No ACE nom, no ADG nom, no PGA nom.

On the one hand, it looks like the perfect Oscars contender, on the other hand, if it were any other film with a different subject matter, judging by precursors I'd say it's barely in, if at all.

Apparently, screeners were not sent to the guilds. Only to the Academy. That could explain it?

It's either a screener issue or the guilds aren't reacting to it as well as people expected. I have no other explanation.

It'd have to be the most colossal screener issue in the Oscar race history.

It's becoming clearer to me, though, that Boyhood cannot be stopped for Best Picture. Selma seemed like the only real challenger, and it's getting bogged down by these weird snubs.

I don't think Weinstein can push Imitation Game far enough.

It has to be a screener issue. It seems that Paramount simply dropped the ball on this one, totally.

Screeners weren't even sent out for this one until December 18th. The only movie that sent out later than that was Interstellar where they went out December 29th (on Blu-ray). On the contrary, almost everything else had been received by Thanksgiving.

Either you completely invest in the late-DVD explanation or you venture into perhaps uncomfortable terrain: is the film boring people? Have the recent protests and controversies left voters weary of the race conversation rather than particularly energized to embrace and crown Selma?

Also, maybe it doesn't play as well on screener as they might have hoped. I watched a screener of it and found many portions of it boring

And I don't get that. It's ridiculous. They must have known they had a bona fide contender on their hands.

I also believe there is a finish-your-vegetables dynamic at play, and maybe people are not in the mood. Selma is this handsomely mounted, Oprah-driven, it-is-your-civic-duty-to-watch-this-and-give-it-awards-because-it-so-timely paean to Dr. King, one of the most lionized and amber-encased figures in American history. People are responding to the slice-of-life humor and melancholy of Boyhood or the how-will-this-pan-out suspense and idiosyncratic personalities of Whiplash, Nightcrawler, The Imitation Game, etc. And the sheer exuberance of The Grand Budapest Hotel if you are a Wes Anderson fan.

But it is also supposedly a very very very good film, David.

It's really not anything special. The great reviews honestly baffle me.

The great reviews are probably because people that they have to give good reviews for a film about MLK. If they do not, they are racist. People are tired of awarding films they should award, and just want to award the films they loved last year, hence it's lack traction this year.

Two words that KJ loves to use right now; precedent and traction.

Dude, your grammar has seen better days...

I missed a few words. I just woke up. *shrugs*

Fair enough. But this perception can shift, even despite reviews. Rightly or wrongly, plenty of people will tell you a revered-by-critics film such as 12 Years of Slave was, to them, just a helping of peas to be nobly and dutifully finished before pudding.

But 12 Years a Slave won, so I don't know where I am going with this.

Haven't seen it, but maybe this is one of those films that plays better when watched in a big theater crowd rather than alone in your home? Like the emotional moments may be that much more dramatic when you see and hear others around you reacting strongly to it. Guessing that could be what they're going for (but backfiring).

I mean the explanation has been provided apparently. No screeners sent out, except to the members of the Academy.

So, the lesson is: do not assume the industry will turn out to a screening room because your film is so prestigious and so special. Oh, Paramount, the perfectionist director won't stop slightly revising the film? Burn the rough cut on mass-produced discs and mail 'em out with tote bags emblazoned #SELMAISNOW.

So it is guilt that is heaping this praise. Bigelow called it a masterpiece. Anywho, I'm seeing it tomorrow and will prounounce judgement then.