Why We’re Gloating Over The Oscars

No, it has nothing to do with that whole media hubbub about the nomination process.

Like we’ve mentioned before: The President of The Academy is a black woman. How racist can they be?

***

This is about how wrong the media can be. And how we made money from it.

Like many in the world, we enjoy a good wager. And when we saw that the odds for Best Supporting Actor were screaming that Sylvester Stallone was a sure winner, well…we knew better. We took the long odds and went with the best acting job we’d seen all year: Mark Rylance in “Bridge Of Spies.”

Rylance got the Oscar. We cleaned up.

Rylance’s wasn’t a showy performance. In fact, he practically disappeared into his character. So much so that you couldn’t keep your eyes off him.

Rylance is British, from the stage and well known for his chops. He’s currently onstage in New York now. When “Bridge Of Spies” came out his performance was singled out in most reviews.

Yet, somehow, in the media’s “we-only-care-for-what’s-in-front-of-us-not-what’s-in-our-rear-view-mirror” attitude, every article prior to the Oscars touted Stallone as the overwhelming favorite.

Why? Because he’s a sympathetic old white guy? Because like lots of old Hollywood types he’s hyped on steroids and HGH (except Sly got busted for bringing HGH into Australia back in 2007)?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/05/15/sylvester-stallone-pleads-guilty-to-bringing-human-growth-hormone-into.html

You can only speculate on why the media got this particular Oscar thing wrong. Because they were all so sure about it.

Now, if we could all make money every time we knew the press was wrong…