the very last minute, I was thinking either Carey Mulligan or McDormand in actress. And my biggest concern was that this would be the first time since the introduction of SAG that both lead winners have neither SAG nor the Globe. This sounded unlikely but I went with my gut and was right about that (even though I hopedicted in best actress and was wrong). Anyway, in the case of Hopkins, the performance was so good, it broke my heart. But what convinced me that Boseman wasn't going to win was the Indie Spirit loss. That and the one factor that helped me get all acting winners last year: it matters which award is last. Last year, the SAG Awards were presented on the night before voting started, which clearly impacted the outcome. But what about this year? SAG will be the last award (of the major precursors) before the Oscars, but it will be midway through Oscar voting. It's possible that many voters submit their votes prior to the SAG Awards, which might decrease their impact.
These are great! Would the formula this year indicate the winners are (so far): Murphy, Gladstone, Downey and Joy Randolph? Also, are you doing the best picture experiments again? Keep it up!
Gladstone vs Stone will be interesting. It's currently 1 to 0.5 in favour of Gladstone, but Stone will have a bit of an edge in Round 2 seeing that her performance is the only transformative one (Poor Things is a shoo-in for a makeup nomination). From there, we'll have to see who wins the other precursors!
@@sebastiano728 Only from the formula would it not be Stone 1.5, Gladstone 1.0?Don't they both get a point for winning the Golden globe? Emma does have the transformative performance but Gladstone plays a real person and Emma does not. Like you say, it is down to the precursors because it is a very close race.
@@tonyg76 You're totally right! Forgot that stone also won the GG. I don't think Gladstone playing a real person counts in this case, seeing as she doesn't play a popular figure or anyone recognisable to voters. I know Ryan didn't specify, but I think the sentiment behind that criterion is the fact that voters are often impressed with a good impression or embodiment of a figure that they recognise.
I'm pretty sure I heard/read from Goldderby videos/articles that the BAFTA/Academy overlap is like 500 people which is roughly 5%. It might be higher by a couple percentage points but I don't think it is over 10% yet. BTW the formula is not bad but it leaves out some factors that can easily sway some voters. One is campaigning. How active were the nominees/their surrogates in appealing to voters to vote for them? Is the actor the 'it girl/guy' at the moment? Are they polarizing despite being talented (Russel Crowe for instance when he went crazy and likely cost himself a second Oscar)? Another is past wins. People can win multiple Oscars but it is not an easy feat. It gets especially hard for an actor to get into the 3x club like Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand, and Daniel Day-Lewis. So when someone like Denzel Washington is going for his third Oscar against someone who also gave an amazing performance in Casey Affleck some people might have gave the edge to Casey since Denzel already had two Oscars. The same line of thinking would have hurt Cate Blanchett. Both of those races were pretty close so any little thing could have put Casey and Michelle over the top. If a winner is very overdue for a win after losing like 3-8 times previously or not plays a part too. When Streep won her third Oscar it had been very long since she had actually won her last Oscar. So despite having two past wins some may have given her the edge over Viola that year. Overdue actors seem to sweep a lot though (Leonardo DiCaprio, Julianne Moore) but then again some just keep on losing which is so sad (Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Bradley Cooper). The last outside factor I think should be noted that you didn't touch on in this formula is if the winner would make some type of history with their win. Michelle Yeoh was the first Asian actress to win Best Actress in the 90+ year history of the Oscars. If Lily Gladstone prevails this year she would also make history for being the first Native American Best Actress winner. When Anthony Hopkins won Best Actor over Chadwick he made some history by being the oldest winner of Best Actor in the category. I do think some people could use this as a tie-breaker if they are on the fence with who to pick.
My predictions Giamatti* Cooper Murphy Wright Scott Gladstone* Stone Huller Spaeney Bening Downey Jr.* Gosling Melton Ruffalo De Niro(sterling k brown might surprise) Randolph* Brooks Foster Moore Pike
Loved the video, but I thought it was a little weird that you said in the thumbnail you were predicting the 2024 acting Oscars, but you never actually did that
Apologies. Ultimately, we are predicting the 2024 Acting categories. I wish I could have included in this video but we still have to wait for BAFTA and SAG. I just wanted to give everyone a chance to see the formula first so they have something to look forward to. So it's a two-part video. Consider this video like Kill Bill. In volume one, no actually kills Bill, but volume 2 is coming! Cheers. And really glad you enjoyed it nonetheless.
Interesting formula. While I'm a big fan of Emma Stone and her performance in Poor Things, I'm still rooting for Lily Gladstone. This will be an interesting one to put to the test with your formula because Emma is playing a fictional character, and Lily plays a real life person. Right now, in the televised awards circuit, they're neck and neck. Both will be representing a best picture nomination and director nom for their respective films. Unless either gets snubbed or both in those nomination categories, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BAFTA and SAG will give us a better picture of who might take home that golden trophy. I am disappointed a little that Hopkins won over Boseman, but the winning performance was excellent. In the case of Chadwick, it would have cemented his legacy whereas we already know how great Hopkins is which is a crime that he barely was recognized between trophies. The reason I want Lily Gladstone to win is more how significant it will be than another white woman winning best actress after Michelle Yeoh's win last year, and that long stretch between women of color winning before her with Haley Berry, the first woman of color to win in the category. This is also another way to show visibility to actors who keep getting overlooked everyday.
Would have been great if you'd have done this with this year's nominees. Personally, I believe it would be a crime not to give the Oscar to Emma Stone!
I will be doing it with this years nominees. We unfortunately have to wait for SAG and BAFTA in order to award points. But I’ll be sure to make a follow-up video and show who wins using this formula. 🙂
in Best Actor I seeing Paul Giamatti because his momentum at the Critics Choice and the his viral picture eating burger after winning the Golden Globes and overdue/career momentum
OMG! Can’t believe you read my comment and this what we get. This is so awesome! Thank you Ryan! I feel this year the tight race will be Lily v. Emma.
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm here to serve, so I'm glad you liked it! 🙃
I think it will be Best Actor. Actress is most likely Lily.
@@RyanCasselman Ryan BAFTA nominations are out and it's PURE CHAOS! Time to do the Oscar predictions based on all the nominees and snubs from SAG and Baftas. Few months ago, you and your guest both omitted Margot Robbie in the Best Leading Actress category but you WILL HAVE to predict her for the Oscars at least for a nomination cuz she was nominated literally EVERYWHERE! Leo missed SAG and BATAS which is INSANE so not sure he has the momentum to bag the 5th spot for the Oscars. Payne is DEFINITELY getting into the Directors category now.
how does lack of BAFTA nomination factor in? @@RyanCasselman
@@RyanCasselmanfor me Killers Of The Flower Moon, Martin Scorsese is Lyli Gladstone deserves to be rewarded, these predictions mean nothing
That fact that Ryan goes through all this trouble, such as getting the lab coat, just for our entertainment, is amazing.
Here's an acting stat to consider: In order to win an acting Oscar, the winner needs to do at least one of the following:
1) Win at least one of the Top 4 major critics awards (NBR/NYFCC/LAFCA/NSFC)
OR
2) Have the film score at least one additional Oscar nomination in an above-the-line category
OR
3) Both of the above
The vast majority of acting winners fulfill one of the above stats. Since 2000, only 1 acting winner across all 4 categories won the Oscar without achieving any of the above feats (Jessica Chastain). Chastain had a LOT of factors helping her in that case, chiefly: no Golden Globes being aired that year and as a result SAG taking precedence in terms of predictor; ALL of the Best Actress contenders that satisfied any of the above stats all being previous winners (Cruz satisfied the Top 4 critics while Kidman and Colman satisfied the above-the-line nods); also none of the Actress contenders were in Best Picture nominees that year.
The stats and commentary are top-notch. The red T shirt is fire.
I just love your Oscar science experiments!!
Out of curiosity and boredom, I wanted to go back slightly further than you did to the 2003/2004 award season to look at one of my all-time favorite Best Actor races (Sean Penn in "Mystic River" vs. Bill Murray in "Lost in Translation"), and your formula puts Bill Murray as the winner, however Murray ended up losing to Penn.
Very interesting system nonetheless and I can't wait to apply this to the very exciting Murphy vs. Giamatti race once we see who wins at BAFTA and SAG this year.
Go Cillian !!!!!!!!
Love the experiment. Looking forward to this year's close races.
New experiment every year. yeay!!
Loved this video. Your production quality is top tier I'm surprised this channel doesn't have a larger audience!
So happy you made this. I was really hoping for something like this during the last season given how close 3 of the categories were.
On a side note, the former chemist in me did not love your pipetting technique lol, but I'll allow it.
This video of yours excite me every year on award season
I love these videos every year 😂
BAFTA has become the one to watch, especially in recent years. Great way to illustrate how the precursors "work."
Awesome explanation! I'm interested to see how it shakes out for this year as we get other award show results :)
these are always so fun.
i think murphy is pretty much guaranteed with playing a real guy, but giamati has been doing well. it's definetly gonna be a touch race between emma and lily stone, it's almost certain that davine is taking supporting and it will probs be RDJ but ken might sneak up there?
Giamatti is a one genre actor and he hasn't shown he has a wide array of acting, which could hurt his chances on top of the fact that male led comedies aren't that Popular with AMPAS to begin with
Cillian has really been engaging with the campaign. Doing articles about how he transformed into Oppie, and his acting methods. The voting body love Oppie. I will be more surprised if Paul beats him than if Bradley did.
Please do this formula for this year after all awards but before the Oscars
Love this series!
I love your channel. You deserve more subs!!🎉 Good vibes from Perú ✌🏼
your videos are so entertaining!
Loved this!!!
Love your production!
Why is the SAG winner awarded a point in the tiebreaker round if it’s already been accounted for in the formula previously?
What about the overdue factor? Has the individual been nominated before and how many times? Great stuff Ryan!!
isane video, super entertaining
"Michelle and Yeoh". Yeoh won so hard last year she erased Blanchett's name from your consciousness!
hahahah I noticed that!
love this!
This is awesome! :)
This experiment just proves that Chadwick should've won.
I wish Cillian, emma, downey, da vine win oscar acting categories.❤️❤️😘
this is literally perfect.
I dont agree with everything... yet I subscribed. You did put a lot of research into this. That, I appreciate.
Danielle Deadwyler 😂 saw what you did there and hard agree lol
Very cool. Clarification about the real/transformative points. Is that one point for being real AND one point for being transformative, or just one point period if it is real OR transformative? For instance, Austin Butler got a point for being real, but no additional point for the makeup/transformation? I’m trying to calculate where we stand with the current lineup of likely nominees using your method.
Currently, you’d get half a point for being a real life person OR transformative. If you’re both, you still get only the one half point. 🙂
@@RyanCasselman Ah, okay! Good to know! Thank you!
A great video. It's always a pleasure to watch your experiments. On 2020: I predicted Hopkins in 2020 and until the very last minute, I was thinking either Carey Mulligan or McDormand in actress. And my biggest concern was that this would be the first time since the introduction of SAG that both lead winners have neither SAG nor the Globe. This sounded unlikely but I went with my gut and was right about that (even though I hopedicted in best actress and was wrong).
Anyway, in the case of Hopkins, the performance was so good, it broke my heart. But what convinced me that Boseman wasn't going to win was the Indie Spirit loss. That and the one factor that helped me get all acting winners last year: it matters which award is last. Last year, the SAG Awards were presented on the night before voting started, which clearly impacted the outcome. But what about this year? SAG will be the last award (of the major precursors) before the Oscars, but it will be midway through Oscar voting. It's possible that many voters submit their votes prior to the SAG Awards, which might decrease their impact.
Cillian, Ryan, Cary and Foster. Should win.
These are great! Would the formula this year indicate the winners are (so far): Murphy, Gladstone, Downey and Joy Randolph? Also, are you doing the best picture experiments again? Keep it up!
Gladstone vs Stone will be interesting. It's currently 1 to 0.5 in favour of Gladstone, but Stone will have a bit of an edge in Round 2 seeing that her performance is the only transformative one (Poor Things is a shoo-in for a makeup nomination). From there, we'll have to see who wins the other precursors!
@@sebastiano728 Only from the formula would it not be Stone 1.5, Gladstone 1.0?Don't they both get a point for winning the Golden globe? Emma does have the transformative performance but Gladstone plays a real person and Emma does not. Like you say, it is down to the precursors because it is a very close race.
@@tonyg76 You're totally right! Forgot that stone also won the GG. I don't think Gladstone playing a real person counts in this case, seeing as she doesn't play a popular figure or anyone recognisable to voters. I know Ryan didn't specify, but I think the sentiment behind that criterion is the fact that voters are often impressed with a good impression or embodiment of a figure that they recognise.
@@sebastiano728 Good point as well.
You are entertaining 😊❤
Im just gonna say that this years supporting acting categories are the easiest to predict👏
Yeoh and Michelle? Am confused
Could you do the same experiment for directors, writers and Best Picture nominees?
I'm pretty sure I heard/read from Goldderby videos/articles that the BAFTA/Academy overlap is like 500 people which is roughly 5%. It might be higher by a couple percentage points but I don't think it is over 10% yet.
BTW the formula is not bad but it leaves out some factors that can easily sway some voters.
One is campaigning. How active were the nominees/their surrogates in appealing to voters to vote for them? Is the actor the 'it girl/guy' at the moment? Are they polarizing despite being talented (Russel Crowe for instance when he went crazy and likely cost himself a second Oscar)?
Another is past wins. People can win multiple Oscars but it is not an easy feat. It gets especially hard for an actor to get into the 3x club like Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand, and Daniel Day-Lewis. So when someone like Denzel Washington is going for his third Oscar against someone who also gave an amazing performance in Casey Affleck some people might have gave the edge to Casey since Denzel already had two Oscars. The same line of thinking would have hurt Cate Blanchett. Both of those races were pretty close so any little thing could have put Casey and Michelle over the top.
If a winner is very overdue for a win after losing like 3-8 times previously or not plays a part too. When Streep won her third Oscar it had been very long since she had actually won her last Oscar. So despite having two past wins some may have given her the edge over Viola that year. Overdue actors seem to sweep a lot though (Leonardo DiCaprio, Julianne Moore) but then again some just keep on losing which is so sad (Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Bradley Cooper).
The last outside factor I think should be noted that you didn't touch on in this formula is if the winner would make some type of history with their win. Michelle Yeoh was the first Asian actress to win Best Actress in the 90+ year history of the Oscars. If Lily Gladstone prevails this year she would also make history for being the first Native American Best Actress winner. When Anthony Hopkins won Best Actor over Chadwick he made some history by being the oldest winner of Best Actor in the category. I do think some people could use this as a tie-breaker if they are on the fence with who to pick.
Marcia Gay Haren won Best Supporting Actress for "Pollock" and hasn't nominated for the Globe ,SAG, Critics' Choice, and BAFTA.
Yup! 😊 I put some text there at 8:47. Very true though! Cheers
Actually it’s pretty cool. I like it
My predictions
Giamatti*
Cooper
Murphy
Wright
Scott
Gladstone*
Stone
Huller
Spaeney
Bening
Downey Jr.*
Gosling
Melton
Ruffalo
De Niro(sterling k brown might surprise)
Randolph*
Brooks
Foster
Moore
Pike
Loved the video, but I thought it was a little weird that you said in the thumbnail you were predicting the 2024 acting Oscars, but you never actually did that
Apologies. Ultimately, we are predicting the 2024 Acting categories. I wish I could have included in this video but we still have to wait for BAFTA and SAG. I just wanted to give everyone a chance to see the formula first so they have something to look forward to. So it's a two-part video. Consider this video like Kill Bill. In volume one, no actually kills Bill, but volume 2 is coming! Cheers. And really glad you enjoyed it nonetheless.
@@RyanCasselman sounds good! Also that makes a lot more sense. Good analogy with Kill Bill haha.
Interesting formula. While I'm a big fan of Emma Stone and her performance in Poor Things, I'm still rooting for Lily Gladstone. This will be an interesting one to put to the test with your formula because Emma is playing a fictional character, and Lily plays a real life person. Right now, in the televised awards circuit, they're neck and neck. Both will be representing a best picture nomination and director nom for their respective films. Unless either gets snubbed or both in those nomination categories, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BAFTA and SAG will give us a better picture of who might take home that golden trophy. I am disappointed a little that Hopkins won over Boseman, but the winning performance was excellent. In the case of Chadwick, it would have cemented his legacy whereas we already know how great Hopkins is which is a crime that he barely was recognized between trophies. The reason I want Lily Gladstone to win is more how significant it will be than another white woman winning best actress after Michelle Yeoh's win last year, and that long stretch between women of color winning before her with Haley Berry, the first woman of color to win in the category. This is also another way to show visibility to actors who keep getting overlooked everyday.
Giamatti in the film is less stereotyped, which is why he shuld win the Oscar.
Andrea Riseborough deserved her surprise Oscar nom. Michelle williams should have been switched out for Danielle.
where are the predictions?
Would have been great if you'd have done this with this year's nominees. Personally, I believe it would be a crime not to give the Oscar to Emma Stone!
I will be doing it with this years nominees. We unfortunately have to wait for SAG and BAFTA in order to award points. But I’ll be sure to make a follow-up video and show who wins using this formula. 🙂
in Best Actor I seeing Paul Giamatti because his momentum at the Critics Choice and the his viral picture eating burger after winning the Golden Globes and overdue/career momentum
Dude, don't be ridiculous.