After some consideration, and the fact that my views on the whole transgender discussion has changed somewhat over the years, Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page who was previously nominated for Best Actress for "Juno," will no longer be on this quiz, and will be moved over to the other version of this quiz when I update both quizzes in 2025. This is to keep things consistent with the whole male and female separation theme.
I created both of these quizzes before Page came out as transgender at the end of 2020, and have gone back and forth on deciding how to handle it before finally deciding to move him to the other quiz. I apologize for not making this decision sooner, but better late than never I suppose.
Again, Elliot Page will be moved over to the other quiz for the next update in 2025. Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed the quiz!
I haven't paid attention to the Oscars in years but clearly they are just nominating Streep as the running gag anymore. She's had some good roles but highly overrated and not 21 nominations worth. Just another reason not to tune in.
Yeah, the Academy likes to play favorites a lot. I feel like some of the nominations were just filler spots; when they couldn't decide on who else to nominate, they just picked someone who has been nominated a lot but had little to no chance at winning. Most recent example being Glenn Close this year.
Meryl Streep is the best screen actress of all-time, and it's not really close. Saorise Ronan shows a lot of promise for a woman of her age and might some day ripen into an actress to rival Streep, but right now I cannot imagine who would be said to be in Streep's league. Katharine Hepburn is the other name often floated as "the best," but many of her performances are in that overwrought manner that was popular in the 30s and 40s but just hasn't aged well. The Oscars are pretty dumb, but this list does at least generally reflect the hierarchy of greatness among actresses.
They didn't say "offensive," they said "disrespectful." Deadnaming, when done purposefully, is near-universally considered a very disrespectful act among trans people. It signifies that you actively reject their identity, saying that that's not "really" who they are, that they are "really" their pre-transition self.
Consider it like this: say that you had a nickname when you were a kid, a nickname that you genuinely hated. Maybe a nickname based on some aspect of yourself that you didn't like, or that was inspired by an embarrassing event. The people using it just mean it in good fun, and genuinely don't realize that it's hurtful to you, but it is anyway. You grow up, and finally come to a place where you can say "I really don't like that nickname, here are my reasons why, please call me this instead." If you said that to someone and they still actively insisted on calling you by that nickname anyway, wouldn't you feel like they were being disrespectful to you?
small detail: Ellen was the name of Elliot when he didn't realize his full self. So, yes, using their dead name is not very respectful. Maybe just have him greyed out? So there isn't confusion about how to refer to him. To be clear, Ellen and Elliot are NOT two people in the same body. It was always Elliot, just at different stages of self-actualization. I just wanted to make this distinction. ALSO, if you're not trans, I'm not sure you can dictate what is or is not offensive to trans people. Everyone is different but generally speaking, it's best to not refer to trans folx by their dead names. My two cents!
I scored 64 mainly by going through the alphabet and typing in any Christian and surnames that I could think of, as well as the handful of actresses I could remember, given I'm not really into movies.
Wow, I really had my ass handed to me on this quiz. I watch movies constantly and thought I would do really well, but I totally blanked. Only got 63...13%. yikes.
Only got 4%. I tried every common last name like Johnson, Smith, Davis, Johns,Waters, etc. And it got me some answers but I was surprised that I got Mary Badham, someone only 5% got. I also got Fitzgerald, which only 8% got. And I was joking around putting Gaga not knowing she's gotten nominated. However, thanks to the comment section, I got Close and Steep, the two most guess people. I only got 19 but Paltrow and Bergen and Kelly and Bergman were hard for someone who doesn't watch the Oscars. I'm surprised Julia Roberts isn't on here, but for the sake of it all, how many Moore's did we need on here?
Ingrid Bergman was before TV; the Hepburns were still around for a while after TV came along. Candice Bergen would've been nominated in the 1970s. You wouldn't have seen any of them in the past 40 years.
Instead of being in the top 0.6%, I think I should probably be in the top 0.4% or higher. Maybe not 0.1%. This isn't necessarily reflective of my knowledge base or intelligence, however - more reflective, really, of persistence and boredom and not having a life. LOL.
I know I wouldn't be in the ultra-super-elite, because I know what my knowledge base ISN'T, plus I have huge weaknesses like not knowing about: mainstream sports, flags, Harry Potter, or Pokemon, for starters.
But it's been obvious to me for a little while, now, that there is a good solid chunk of cheaters at the very top.
I'll also add that not only do cheaters who cheat all the way to the top steal things like privilege, authority and resources, etc etc, the way that they become what they are and have ends up skewing statistics. Anybody who knows anything about statistics knows how EXTREMELY different, within a frame of reference, "mean" (or average) and "median" can be. One would think that "mean" and "average" should be roughly the same, but oh no, sometimes the data at the fringes can drastically influence and skew the rest of the data and wrongly skew general perception.
I had fun with this one. I thought I'd give it 15 minutes just to get a taste of how many I could guess, but I decided to give it the full amount of time. I came up with 142 names. 3 stars. Not too bad. If I'd had caffeine in me, perhaps I could have come up with a couple dozen more.
My favorite actress is Jessica Lange. I was curious to see how many people had guessed her. I was extremely surprised to see how under-guessed she was. She is tied for 13th place for the # of nominations, but not even in the top 100 in terms of # of times guessed. For shame!
Well, I decided to do a little analysis in Excel, and the following is what I came up with.
I decided to work with only the actresses who'd had 3 or more nominations in order to keep the data set focused and from becoming too unwieldly. So, that gives us a list of 95 actresses out of the 481 in this quiz. 2 or 3 dozen really big names get left out of that list of 95, but for the purposes of making the observations I ended up making, that doesn't make a difference.
I ended up constructing some data (or perhaps "meta data") in a few categories. (I'm not sure if I said that I did this in Excel. That's what I did.) So, those four categories (each being a column in my Excel spreadsheet) were: 1) "Critical Rank", 2) "Guessed Rank", 3) "Guessed Discrepancy", and 4) "Discrepancy Rank by # Noms Category".
The 1) "Critical Rank" corresponds directly to the # of nominations each actress got and the 2) "Guessed Rank" corresponds directly to the # of times each actress has been guessed all of the 20,000+ times this quiz has been taken (20,000+ is a pretty healthy # for sampling).
So I guess you could say that since 3) "Guessed Discrepancy" and 4) "Discrepancy Rank by # Noms Category" are both "meta-data" because, respectively, they are based either on a (very simple) formula I "built" into the spreadsheet or are an application of the pre-existing data.
The "Guessed Discrepancy" value was a simple subtraction of the "Guessed Rank" from the "Critical Rank" in order to give a *difference* value representing how 'under-guessed' each actress might be.
The "Discrepancy Rank by # Noms Category" is the ranking, within each 'tie' (how many times each actress was nominated). E.g. - of the 10 different actresses who have gotten exactly 6 Academy Award noms, Jessica Lange was the 7th most under-guessed actress, with respect to how highly she should have been guessed if the # of guesses was directly and absolutely related to their "critical acclaim" (represented, here, by the # of Oscar noms they've received).
I don't know that I have much in the way of profound things to say, but before I get into analysis, I will go over a few more preliminaries. As I said before, there were a number of HUGE-name actresses whose names aren't reflected in this data set because, for whatever reason, they didn't/haven't gotten more than 2 noms. Some of those names are (by my perhaps slightly off-base cognizance): Geena Davis, Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway, Grace Kelly, Helen Hunt, Vivien Leigh, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Helena Bonham Carter, Judy Garland, Sophia Loren, Cher, Emily Watson, Barbra Streisand, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sharon Stone, Mary Tyler Moore, Halle Berry, Candice Bergen, Janet Leigh, Gwyneth Paltrow, Lady Gaga, Ellen Page and Jennifer Hudson. Those names are roughly the top 15 most guessed and top 10 most guessed who each got, respectively, 2 or 1 Oscar noms. I took out a few names who I think were more guessed because their last names were common or shared with someone more famous.
To make a quick note of my own ignorance, I will say that out of the 95 names upon whom I'm basing this data set, there are 7 I'd never even heard of before - by far, the most notable of those is Thelma Ritter because she got a whopping 6 Oscar noms. She's the ONLY actress who has gotten not 6 but just 5 or more nods that I'd never heard of. The fact that her career is in the distant past explains a lot of this, plus her major works came somewhat after the true apex of the Golden Age of Hollywood (which really was moreso the 1940s than the 1950s). The fact that Ritter was a "character" actor who took "working class" unglamorous roles would explain why she is so forgotten, at least according to Jetpunk parameters. Not only was I ignorant of her, but most others were, too, as her "guessed discrepancy" value of -300 was the 14th highest of all 481 actresses and by far the highest of all 5+ nom actresses, the next being Irene Dunne whose discrepancy value of -229 puts her in 94th place.
In the same vein as Ritter, other such quick nods should go out to Fay Bainter who was the highest-ranking "Guessed Discrepancy" 3+ Oscar nod actress in 7th place out of all 481 actresses with Claire Trevor and Anne Revere coming just behind her at 9th and 10th places, respectively. I don't think I'd ever heard of any of them, either. Also, of all 4+ or even 3+ Oscar nom actresses who rank so highly this way, Agnes Moorehead (one of my top handful of faves because of her work, in and of itself, as well as the fact that if my mother's eyes were blue instead of brown, OMG they could have been twins) is in 20th place with Maureen Stapleton trailing her at 25th place. I don't know about Stapleton, but unfortunately none of Moorehead's noms translated into wins. I'm not sure to what extent that may be because of her close association of Orson Wells who majorly felt the sting of envy from Hollywood. FYI - The next-highest in this way among 3+ Oscar nominees is Diane Ladd in 58th place.
Just from looking at all the names and how they ended up in the rankings with respect to their "Guessed Discrepancy", it's obvious to me that the older they are and/or the further back their careers were, the more under-guessed they were going to be. To me, that's the main thing coming through. The further back someone is, with the few exceptions going out to the very most popular of any era, the more likely they are to be forgotten. This knowledge is, of course, so common and obvious that it doesn't even begin to beg for the kind of analysis I have done here. I think also that probably lack of glamour is going to play a major factor in it, judging just by the example of Ritter.
As sensitive as I *try* (it's nearly impossible to actually achieve this, especially only with words) to be with regards to race issues, I don't think that was a factor in terms of non-white, or at least African-Americam, actresses ending up being under-guessed. For example, Hattie McDaniels was in the top 30% least under-guessed, despite having only one nomination (which translated to an actual win, of course), and despite that win being more than 80 years ago. Of course, her win was so enormously historic, and in that light, her name should probably be in the top 5%, so in that light, maybe race does play a factor.
In recent years (the last decade or two), nominations have gone out much more increasingly frequently/numerously to non-whites than in the past, so it's easier for a recent non-white actress nominee's name to get lost in the shuffle than it would be for someone further back whose nomination (just a nomination, not even a win) would be more of an at least semi-historic outlier. E.g. Cicely Tyson, with only one nom (but no win), got in the top 40% of the least-underguessed, despite that nod being over 50 years ago. Of course, again, although her nod wasn't as historic and McDaniels's was, the few such African-American actresses who have gotten such nods, especially that far back, should be more memorable because they were so rare, so perhaps she should be not only in the top 40% least-underguessed, but probably within the top 20 or maybe even 10% least-underguessed. And yes, out of the 142 names I guessed (29.5% of all names), hers was one that I remembered first & only time around.
As far as a more personal take on this, not being as important as the points I've made with respect to Ritter, McDaniel and Tyson, I will still hold up Jessica Lange as an example. The fact that she's still living (should still have a number of good years left in her, I would certainly think) and still working should be in her favor, although being past 70, not quite as much, then. I should think that her work in American Horror Story having been so rejuvenating to her career and refreshing her name in the mainstream, especially among the younger set, would have had her rank much higher in the least-underguessed rankings, but such was not the case. Despite her glamour factor (she is incredibly beautiful), I think the fact that although she is truly A-list and ultra-elite with respect to critical acclaim, her career has actually been more character-driven than most actresses of her overall cache and she doesn't tend to work in blockbuster-type movies, so that explains some of it.
In summary, well, I don't know that I've said anything particularly profound. Such an outcome of my analysis should be pretty obvious and go without saying. But every now and then, one can find some rather strong outliers, if one is curious and works with data like I do. Thelma Ritter is now the latest example of such, for my own personal learning curve. And, again, on a personal note, I'll have to hold up Agnes Moorehead. 4 noms, but no win. Ouch. That's a sting. It's not exactly the kind of movie that would be in the Oscar hunt, but her supporting role in the still-terrific "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte" was honestly so extremely well-delivered (and hilarous) that, in my opinion, she stole EVERY scene she was in away from BOTH Bette Davis AND Olivia de Havilland.
So, I don't know what else to say other than that, if I peep up much through my pretty severe depression any time soon, I know that I've got a few things on my "must see" and do list. There are a few Agnes Moorehead films I haven't seen or would like to see again. Moreover a Thelma Ritter film or two or three should be on the list.
I think that if I TRULY were to try to make a profound observation, it would have to do with the example of Thelma Ritter. Her being so extremely under-guessed, to the extent that such an extreme under-guessing of her is truly an extreme outlier, and this also extends to my not guessing her (or even, admittingly, not ever even remembering hearing of her), is a rather precise and cutting reminder of the mistakes that most of us make by not respecting history as much as we should or by overlooking quality in favor of glamour. The older I have gotten, the more I have come to believe that such mistakes can prove pretty injurious.
Thank you to everyone who’s taken this quiz so far. I’ve been thinking about updating this every two years from now on since it’s such a massive quiz. There were a lot of first-time nominees this year which is why I decided to update it for this season instead of the next. If that’s okay with the Quizmaster and everyone else, I’ll return to this quiz and its male version in 2025.
I created both of these quizzes before Page came out as transgender at the end of 2020, and have gone back and forth on deciding how to handle it before finally deciding to move him to the other quiz. I apologize for not making this decision sooner, but better late than never I suppose.
Again, Elliot Page will be moved over to the other quiz for the next update in 2025. Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed the quiz!
Knew itGreat quiz though!!!
Consider it like this: say that you had a nickname when you were a kid, a nickname that you genuinely hated. Maybe a nickname based on some aspect of yourself that you didn't like, or that was inspired by an embarrassing event. The people using it just mean it in good fun, and genuinely don't realize that it's hurtful to you, but it is anyway. You grow up, and finally come to a place where you can say "I really don't like that nickname, here are my reasons why, please call me this instead." If you said that to someone and they still actively insisted on calling you by that nickname anyway, wouldn't you feel like they were being disrespectful to you?
Susannah York requires first and last name for some reason
Felicity Huffman is out of order alphabetically
impressive.
I guess.
Instead of being in the top 0.6%, I think I should probably be in the top 0.4% or higher. Maybe not 0.1%. This isn't necessarily reflective of my knowledge base or intelligence, however - more reflective, really, of persistence and boredom and not having a life. LOL.
I know I wouldn't be in the ultra-super-elite, because I know what my knowledge base ISN'T, plus I have huge weaknesses like not knowing about: mainstream sports, flags, Harry Potter, or Pokemon, for starters.
But it's been obvious to me for a little while, now, that there is a good solid chunk of cheaters at the very top.
My favorite actress is Jessica Lange. I was curious to see how many people had guessed her. I was extremely surprised to see how under-guessed she was. She is tied for 13th place for the # of nominations, but not even in the top 100 in terms of # of times guessed. For shame!
Well, I decided to do a little analysis in Excel, and the following is what I came up with.
I ended up constructing some data (or perhaps "meta data") in a few categories. (I'm not sure if I said that I did this in Excel. That's what I did.) So, those four categories (each being a column in my Excel spreadsheet) were: 1) "Critical Rank", 2) "Guessed Rank", 3) "Guessed Discrepancy", and 4) "Discrepancy Rank by # Noms Category".
The 1) "Critical Rank" corresponds directly to the # of nominations each actress got and the 2) "Guessed Rank" corresponds directly to the # of times each actress has been guessed all of the 20,000+ times this quiz has been taken (20,000+ is a pretty healthy # for sampling).
The "Guessed Discrepancy" value was a simple subtraction of the "Guessed Rank" from the "Critical Rank" in order to give a *difference* value representing how 'under-guessed' each actress might be.
The "Discrepancy Rank by # Noms Category" is the ranking, within each 'tie' (how many times each actress was nominated). E.g. - of the 10 different actresses who have gotten exactly 6 Academy Award noms, Jessica Lange was the 7th most under-guessed actress, with respect to how highly she should have been guessed if the # of guesses was directly and absolutely related to their "critical acclaim" (represented, here, by the # of Oscar noms they've received).
I think that if I TRULY were to try to make a profound observation, it would have to do with the example of Thelma Ritter. Her being so extremely under-guessed, to the extent that such an extreme under-guessing of her is truly an extreme outlier, and this also extends to my not guessing her (or even, admittingly, not ever even remembering hearing of her), is a rather precise and cutting reminder of the mistakes that most of us make by not respecting history as much as we should or by overlooking quality in favor of glamour. The older I have gotten, the more I have come to believe that such mistakes can prove pretty injurious.
(edited to correct errors)