Director Suparn Verma seemed very upset about some of the Oscar wins this year. He rants about it here:

I lost    500.

A friend and I teamed against our close friends -- a brother-sister duo -- and challenged that the Oscar for Best Picture would go to The Social Network.

Social Network lost, and so did we.

I watched The King's Speech, really enjoyed the film, absolutely loved Colin Firth, who was pitch perfect in his performance. But was the film or its director Tom Hooper better than The Social Network and its director David Fincher?

Frankly, The King's Speech never worked for me on the level of a great film that The Social Network did, in every which way.

Fifty years from now, they will call it a film that was released at a time when America, reeling under recession, celebrated the entrepreneurial spirit. It showcased a new-age real life Gordon Gekko in Mark Zuckerberg, who has become a celebrated cultural icon in the greatest image makeover of the decade after the film.

It is fantastic that Hollywood can ignore its own homegrown talent and look at the Queen's country for movies to select from but the selection/voting system at times defies logic.

The fact that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won the much deserved award for Best Original Score or that Aaron Sorkin won for The Best Adapted Screenplay is no consolation.

The Social Network is a tougher film to pull off on various levels, never falling into the cliche trap till the very end and juggling various timelines in its brilliantly-structured narrative.

There have been many write-ups that Inception had confused its viewers, so it would never take the top honours. That is an extremely sad commentary on a educated society, which has had enough time to redeem itself for overlooking The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon for their complex narratives.

I'm confused as hell. What logic goes into overlooking Christopher Nolan's nomination for Best Director? He makes a film good enough to be nominated for Best Picture, good enough to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay but he isn't good enough to be nominated as a director?

There are major write-ups about him being a cold personality, who never smiles and doesn't do interviews so the voters didn't warm up to him.

Are you serious? He made a brilliant film. Nolan doesn't need to warm your seat for you, his body of work speaks for itself.

I hope they don't give Nolan and Fincher an award 20 years later for remaking a South Korean film!

Isn't this the Oscars we are talking about? An industry award by working professionals, the best in the business. It doesn't have a gutka company sponsoring it. Yet, the Oscars aren't what they started out to be. Today, they are a television event, all about ratings.

In an age where there are all kinds of awards from all kinds of associations, press awards, producer guild awards, director guild awards, Razzies, Twitter and Facebook awards, and many more, some things are institutions that don't deserve to be tweaked with. The whole glamour of the Oscars lies in its elusiveness. The more public domain you make it, the more the veneer will wear off.

The mystique of the Oscars needs to be revived for it to work, and a 100-year-old Billy Crystal will still get more laughs than a James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

If the Oscars really wanted to get young and include the youth, they would have nominated Kick-Ass for Best Picture and Director as well as best adapted screenplay, they would start a new section for best adapted comic book/graphic novel.

It is time they stopped giving awards for righting wrongs. Colin Firth deserved his award for A Single Man much more in my opinion.

I'm still 500 bucks short. Maybe next year.