Originally Posted by Natrlhi
So we should have a separate awards ceremony for films that are released in the Spring only, for example, knowing full well that if nothing good is released in that time period, then shitty films will get awards for no reason? Is that fair? Should "Zero Dark Thirty" (which I liked, just to be clear) be given the same distinction as a film such as "12 Years a Slave" just because there wasn't shit else out during the first three months of 2013 to compete with it?
The best movies of the year are always released late in the year by the companies that make them. Everybody knows that. If you can make a case for a movie that was released early last year that got snubbed by the Academy due to its early release date alone, I'd like to hear about it. Call me overly optimistic, but I think that if a film is good enough to merit "Best Picture" for an entire year, the Academy isn't going to just go "oops" and totally forget about it just because it was released ten or twelve months ago. That's just silly.
tl;dr: I disagree with the notion of bestowing Academy awards six times per year so that a shitload of movies that don't deserve awards of this caliber will receive them - it dilutes the importance of the award.
This. The Oscars are relatively meaningless anyway, but only once a year is perfect for them.
I just wish they included more indie films. I mean, Explosions in the Sky did the soundtrack for 'Prince Avalanche', that alone means the soundtrack was worthy of praise and deserved a nomination.
That said, I'm surprised Gangster Squad and Oz Great and Powerful didn't get nods somewhere in the maelstrom.