By Chris Carvo

Now that “Awards Season” is over we can forget all the media generated hubabaloo about movies you didn’t, nor care, to see. But this isn’t stopping newspapers from continuing to generate stories from Oscar night, an entire month later; all the red carpet gossip, discussing movies that should’ve won and who’s feuding with whom.

Hasn’t it all been done? How many times can I read exhausted articles that say “Crash” is a socially relevant movie? The only thing relevant about “Crash” is that a movie (in this day and age) can succeed despite having a crummy script, has-been and/or rapper actors and a director whose only experience is with the TV show “EZ Streets.” Throw in a sharp-toothed lecture about race, calculated media-generated hype and peer-pressure and guilt from uneducated movie-goers blinded by the fact black and white people are on the same screen together (gasp), and you got yourself a contender. If this is the only criterion, why wasn’t “Soul Man” nominated for an Oscar?

Besides, we all know people hate each other. Do we need a movie to tell us black people hate Asian people, Asian people hate Hindu people and white people hate everyone? Visit your local bodega grocery to see all this up close and personal.

The sad fact about the cut-throat industry these days is that every mildly successful or comparatively innovative film goes through an immediate deflowering process. Slick producers pirate systematic ideas and carefully plagiarize scripts. What’s left is the twin-abortion called “method” and “formula.”

We’re all familiar with one of the more worn-out formulas of the American romance movie, and it’s known more aptly as the “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl” disaster area. If you need a brush-up see “Just Like Heaven” or “Failure to Launch.” These movies are purely theme based. And the running theme seems to be that chicks dig movies about love.

This type of movie formula isn’t solely responsible for a lag in American movie theater attendance. Movie companies are beginning to rely more and more on what I call the “technology babysitter.” This comprises of CG bells and whistles that momentarily stun the awe-filled audience who are completely, epileptically enamored with the sound and sight production aspects of the movie only.

You would think since computers make it cheaper to produce and post-produce movies, there would be cost-shift to the creative and “pre” aspects of the movie. This is your casting, costuming and more primarily-the script writing. All of these should translate over into a movie’s overall success, since a better movie will ultimately make them more money. Since movies are such a large industry, wouldn’t you think there would be incentives to plan better movies?

You would, but there hasn’t been. Little to no effort has been put into “telling the story.” Instead of pressuring the screenwriters to turn out challenging material, revenues are still being concentrated into the digital regionalization of movie production. Films now are almost entirely digital, “shot and chopped” to borrow the axiom of Robert Rodriguez. His mastery of blue-screen technique in “Sin City” forces the entire industry to play catch-up.

But is this type of technology completely beneficial to the movie industry? Does their recent use of virtual mediums mean that no one’s job is safe, not even the actors?

Just think about a movie where artificial intelligence is completely authoritarian. There would be no need for a real director, not when one person can just program a machine to do certain actions. No need for the bottom-line types (the gaffers/the 2nd unit misfits) since the “set” is now not really a “set,” just a set-up set where settings can be set into a database by the one director whose sitting. No need for actors because now that we have mastered the animation technology we can draw in facsimile human-figures who don’t need contracts, unions or Kraft services. Imagine a Russell Crowe that does what he’s told and doesn’t throw phones at people. Or a Steve Martin who is actually funny because he is programmed to act like the “old, funny Steve Martin.” How about a George Clooney that doesn’t push political agendas? Or a non-tantrum throwing J-Lo? Sure, it’s a thing of dreams right?

If Hollywood doesn’t get its act together, they may soon find themselves on the side-lines of the entertainment wars. Alternative entertainment forms are lapping movies that do not live up to the audience’s expectations. Internet and video games give the average American the chance to be a character inside an adventure. If one particular adventure does not befit them, they can turn it off and try again. Movies do not offer this sort of “reset” button.

It appears that the future of the movies relies on the responsibility of actors who stand to lose the most: The Tom Cruises and the Reese Witherspoons. It is up to them to accept challenging roles in artful films despite possible pay-cuts. This is called the “Keanu Reeves method.”

Its counterpart is the “Sam L. Jackson routine.” This is when an actor no longer reads a script and just accepts movie roles that offer the biggest possible pay checks. I do not mean to single Jackson out, but a friend of mine recently pointed me to an upcoming film starring the badass Murtha Fern himself. It’s called “Snakes On A Plane.” It’s a movie about snakes…on a plane. And this is not a joke.