Oscars Wild

Named for the first six-inch tall gold person to act in Hollywood, the Oscars are the most prestigious event of the year recognizing outstanding films and film-makers. But what makes a movie worthy of the Academy's attention?

For one thing, it isn't the box-office. While usually a decent way to get a nomination, huge revenue does not an Oscar get. 2012's biggest movie, the Avengers, only netted a single nomination (for Visual Effects). Popularity isn't a guarantee either; I'd even say it's a stymie. Some of the big titles press-wise, Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey received 1, 0, and 3, respective nominations.

The Academy of Motion Pictures seems to favor what we might call "artsy-fartsy" films. Last year's The Artist and 2010's The King's Speech were far from the most popular movie of their respective years. The idea is to look for great, well-made films, not blockbuster ones. Thus the cinematography (and acting, art direction, etc.) won the not at all sophisticated Return of the King Best Picture and 10 other Oscars in 2003.

I was surprised that, after The Dark Knight's Best Picture snub-fiasco in 2009, Rises received no love, even pity-love, from the Academy. Personally, I'm pulling for Lincoln to sweep the upper tier of awards (Daniel Day-Lewis is at least a shoe-in for Lead Actor). However, artsier films like Les Miserables and Life of Pi are serious contenders to spoil Spielberg's night.