Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
I am disappointed with Pete Hammond’s article about Oscar Web sites (“Award sites mushroom, but who reads them?” Dec. 12). It seems to me that Mr. Hammond completely missed the boat as to the purpose of these sites.
He implies that the primary purpose of Oscar sites is to influence the outcome of the Academy Awards, but this is not the case. The Academy Awards are becoming more and more of a phenomenon every year. Studios are spending more and money promoting their films, and the outcomes seem to be more and more about studio promotion and money than about film quality.
It has been shown that Academy Award nominations can be predicted with reasonable accuracy (70-80%) if one is to listen carefully to what films are being hyped, buzzed, and promoted.
Therefore, it is unfair for us to be labeled as “subjective” and “influential,” when we are not trying to influence anything, merely trying to reduce the Academy Awards process to a science. We also have a track record of being able to predict the outcome as well as anyone else on a regular basis.
(The author, under the pseudonym “Seattle Guy,” edits the “Ultimate Oscar” page of Geocities.com.)