Awards season in Hollywood combines all the best and worst elements of a major election campaign as the studios pour copious amounts of money into special screenings and promotional parties while strategizing their Oscar bids.

Shootout co-host Peter Guber wonders if the price justifies the possible payoff. Does Oscar victory net glory at the cost of too much gold? Is it more about unchecked ego than financial finesse? In answer, co-host Peter Bart cites recent winners Crash and Million Dollar Baby, whose worldwide grosses increased exponentially following their Oscar wins. Sometimes you have to gamble big to win big.

As in politics, the studios prefer putting forward contenders with name recognition. Titles with buzz this year include American Gangster, Atonement, and No Country for Old Men. Juno, director Jason Reitman’s intimate film about a teenage pregnancy, is the equivalent of a dark horse candidate from the independent party.

The reason the studios have historically concentrated their efforts on big budget films may be practical: The awards are perceived as the last chance to recoup on a hefty initial investment. Even so, say the Peters, a star's ability to connect with the 5,000 Academy voters remains the key to victory.  Helen Mirren (The Queen) and Forest Whittaker (The Last King of Scotland) did just that last year and ended up taking home the best actor statuettes.

Great parties, successful Academy screenings, and good reviews all matter too. But the worst thing a film can do, according to the Peters, is to let the buzz peak too soon.  Last year, they say, Dreamgirls did just that, making a big impression early then slowly fading from view. In contrast in 2004, Million Dollar Baby flew in beneath the radar and won.

This year, with that in mind, studios may still be laying low with their films.