WELL, this is becoming interesting.
No sooner had the Academy Awards left Ben Affleck out of the running for best director than America's Broadcast Film Critics Association named him as such at the weekend.
This has now been followed by a clutch of Golden Globes for Argo, Affleck's Iranian hostage drama, including best director.
Might Uncle Oscar be embarrassed come February 24?
At this time of year there seem to be as many awards ceremonies as there are cases of the common cold.
Popular wisdom once had it that the race was all over bar the blubbing once the Golden Globes were announced.
Didn't they point the way to who was going to win an Oscar? In reality, they rarely did.
This year, the Academy even brought its nominations announcement forward, to make it plain that its voters were not influenced by who won at the GGs.
That the Globes, decided by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, should go for Argo over Lincoln for best drama was a typical Globes surprise.
After its 12 Oscar nominations, Spielberg's biopic looked like sweeping all before it. Not so far, though. With one notable exception, that is.
If you have a farm to bet, Daniel Day-Lewis now looks like a safe punt for the best actor Oscar.
Otherwise, the prizes fell where they were expected, between Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables and Amour for foreign film.
That left the speeches and the hosts to supply the gasps and laughs. Adele did Queen and country proud with her "I'm just a mum here for a night out" speech, while Tina Fey and Amy Poehler's naughty but nice double act meant that Ricky Gervais was not missed.
Roll on the Baftas, where both Argo and Lincoln are up for best film.
Let battle commence – again.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article