By Isaac Feldberg, News Correspondent

It’s true that Hollywood puts out some great movies every year, and it’s certainly true that one of those great movies is occasionally crowned Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

That said, it’s also true that there is a growing disparity between the truly great movies and the ones that end up bringing home Oscar gold. Why? Two words: Oscar bait.

Every year, major studios from The Weinstein Company to Universal Pictures lobby to get their movies nominated for Oscars. The logic is simple:  if someone sees that a film has been nominated, the immediate assumption is that it’s simultaneously great and important.

So greedy are these studios for validation from the Academy that they often serve up exactly what they think its members want—lavishly produced stories, optimally with expensive period set design, that revolve around underdogs (played by charismatic Oscar vets) coming out on top in triumphant battles against disabilities or some other overwhelming odds. Add in exceptionally strong use of the three-act structure, a heartstring-tugging score and politics that lean just right of center. Stir well. Voila.

Sitcom “American Dad!” mocked this Hollywood tradition with gusto, having character Roger produce a movie actually called “Oscar Gold” about a mentally challenged Jewish boy and his cancer-ridden puppy trying to survive during the Holocaust, which killed viewers by literally making them cry to death. Point made, “American Dad!,” point made.

But that episode shouldn’t be the only instance in which someone points the finger at Hollywood about this sorry practice. In the same way that critics so wantonly dismiss films like “Transformers: Age of Extinction” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” as soulless cash-grabs, we should be calling out movies like “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” “J. Edgar,” “War Horse” and “Saving Mr. Banks” as the blatantly preening pieces of Oscar bait that they are.

This fall’s films are no different. “Unbroken” will star Jack O’Connell as athlete-turned-soldier Louis Zamperini who survived at sea for weeks after his plane was shot down during WWII, only to become a prisoner-of-war in the Japanese internment camps. It’s as old-fashioned as it gets—an inspirational tale of American courage, filmed with warmth and respect, and accompanied by a truly tear-jerking score.

Now, the term “Oscar bait” doesn’t have to denote poor quality, and in the case of “Unbroken,” I hope it doesn’t. Currently though, it’s sitting pretty at the top of many critics’ Oscar prediction lists just based on that set-up,and something about that seems very wrong.The Academy, a group dedicated to honoring the best in cinema, really shouldn’t have a type.

Every year, some of the best films come from unexpected places. Who could have predicted that “Guardians of the Galaxy” would package explosive action and a thrilling story with some of the most beautifully nuanced and enjoyable characters to be seen on screen this year? Or that “The Lego Movie” would transcend every expectation with a wildly, warmly original story that should make it a contender for Best Picture, not just Best Animated Feature? The Academy needs to have its eyes and ears open to all movies, not just the ones dressed up to appeal to their demonstrated sensibilities.

Perhaps it’s inevitable that gaming the awards process would become a regular occurrence in Hollywood, where being able to preface your name with “Oscar nominee” still means a hell of a lot. But that doesn’t mean that the gaming needs to happen behind closed doors—by picking up all those scheming producers and studio heads on what they’re doing, we can stop “Oscar bait” setters from glutting the field with shoddy, calculated movies that don’t deserve to be in consideration for anything.If that happens, the focus can still be where it needs to be—on legitimate quality.

Photo courtesy Cliff, Creative Commons