It is always around this time that we feel like we’re trying to find the door in the dark.
There are some knowns and unknowns, opinions and facts. The Oscar race is always evolving. It is not static, but fluid. Publicists must head into it like Marines whose objective is to improvise, adapt and overcome. In their way are a few obstacles. It used to just be the critics, but when the bloggers joined the fray things started to change. Nowhere is this change reflected more vividly than in the direct contract between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Each site has its own problems – Metacritic relies on subjective readings of reviews to come up with what seems like an arbitrary score. Rotten Tomatoes just flips a coin – good or bad. Each seems like a good idea in theory, but with regards to the Oscar race, neither is particularly helpful. Oscar winners can often have a much lower Metacritic score than their competition. The Hurt Locker and No Country for Old Men were both very well reviewed films, without question. But those reviews weren’t the driving force behind their dominance in the race: it was the startling lack of any real competition.