> > I have to confess, it occurred to me that I could match every one of your Oscar guesses, but swap the one I thought was quite the long shot (Cate Blanchett) for something more probable. Then I'd be guaranteed to tie you and have a good chance of beating you.
>
> Yeah, but who would have figured Morton or Castle-Hughes would be more probable? C'mon.

Morton, yes. Castle-Hughes, no. Morton was somewhere around seventh place for me. I think if I had had the nerve to drop Kidman, I'd have gone with Patricia Clarkson, for The Station Agent, but it would have been a tough call between her and Morton.

I suspect this was the major category the most people lost office pool points on.

I'm noticing a trend this year, though, that I incorrectly thought would happen *last* year. Last year, a remarkable number of the actors had previous Oscar wins, some a string of nominations as well.

This year, whether by choice or coincidence, we're not seeing a lot of Oscar favorites: Nicole Kidman's got her Oscar and misses out on three nominations in a row. Russell Crowe's got his Oscar and misses out on four nominations in five years. Minghella's got his Oscar and misses this year. Jennifer Connelly's got her Oscar and misses this year. One could even extend the trend to Miramax in general. After a string of unworthy Best Picture nominees (Cider House, Chocolat) and worthy nominees but unworthy winners (Chicago, Shakespeare In Love), finally attention is elsewhere.

> And I know this doesn't matter, but I almost decided to pick just three animated films in your game (since I assumed they wouldn't go up to five), and I would have picked the right three. :-)

Since the birth of that category, I've had the wrong number of guesses for it. I finally read the Academy's rules on the subject, so I should be set for future years. It's based on the number of films that make the short list. Something like 8-15 means 3 nominees, 16 or more means 5.