The 96th Academy Awards, held in March 2024, will honor movies released in 2023. There are four acting categories:
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE (example market)
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE (example market)
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLL (example market)
ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE (example market)
This market will resolve YES if these awards are spread between four different films. This market will resolve NO if any film wins multiple acting awards.
At the 95th Academy Awards, it would have resolved NO (EEAAO won 3 acting awards).
At the 94th Academy Awards, it would have resolved YES (King Richard, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Coda, & West Side Story each won 1 acting award).
Please ask if any aspects of resolution are unclear.
1,000
1.00These two remarks are contradictory:
"Will the 4 Acting Oscars be awarded to 4 different movies at the 96th Academy Awards?"
"This market will resolve NO if any film wins multiple acting awards."
The first question does not allow for the scenario in the second: as phrased, it has to be four acting Oscars "awarded to 4 different movies." While I understand it now, having read the full question, it still leaves ample room for error.
@JeffKirk I’m sorry, I must be slow this morning, I can’t quite follow. What makes them contradictory? Doesn't that scenario explain what would make the answer to the question be NO?
Question: Will the 4 Acting Oscars be awarded to 4 different movies?
Scenario 1: these awards are spread between four different films. This would imply that the answer to the question is YES.
Scenario 2 (the one you flag): any film wins multiple acting awards. If a single film wins multiple awards, that must necessarily imply that the total number of films winning any acting Oscar is less than 4. Thus, the answer to the question is NO.
What am I missing here? I'd be happy to reword the description, but I can't quite follow here. (I'd think the question title itself is fairly unambiguous, but it seems to match the YES & NO scenarios I lay out?)
("Any film wins multiple acting Oscars" should be an equivalent statement with "the 4 acting oscars are NOT awarded to 4 different films")
@mattyb Starting from the other market probabilities, if independent, it's like ~45% Oppenheimer, ~20% Holdovers, plus a few bonus % between Poor Things/KotFM. And that gets you pretty close to the current ~27%. But I don't think these are independent—impossible to know how much correlation to add, but my running #s would be more like ~48% Oppenheimer, ~24% Holdovers, & now some slightly less trivial % for Poor Things/KotFM (if either overperform). So IMO 27% still isn't too high here (but not exactly one where I'll stake too much on, given how hard it is to eyeball inter-category correlation)
@mattyb I agree on Holdovers. Paul Giamatti is less likely than Da'vine Joy Randolph, but if it turns out to be the next highest odds (Cillian Murphy), Sup. Actor is most likely going to Robert Downey Jr., which would still fulfill a NO