Monday, February 22, 2010

In honor of tonight's "Men of a Certain Age" season finale, we present the morning Oscar odds from London. Bet early and often!

>


TNT's official recap of last week's episode, in which Joe's chronic gambling problem took a scary upturn. The season (and possibly series?) finale airs tonight at 10pm ET/PT, 9pm CT.

by Ken

Stop the presses! The down-to-the-wire Oscar race between formerly married directors James Cameron (Avatar) and Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) has taken a mind-blowing turn. As I learned from my e-mail this morning:
AVATAR CAUGHT BEHIND LOCKER ON OSCAR NIGHT

Following the success of The Hurt Locker at the BAFTA Awards [the British Academy Awards] in London last night top bookie Paddy Power have slashed the odds on the critically acclaimed Iraq war drama from 5/4 to 5/6 to win the Oscar for Best Picture at next months Academy Awards. 

The Hurt Locker has now replaced James Cameron’s sci-fi spectacular Avatar as favourite to win Best Picture and director Kathryn Bigelow is now the solid 1/3 favourite to also pick up the Oscar for Best Director.

 Paddy Power said “From a betting point of view it seems increasingly likely that James Cameron could lose out in the two main Oscar categories to none other than his ex-wife. Obviously they are two very different films but punters seem to think that The Hurt Locker ticks more boxes for the Academy than Avatar

Could you just die, or what? Could this be any more exciting?

Of course I haven't seen either picture, or to the best recollection any of the others mentioned in the Paddy Power Oscar odds lists. But somehow the thought that you can bet the house, bet the farm, bet the kids makes it seem somehow all worthwhile. And provides a neat tie-in to tonight's season finale of Men of a Certain Age, the TNT comedy-drama about three longtime friends going through the stresses of 40-something-dom. You see, Joe (played by series co-creator Ray Romano) is a compulsive gambler.


So far, as degenerate gamblers go, Joe seems to have been extraordinariliy lucky, in that his party-store business has apparently been profitable enough overall to cover his week-in, week-out losses, though surely not without periodic stresses. It's hard to imagine that Joe's gambling wasn't a factor in the breakup of his marriage, and again last week it has, at least so far, cost him a promising relationship.

Last week we saw Joe up the stakes scarifyingly. The bet grew out of the sort real-world-based justification that's easy to believe would be sufficient stimulus for someone with his susceptibility: He had decided that his children's well-being depends on him buying a house, and it had to be in their present neighborhood, and for this he didn't have an adequate down payment. Once the bet was placed, we came about as close as those of us without a gambling instinct are apt to come to experiencing the playing out of such a bet.

There was relief when Joe got lucky, but not from the ticking time bomb of the gambling problem -- relief for Joe in the short-term, but none for the longer-term well-being of a man who really doesn't seem to understand that he has a problem, let alone how serious it is. And storm clouds are gathering. In addition to the budding relationship it seems to have deep-sixed (the woman, upon learning about the bet, even after it was safely won, had the excellent sense to run as fast as she could), I'm not expecting Joe's luck in financial matters to carry him through the season finale.

I've made my peace, or maybe just learned to live, with my earlier-expressed reservations about the show. I've had a fairly easy time sticking with it, because all three main characters' lives have been interestingly and believably explored, and each has been allowed at least some moments of temporary triumph. (Joe has shown signs of actually grasping that his marriage is kaput, and that he has to get on with his life. Owen (Andre Braugher) actually followed through fighting a bureaucratic boondoggle to begin restoring his endangered home to habitability, and even took a positive step last week in dead-end career situation. Peter Pan-ish "actor" Terry (Scott Bakula), who hasn't been doing much acting lately, while stuck in a far pleasanter groove (who doesn't envy his all-pleasure all-the-time lifestyle?), has begun to see that the clock of life is ticking on him too.

I see online that the show's fans have reason to believe that its renewal is in serious doubt. On TNT's part I find this (a) shocking and (b) really stupid. Do the programming geniuses there really imagine they can fill that hour with anything that might bring them: (a) more prestige, (b) better word of mouth, or (c) a shot at better ratings?

Once again, if the ratings aren't what the network hoped -- presumably based on the calculation that anybody who ever watched a show that featured Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, or Andre Braugher would watch this one, doesn't it ever occur to these goons to question whether they have any idea what they're doing? Do TV marketers ever look at a show in terms of the basic questions: (1) Who might want to watch it? And (2) how do we reach those people to let them know that this is a show they might want to watch?

As I've mentioned, Fox has an especially glaring record in this regard, having developed quite a number of genuinely fresh, well-executed shows it had no clue how to market. But I have to say that of all the cable networks that have gone into the business of producing their own series, TNT seems to think most like a junior imitation of a broadcast network, with a strong streak of dreary pseudo-bigtime conventionality in its program conception, casting, and selling.

I don't know whether Paddy Power is quoting odds on Men of a Certain Age's survival, but here are its Oscar odds as of this morning.
2010 ACADEMY AWARDS



Best Picture

5/6    The Hurt Locker (from 5/4)

10/11 Avatar (from 1/2) 

16/1   Inglorious Basterds

25/1   Up in the Air

40/1   Up

50/1   Precious

66/1   An Education

66/1   District 9

100/1 A Serious Man

125/1 The Blind Side



Best Director

1/3   Kathryn Bigelow (from 4/9)

2/1   James Cameron (from 7/5)

20/1 Quentin Tarantino

25/1 Jason Reitman

50/1 Lee Daniels



Best Actor

1/6   Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)

6/1   George Clooney (Up In The Air)

10/1 Colin Firth (A Single Man) (from 14/1)

18/1 Morgan Freeman (Invictus)

18/1 Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)



Best Actress

8/13 Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) (from 4/6)

7/4  Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) (from 13/8)

8/1  Carey Mulligan (An Education) (from 10/1)

12/1 Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)

33/1 Helen Mirren (The Last Station)



Best Supporting Actor

1/25  Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

11/1  Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

14/1  Woody Harrelson - The Messengers

20/1  Matt Damon - Invictus
25/1  Christopher Plummer - The Last Station



Best Supporting Actress
1/16  Mo'Nique – Precious (from 1/12)

12/1  Penelope Cruz - Nine

12/1  Anna Kendrick - Up In The Air (from 8/1)

16/1  Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

20/1  Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

At 8:16 PM, Blogger Doug Kahn said...

Isn't 10/11 shorter odds than 5/6?

 
At 4:37 AM, Blogger KenInNY said...

Whew! If my head will stop spinning a moment, let me try to tackle this one. (Where's old Paddy P when you need him?)

Um, no. Here's how I work it out. 10/11 is effectively 5/5½, meaning you would have to bet £5½ (or whatevers) to get back £5, while at the shorter odds of 5/6, you have to bet all of £6 to get back £5.

Even after the odds sink below 1/1, the principle holds that the smaller the ratio (or fraction), the shorter the odds. So, just as 2/1 is shorter odds than 3/1, 1/3 is shorter odds than 2/3 -- and 5/6 is shorter than 10/11.

I'm almost sure.

By the way, I was also almost sure I'd included the link for the Paddy Power website, but looking quickly I don't see it. It's paddypower.com. Not that I'm encouraging gambling or anything.

As far as I can tell, Joe in his betting deals mostly in point spreads. Either way you keep filling those envelopes with cash for when the bookie (or in this case, to be technical, her son) comes to collect. But the point spreads save wear and tear to the mathematics center of the brain.

Ken

 
At 6:24 AM, Blogger KenInNY said...

Ah, I see the Paddy Power link was there. That just makes me feel (ever so slightly) better about the state of my sanity.

Ken

 

Post a Comment

<< Home