Login

Okay, I’ve been thinking about this since last night’s show. I’ve always just watched the big awards ceremonies for the fun of it, but this year I actually followed a bunch of the precursor events and critics’ awards for the first time. Now I’m sitting here wondering if knowing who won all those smaller awards beforehand actually made the main event feel less exciting for anyone else, or if it somehow made me appreciate the frontrunners more? It kind of took the surprise out of it, but maybe that’s just me.

I felt that too. Watching the precursors made the big night feel less like a gamble and more like a staged finale with a map. Part of me wanted the surprise, part of me appreciated the coherence in the awards landscape. The mood shifts when you know some names ahead.

From a cognitive angle, knowing some winners beforehand prunes the surprise but also sharpens your read on who deserves it. It trains you to notice the gap between nomination chatter and onstage moments. The real question becomes how you measure merit when the field is already partially charted by the awards ecosystem.

Wait, you’re not alone if you thought the smaller awards set up the finale as a form of trend forecast. I interpreted it as the season giving you a spoiler, but maybe it just gave you a lens to spot recurring patterns rather than the winners themselves.

Precursors can feel like hype machines; the main awards swing on small onstage details that critics might miss, or that the moment simply reveals differently.

A different framing: treat precursors as texture rather than verdict. They reveal tastes and networks, not the sole truth about the best film or performance in the awards.

As a writer, I notice how frontrunners lay down a rhythm and critics latch onto it; the main awards become a chorus rather than a solo, and the suspense lives in how the crowd responds.

Do you feel the thrill is the communal surprise or the private mapping of who wins?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me