Skip

Pick Your Winners For The Oscars:
March 20, 2002 7:52 AM   Subscribe

Pick Your Winners For The Oscars: UK-based Blue Square gives you the odds. So how would you bet a virtual $100? And how much would you stand to win?(That is, if you could do the maths...)
posted by MiguelCardoso (9 comments total)

 
I'd blow $99 on Amélie(at 1 to 3) for Best Foreign Film and stand to gain $33. I'd spend my remaining dollar on Renee Zellweger as Best Actress for Bridget Jones(at 33 to 1). If my long shot paid off, it would earn me another $33. So my expected total gain would be $66.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:02 AM on March 20, 2002


This year hasn't been much of a moviegoing year for me. The only movie I've seen of all the movies nominated for the main Oscar awards is Lord Of The Rings. None of these other movies really interested me enough to go see them. I'm sure they're critically high calibre art, but I'm a hypocrite. As much as I enjoy great acting and writing, what actually gets me into a theater nowadays is great acting and writng coupled with CGI, loud explosions, a car chase, fast-paced editing, crazy camera angles and occasional nudity. Lord of the Rings had almost all those things, but none of the rest of last year's big movies really did.

Well, Moulin Rouge maybe, but Nicole Kidman makes me want to vomit, and the idea of applauding Halle Barry for acting outside the box in Monster's Ball by successfully playing white trash seems anticlimactic to me. I will only care if LOTR wins something. Otherwise I'm uninterested. So if I were to play, I'd put all my money on LOTR and probably lose my shirt because the Academy is run by a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:38 AM on March 20, 2002


The Hollywood Stock Exchange.

...the Academy is run by a bunch of mindless jerks...

The mindless jerks who vote on the Oscars are the mindless jerks who won Oscars already.

As much as I enjoy great acting and writing, what actually gets me into a theater nowadays is great acting and writng coupled with CGI, loud explosions, a car chase, fast-paced editing, crazy camera angles and occasional nudity. Lord of the Rings had almost all those things, but none of the rest of last year's big movies really did.

LOTR only had one of those things: CGI.

Well, Moulin Rouge maybe, but Nicole Kidman makes me want to vomit...

What's the weather like in bizarro world?
posted by bingo at 9:56 AM on March 20, 2002


I've put a tenner on Ethan Hawke for best supporting actor. The odds were 12/1 so he is obviously an outside choice. But I'll be very happy if my number comes up on Sunday.
posted by laukf at 10:18 AM on March 20, 2002


If you want to whip up a last-minute Oscar poll for your friends and/or weblog readers, may I suggest this? Apparently I can.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:28 AM on March 20, 2002


I like to play the long shots, so I'll put $100 on Wilkinson for Best Actor. Sometimes you have to go with the hunch.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:36 AM on March 20, 2002


$100 on the documentary about Jews.
posted by dydecker at 11:11 PM on March 20, 2002


$100 on the documentary about Jews.

You shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket like that. I'd recommend $50 on the holocaust documentary, and the other $50 on the actor playing a developmentally disabled guy.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:44 PM on March 21, 2002


may I suggest this? Apparently I can.

Shadowkeeper - now this thread is over, I thought I'd warn you I'm stealing this for all time. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:13 PM on March 21, 2002


« Older "The messy desk is not necessarily a sign of...   |   Islamic Republic of Great Britain? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post