Webhead aches

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.

Ryan Blosser

(The author, under the pseudonym “Seattle Guy,” edits the “Ultimate Oscar” page of Geocities.com.)

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 0

Leave a Reply

No Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More Biz News from Variety

Loading