Oscar bait is just a symptom

Our outsourced taste and addiction to the Academy’s validation

Opinions Helena Reyes Teruel — Published February 22, 2026 0 minutes

During this period, audiences start labelling certain movies “Oscar bait,” a pejorative term that gets thrown around at films that are perceived to be less about quality storytelling and more about winning a nomination.

The problem isn’t filmmakers crafting quality films; it’s the marketing machinery behind them and, more fundamentally, our society’s willingness to be shepherded by the Academy’s approval of art. 

A study done by UCLA in 2014 about the nature of Oscar-bait films revealed that most Academy-nominated movies are in genres like drama, war, history and biography, with plots involving similar themes and settings like political intrigue, disabilities, war crimes and show business. 

In the decade since that study, most Best Picture winners have continued to fall into these same categories, with a few exceptions like The Shape of Water, a 2017 romantic dark fantasy film, or comedy-dramas like Everything Everywhere All at Once, which won in 2023. 

This predictability is no accident. The same study found that most entertainment magazines, like Entertainment Weekly, can accurately predict who the nominees for the year will be, showing that there is such a thing as recognizable Oscar traits in a film. 

However, to say that every movie that happens to have Oscar quality is simply Oscar-baiting waters down the artistry and passion that directors, actors and filmmakers put into their projects. The term exists for a reason; the Academy has an obvious bias, but the exploitation of it is prompted by marketers, not built in during the creative process. 

The 1978 film The Deer Hunter is a great example. Often considered the first Oscar consultant, Allan Carr, working for Universal Pictures, launched a marketing campaign explicitly to garner the Academy’s attention to save what would’ve likely otherwise been a box office disaster. 

The movie succeeded, becoming the 1979 Best Picture winner, and Carr’s success became the blueprint for Oscar-focused marketing. Crucially, the film wasn’t made with the idea of winning an Oscar in mind, but rather the idea of pushing for the Academy’s stamp of approval came about as a way to make the investment worthwhile. 

Since then, countless films have adopted the same strategy for similar reasons, as a lot of what gets nominated isn’t exactly what general audiences are drawn to. Resulting in more experimental films and screenplays with heavy material playing the Oscar game to make their money back. 

And with streaming platforms burying smaller films and theatres prioritizing blockbusters, Oscar nominations have become one of the few ways films from marginalized communities or foreign countries can break through to wider audiences.

I understand why Oscar-baiting is looked down upon: no one likes feeling manipulated by marketing. But the real question isn't why studios chase Oscar nominations; it's why we, as audiences, let a gold statuette determine what deserves our attention. 

These marketing strategies only exist because that Oscar-nominee sticker on a DVD cover actually works. Support indie movies regardless of whether they are Academy-approved; doing so dismantles the structure that allowed Oscar-baiting to become a legitimate marketing strategy. 

Browsing public or digital libraries are good starting point to begin watching indie films, as well as indie-focused streaming services like Kanopy, completely free with the Concordia University card.