Aaron Sorkin does appear to be a lock at this time.

He has been since the movie came out.

So isn't this exactly the problem the Oscar telecast has with viewer attrition, that anyone interested in the awards already knows that there are several "locks to win" when the nominations haven't even been announced yet.

The so-called locks are based on general public and movie critic reaction so far. It appears that the locks I mentioned earlier--Colin Firth, Natalie Portman and Christian Bale--are already strong favorites to win a Golden Globe and are strong favorites to actually win an Oscar.

I think the problem is, with these "locks to win", they could do the show in 2 hours instead of 4.

But then they'd have no "banter" between presenters, or a monologue, or a dance troupe putting on a show set to the nominated scores. What about spending a couple of minutes talking about every Best Picture nominee? An Oscars telecast without someone like Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell doing a stupid little skit? Surely these are indispensable.

The general public probably doesn't read about all the critic awards that each person wins. They may tune into the Globes and the Oscars and not really read about anything else. As far as I've been following the Oscars, most races are wrapped up going into the awards show. Usually there's only 1 or 2 main categories that are always up in the air.

2000 was a good year because it had alot of surprises on Oscar night and provided some actual excitement. Traffic sort of snuck up on everyone and took Editing and then Director, which then made the telecast interesting since Gladiator had been the front runner.

2002 was also interesting when Brody and Polanski had surprise wins.

Another thing about 2000 is that Ang Lee won the DGA award for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It is the only time that the DGA award, Best Director Oscar, and Best Picture Oscar was each given to a different film.

A lot of the viewing public like these elements, however, despite the understandable cynicism.

It's all in the execution.

The Social Network winning streak continues. 4 Globe wins: Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Score.

And the general public doesn't watch TV shows like Today, Good Morning America, The View, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight, Showbiz Tonight or the E! channel where all this info will be chewed over.

Yeah, and... ?

I thought everyone thought The Oscars were boring. The locks aren't the issue. It's the quality of the show itself and it's lack of ability in entertaining the audience...who for some fucking reason feel the need to be entertained even if it's a damn awards show. They give out awards, ok? How much more exciting can you get beyond some good banter in between and keep it classy enough for the channel it's on? Maybe if Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek started fucking onstage and then we'd get a show that just got some junk injected in the arm and we're all about the Oscars now...right?

Of course we all know the best way to enjoy a great football game is to DVR it, find out who he winner was, and then watch the action without the unnecessary distraction of wondering about the outcome.

but what about the Cruz and Hayek fucking?!

I think this year the Oscars could be a LOT more interesting because it's going to pit the older faction of AMPAS voters (who will likely prefer The King's Speech) against the younger faction of voters (who will likely prefer The Social Network). Given that a large bloc of voters grew up in the 1960's (I can't believe it--the hippie generation are now in their 50's and 60's!), I wouldn't be surprised that The Social Network wins this year.

So did Portman lock it down with her Globes speech?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fkTjcs-Q7Jg" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

Awesome.

Once upon a time, the Oscar show was filled with entertainers, people whom the entire audience knew and loved and the show was fun to watch. Bob Hope was the host and he had a large staff of writers providing top gags. The year of GUNFIGHT AT THE O.K. CORRAL, its stars, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, came out and did a softshoe number together before presenting an award. (I remember seeing this clip on a much later show.) In 1974, a streaker ran across the stage and co-host David Niven came up with a response on the spot about the streaker's "shortcomings" and the entire nation roared. As late as 1981, the dance legends known as the Nicholas Brothers came out, preceded by a montage of their film appearances, and did a dance before presenting an award. For film buffs like me, this was gold.

Today, alas, all the entertainers who could pull a nationwide audience of viewers are gone and there's little reason for many people to watch. People like Jon Stewart and Steve Martin, as skilled and talented as they may be, come from a very different show biz tradition, one with much narrower appeal. They're respected but not beloved. So the effect is going to be very different.

And I can't imagine how James Franco and Anne Hathaway could do anything at this ceremony that I would find remotely interesting. And I'm quite certain that a significant portion of the viewing audience will have no idea who Franco is and only a vague idea who Hathaway is.

Maybe Hathaway will come out in a cat suit. Maybe Kunis could make out with Portman. Just throwing these ideas out there.

Proving Ash Ketchum's point eh?

Anyone notice that the Best Supporting Actor category seems to be a lock more of often than other categories?

Christoph Waltz
Heath Ledger
Javier Bardem
George Clooney
Benicio Del Toro

So, who's the fav this year?

Christian Bale

It's not as clear-cut as previous years (Ruffalo's extremely good in The Kids Are All Right, and several of the guys from The Social Network are deserving), but Christian Bale's certainly carrying the momentum.