In the 21st century, with expensive and sometimes successful campaigns like the Weinsteins' taking a larger role in the Oscar races, the term has become a
pejorative among some critics. They suggest that producers and studios are essentially
gaming the system, making movies with less attention to quality than to the features that Academy voters have shown a preference for. "At its worst, Oscar bait stinks up the room with its pretense to prestige," writes
Sactown Magazine editor S.T. VanAiresdale in
Slate. He cites in particular the 2011 film
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Its producer,
Scott Rudin, That particular nomination, which came after the film had not received
any other major film award nomination such as a
Golden Globe, was widely criticized. It was especially noted that it received a score of 45% from the online
review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes—the worst score received by any Best Picture nominee in the site's history. Some critics think the term is overused. "If I were Oscar-blogging this year, a long rant about the empty foolishness of the phrase 'Oscar bait' would be on the way,"
tweeted film historian
Mark Harris in early December 2012, before some of that year's likely Oscar nominees had even been released. Four years later, he explained his objections in a conversation with fellow
Vulture editor Kyle Buchanan. Primarily, he felt that it reduced the filmmakers' motivations to an attempt to win an award, regardless of what they might actually have been. Buchanan agreed that there was "an implication that what appears to be prestigious is, in its own way, as formulaic as a
Marvel blockbuster". For his part, he found the phrase to be "a kind of
anti-intellectual dog whistle" for some users. Harris further observed that the films by directors such as
Martin Scorsese, the
Coen brothers and
David Fincher released around Oscar season had many elements in common with movies by directors like
Tom Hooper and
Stephen Daldry often dismissed as Oscar bait, like star-heavy ensemble casts, showcase scenes for the stars and heavy marketing campaigns, yet it was only the "softer and more dismissible" films by the latter directors that were so labeled. "[It's] a way of diminishing movies by
feminizing them," he said. "[I]t's used as a sneer in the same way that
Masterpiece Theater was used in the 1980s and '
Merchant Ivory' was used in the 1990s." "This clustering of quality films in the post–Toronto Film Festival weeks of fall and winter frustrates critics, publicists, movie exhibitors, studios, and award voters," Adam Sternbergh wrote in a 2015
Vulture post. "[B]ut, most crucially, it alienates the movie audience." At the time that year's nominations were announced, he observed, it was expected that either
Boyhood or
Selma would win, yet the latter film had not yet gone into wide release, and another top contender,
American Sniper, only went into wide release the day after nominations were announced. "Of all the side effects of this silly awards-show pileup, this one seems like the silliest: People are expected to care about the awards prospects of films they won't get to see until long after the awards are awarded." While acknowledging the dump months are a result of other factors besides the Oscars and beyond the studios' control, such as the weather, the economy and competition from other entertainment such as (especially)
football season, Paul Shirey at
JoBlo.com nevertheless calls on Hollywood to spread out its Oscar-quality releases throughout the year: Sternbergh suggests this could be facilitated by emulating the playoff formats of professional sports leagues, which divide their teams into
conferences to ensure wide interest in postseason elimination contests. The Academy, he proposes, should return to five nominations for Best Picture and picking one nominee from each three-month quarter of the year, with the best second-place finisher getting the remaining
wild card berth. ==In popular culture==