Call us crazy, but we're not as excited about the Oscars as we could be. We're happy the writers' strike is over, because we support writers as much as anyone (we're pretty writerly ourselves, y'know). Still, the fact that everyone's excited about ads, parties, and fashion (though we do like the Penelope Cruz pick) rather than films speaks to just how Hollywood our movie industry has become--and just how sad that is for the films themselves. So please excuse us if we seem a little grouchy this weekend.

The Times highlights several actors slated to appear in ads that will run in the Oscars (which apparently is the new Super Bowl: just like football, but with more foundation and less Gatorade!). As the Times' wildly incisive reporting finds, "Oscar sponsors prefer the nominated films to be blockbusters," since that tends to increase viewership (o rly? no waiz!). The article concludes, "So on Sunday, there will be Oscars. And there will be commercials." We are blown away by the insights. Pulitzer! Pulitzer!

The New York Sun upstaged its big sis by doing some actual investigation ("Reporting? what's that?" asks the Times) into the Oscars nomination and voting process. From obscure nomination policies to voters who haven't seen all the movies to French films that don't qualify as foreign, the Sun revealsthat that Oscars are pretty much a total sham. Given the nomination issues, maybe focusing on the parties and dresses is really the way to go after all.

So what do you think, Bostonist readers? Are you excited about the Oscars or disgusted that an event intended to evaluate movies has become more about judging fashion, selling credit cards, and rewarding cronies? And if we can't trust (the non-grouchy) Oscar anymore, what film awards do matter?