Well, the Oscars will finally be put on display this Sunday.

And I believe they will do so with about as much enthusiasm as I gave that opening sentence.

There’s no hiding it: 2012 has been perhaps the most underwhelming Oscar season of the past 20 years.

But what’s the cause?

For starters from a Hollywood, commercial viewpoint, movies weren’t too good. Independent cinema flourished, mainstream dwindled, and so did the quality.

There’re no crowd-pleasers like Inception, The Social Network, Black Swan, or 127 Hours – all bigger films from 2010 that were worthy of the recognition they received. These films gathered from all ends up the film going spectrum – from the cinephile to the action movie junkie– and coalesced the two into one celebration of cinema.

Sure, the hosts (James Franco and Anne Hathaway) were underwhelming, the ceremony too long, and the winners too predictable, but it was a proud year for mainstream cinema.

Come this Sunday the Oscars are headed into their biggest obstacle yet: the idea of remaining relevant. People are tired of the antiquated selections by the committee (which recently was exposed to be comprised of 94% Caucasians, 77% males and as whole the group has a median age of 62).

Few individuals have not been rubbed the wrong way throughout the course of the Oscars. However, I fear, if not changed and altered, the award show we’ve all come to know and love, will soon morph into a pile of inconsequential accolades.

A main reason for a potential downfall is pure predictability. While 2010 was a great year for American cinema, the numerous awards given to The King’s Speech – a fine and well acted British film that holds much to be desired – it was just another living testament to the archaic ways of the Oscars.

I know, I know … this has been taking precedent for a while now: commercial viability over cinematic quality. But that doesn’t make it right, nor is it something that shouldn’t be changed.

If the Oscars were daring this year, they’d drop the trifle that is The Artist or the manipulation that is The Help, and award films like The Descendants, Midnight In Paris, and The Three of Life.

I understand that’s just my personal position and my views are subjective. Though from a filmmaking standpoint, there’s little denying that The Help misguides the viewer and devalues African American women. As it is also hard to deny that The Artist – while it is charming and delightful – is merely obtaining a plethora of attention due the fact that it’s a black and white silent film. Oscar voters should dig past the simple concept of a film, and search for the substance underneath.

I’m not going to go into what should’ve been nominated or who got egregiously snubbed, we know by now – after the onslaught of upset tweeters and disgruntled cinephiles voicing their caustic opinions – where the committee went wrong.

But again this brings up the psychology of idealization. Sure, in an ideal world I’d like the committee to not be entirely dull and placid in their selections. In an ideal world Billy Crystal will behold as much charisma and wit as we all remember. And in an ideal world, Woody Allen will show up this year and bask in the glory and utter praise he so rightfully deserves. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a society that finds Transformers: Dark of the Moon worthy of two nominations and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close worthy of best picture.

And so tomorrow – as I’ve done so for the past two years – I will publish my Oscar predictions for all you loyal readers. The day following I will watch the ceremony in anticipation. And the day following Sunday, I will likely feel a good deal of cinematic depression.

After that I will mutter – in sheer wish fulfillment – “there’s always next year”.

Which, is a remark I hope I will able to make for the rest of my life.