Yesterday there was this piece about why Oscar voters love actors who play real life characters. Doesn't this come up every Oscar season? And then Tom O'Neill writes this kicker:
So why is it that, when it comes to declaring the best films of a given year at the Oscars, they frequently pooh-pooh their most successful work in favor of little movies about an Australian pianist ("Shine") or a prostitute-turned-serial killer ("Monster")?
Um...because their most successful work is usually crap. Could you imagine this year's most successful film, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest up for Best Picture? The Oscars are supposed to be about honoring daring and original work - the best. And that is usually found in the realm of the independents.
Then today they post an article projecting winners in all the major categories. Winners? The nominations haven't been announced yet. The nomination ballots haven't even been mailed. What gives? Is there nothing else to write about? Sure there are frontrunners to be nominated, but how can we be talking about winners already? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The season is still young, the critics groups haven't even started their year end awards yet, and the Globes haven't chimed in yet (although Ryan Gosling of Half Nelson has gotten a nice boost this week with the Independent Spirit Award nominations and its victory at the Gotham Awards).
There is so much to be taken into account that hasn't happened yet. The nominations aren't until January. A lot can happen during that time (and as history has proven, it usually does).
A word to The Envelope - I have a lot of respect for you folks. Just please keep giving us meaningful, insightful awards buzz and commentary instead of fluff pieces like this. For those hungry for real meaty articles, we're having to look elsewhere. We can get Hollywood junk food anywhere...so please trim the fat.