You make a lot of good points. The fact is, the guessing game is just that - a guessing game. It has no more or less impact on the actual awards than anything else. You are very much a who "should" and who "shouldn't" win as opposed to who will and won't. Different strokes for different folks but your readers will appreciate your playing it your way. I personally get irritated at all of the "should wins" out there because there are many and they vary wildly across the board and everyone has their own idea of what constitutes great. That's what top ten lists are for and the critics' awards to decide. The Academy has always and will always do it their way.

what's the point of trying to match the taste of the Academy? The best way to get a sense of the front runners is to bribe an orderly at the Screen Actors Home.

It is a major shame that everything now has been reduced to "predicting Oscar" rather than praising that which was stellar. I was shocked to hear one pundit on a cable news show trash a local critic groups awards because last year they didn't include all the nominees nor did they "pick" the winners.

While guessing the Oscars is a fun parlor game, it should not ruin a critic's ability to celebrate performances and movies that were the best of the year.

Great suggestions. And as soon as you pop "the Oscar balloon" at the bottom of the page, I'll start believing you mean it.

How about focusing on the Awards potential of films we've already seen? Would be a good way to keep attention on worthy films from earlier in the year, like BREACH, YOU KILL ME, THE NAMESAKE, WAITRESS, and especially ZODIAC and ONCE.

Does this mean we're not going to get an Oscar Balloon as prematurely as we did last year? Wanna go on the record about it?

Wells to Noel Murray: What I'm going to do is start my own "pure" Oscar Balloon above it with a different color backdrop, and keep the same-old same-old Oscar Balloon below it.

jeff: i find i'm agreeing with you too much lately. something has happened to one of us.

anyway, this is absolutely the manifesto that is needed at this point. let's talk about movies and debate their merits and let the season develop a bit more.

that's my point about american gangster; i don't care what the academy thinks or how they vote and i honestly done care about 95% of the critics, except how they can hype into life some big doggies and completely miss some beautiful puppies.

virtually every critic in this country dismissed "to live and die in LA" as a "miami vice" ripoff when it came out. so it had no critical support and died at the boxoffice. i suspect the audiences will be there for ridley's latest, even if the critz aren't. (or aren't there as much as they are this year for some real dreck that will remain unnamed.)

isn't this why we're all here on this site? to debate and discuss the merits of films and let the critz do their thing and to let the "gurus" prognosticate us all to sleep?

I might agree with Jeff if he weren't one of the ones posting Oscar stuff over a month ago, even before Toronto and before having seen any of the movies. Sam Riley doesn't stand a chance because the Weinstein Company is doing very little to nothing to promote him. when they showed the movie to the NBR, was Sam Riley anywhere in attendance for the Q 'n' A? Nope...and that's the hard facts about how the Oscars and awards season works. Those involved need to know how to play the game and how they get across to the Academy and it has very little to do with quality or what's really good or bad. (How else do you explain Leo being nominated for Blood Diamond and no actor besides Mark Wahlberg being nominated for Departed even though it was deemed "Best Picture worthy"?)

Sorry, Jeff, but you can't make half a dozen posts about your Oscar predictions and then when others jump in with their thoughts, say "Oh, it's much too early." just because they don't agree with you.

I'll sit back and see if this means you'll be pulling the obviously "going for Oscar awareness" ads from your website...

Wells to Tapley: Oh, for God's sake, Kris...get off it. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Wells to Douglas: Yes, I can -- I CAN say this because prognosticators and big-mouths like you and me have a role to play -- a mission -- and that's to do what we can to stand up for the right stuff in the early stages of things, or at least isolate the stuff we care about and believe in from the stuff we "think" will play with the Academy. Yes. I. Can. It's a simple matter of apples & oranges double-tracking.

Jeff, your proposal is great if a bit unrealistic, though I like what you're getting at. I agree, I don't think the Gurus know how much power they hold, and that's why it's frustrating for guys like you and me when they make such safe choices. Oscar voters take their cues from critics, pundits and prognosticators like the Gurus. If someone tells Academy voters what films and performances to look for, they will seek them out. How many Academy members do you think saw La Vie en Rose when that came out in theaters? Probably not many. But they all know they should see it before they vote because that's what the critical consensus tells them. I agree, it's disheartening to see the Gurus play it safe and mention the obvious choices. And it's a true shame to see the lack of support for Sam Riley. Because really, with those 10 picks, the Gurus could choose to use the first 5 on those they expect to get nominated, and the other 5 to drum up support for those who would get the recognition they deserve, like Riley. I mean, his portraya of Curtis belongs right up there with Foxx and Phoenix as Ray and Johnny. It's a pitch-perfect performance, and the manic energy Riley conveys during those concert scenes, flapping his arms in defiance, is simply brilliant. He's not just acting like Curtis, he seems to be channeling the late singer himself.

That said, I agree with Kris and others here that it seems to be a bit hypocritical to bash all the prognosticating and stuff while the Oscar Balloon is beneath every post and you bite the hand that feeds you by accepting advertising from all the Oscar awareness ads, but hey, you're allowed to say whatever you want and in this particular instance, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think the chart should have two columns, what should get nominated and what will get nominated, so we can at least get a feel for the tastes of the Gurus, rather than their predictions on how others will vote. I also liked the stand Anne Thompson took on the chart by not choosing anything she hasn't seen a lick of footage from, like Charlie Wilson's War. Seems silly to annoint Charlie Wilson as a surefire Oscar lock right now, so why not focus on all the great stuff that's been released.

And yes Burma, I'm surprised by the lack of attention being paid to Zodiac and Once. I've found issue with almost all of the prestige pictures this season and think that Zodiac may be the closest thing to a masterpiece that I've seen all year. But I haven't heard squat about it with regards to the Oscar race. In fact, I was talking to some friends about the Oscars and when I mentioned Zodiac they asked, Did that come out this year? It's already faded from memory for most people, which is a true shame, perhaps even more so than Riley's snub on the Gurus chart. Let's hope the Gurus realize their infliuence and amend their mistakes, or revise the purpose of the chart.

Jeff, do you think the Academy really cares what you or I think? Well maybe they care what you think cause they robbed Eddie Murphy of his only chance of ever getting an Oscar. :)

I tend to tell Tom O. the movies/performances that have the biggest impact with me and back them up with historical reasoning why they might be considered, but there's plenty of times that I'm impressed with a performance (Hugh Jackman in The Fountain is a classic example from last year) which doesn't stand any chance of striking a chord with Academy voters who just don't get weird movies... and Children of Men was kind of the same in that respect.

I thought Sam Riley was amazing in Control and he'll definitely get a couple noms for me in my group (but do I want to pick him for breakthrough over Glen Hansard?) but how many Academy members have ever heard a Joy Division song or know what an amazing thing it was for Corbjin to turn Riley into Curtis the way he did? Probably very few.

And speaking of the likely to be forgotten.. we have to hope they don't forget Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent in Sarah Polley's Away from Her and Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose. At least there doesn't seem to be that many strong female leads from Toronto and beyond to make it hard for them to get in with the right campaign.

If I were in a Critics group, I would be lobbying hard for Gordon Pinsent. As good as Christie was, it was his movie. He was glorious.

I am amused that critics and pseudo critics alike think that anything they say, do or advocate has any effect whatsoever on Academy voters. I guess it is hopeful and self delusional all at the same time since the Academy is not a homogenous voting bloc and has all of the disparate elements of, say, a critics association. And I doubt very many of them are interested in the opininions of the bulk of self appointed critics on the Web any more than they care about those who reside in print. Nice blog though.

Wells to SHR: Don't kid yourself -- the combined opinions/consensus of the Gurus of Gold and the Envelope brigade getting behind this or that film or filmmaker would definitely have an impact on the thinking around town, including Academy members.

Wells to Douglas: "...how many Academy members have ever heard a Joy Division song or know what an amazing thing it was for Corbjin to turn Riley into Curtis the way he did? Probably very few." Exactly. Which is why it's dispiriting for a group of journos who tend to know and care a good deal more about the various contenders than the average Academy member....not just dispiriting but borderline humiliating to try and second-guess how Academy-ites are probably going to vote, especially Academy-ites who haven't a clue about Joy Division (even with "24 Hour Party People" around to give them a tutorial) even though the group peaked 23 years ago during the Jimmy Carter administration...I mean, good God.

The "Gurus of Gold" (blech! What a risible handle!) and the "Envelope brigade" might influence the half-dozen or so Oscar voters under the age of 50 who subscribe to Entertainment Weekly who read Dave Karger's blog summaries but that's about it. As for critics, no critics group has ever, ever, EVER affected the Oscar race. What DOES affect the Oscar race are Academy screenings and screeners, trade ads, TV ads, social gossip and word of mouth. Of course, Jeff has to be economical with the truth here as he gets pais to run ad campaings for would-be nominees on his site.

Reposted after editing:

The "Gurus of Gold" (blech! What a risible handle!) and the "Envelope brigade" might influence the half-dozen or so Oscar voters under the age of 50 who subscribe to Entertainment Weekly who read Dave Karger's blog summaries but that's about it. As for critics, no critics group has ever, ever, EVER affected the Oscar race. What DOES affect the Oscar race are Academy screenings and screeners, trade ads, TV ads, social gossip and word of mouth. Of course, Jeff has to be economical with the truth here as he gets paid to run ad campains for would-be nominees on his site.