Just food for thought, and let me start by saying I am by no means an expert on movies. Yet, like most reading (or those who watched last night) I have an opinion. It seemed as if Selma was a late entry on the ballots and was only nominated for two awards. I find that strange but that may have something to do with it being released later than most of the other films.
I also guess by the eruption of malcontent on social media that plenty of people wholeheartedly disagreed with Birdman getting best film. I am not here to debate which film should have won or not. My question has more to do with the logistics of who votes for these films and is that body doing so from an objective perspective?
The reason I ask is that from my experience there is always a political element involved when it comes to any award. Music awards, sports awards, promotions regardless of industry, and I think the only exception seems to be kids athletics because of the "everybody's a winner" mentality but that's a whole different conversation.
In this world who you know often trumps what you know and when it comes to Hollywood this theme plays out a vast majority of the time. So it begs the question, did this years winners win on merit or was their winning more influenced by who the directors/actors/actresses/producers etc, rubbed elbows with?
Now I know we can't do away with the Academy awards, but can we pattern more awards shows after the People's Choice Awards to somehow tone down the political element? I think I would rather the fans paying to see these films have more influence over who gets nominated and wins the awards than an old decaying governing body with an agenda. Year after year there are always a few "headscratchers" where you wonder....Really?!!
What are your thoughts?