We are entering what may be the most upside-down holiday movie season in recent memory. I have never before seen so many Oscar hopefuls get shot down so quickly. As fall started, I heard a lot of people talking about how "Jarhead," "North Country" and "Elizabethtown" were looking like mortal locks for multiple nominations. Well, these movies ended up flopping, and the field is now wide open. Most years it becomes somewhat evident by November what the majority of the best-picture nominees will be. This year, we have no idea. Instead of knowledge, all we have are questions. Here are seven of the most compelling ongoing stories for the next six weeks:

Is this the year the SNL alums finally get some love? There's a legitimate possibility that we'll see Bill Murray nominated for "Broken Flowers" and Steve Martin (yes, smartass, I realize he never was a cast member) getting a nomination for best adapted screenplay and best actor for his work on "Shopgirl."

Normally, I would think both actors could get nominations, considering how voters love it when comedic actors go all serious, but in the end, I think the roles were too similar (depressed, middle-aged white guy looking for love) and they'll end up splitting votes and canceling each other out. I do think Martin's "Shopgirl" screenplay will get nominated, especially considering how much the Academy loves it when authors adapt their own works.

Can 50 Cent pull an "8 Mile" with "Get Rich, or Die Tryin'?" I like the idea of bringing in a streetwise vet like Jim Sheridan ("The Boxer") to the helm of this movie. Sheridan and 50 will mesh well. It's the same logic Universal used when they hired Curtis Hanson to direct Eminem in "8 Mile," and that turned out well for everybody. Still, I'm not totally sold on this one, especially considering some of the rumblings I've been hearing out of the Paramount lot.

Part of the reason they let this controversy over those stupid film posters simmer for so long was to create buzz for the movie, which had been severely lacking before Billboard-gate broke out this past week. We'll find out if it worked this Wednesday.

Totally random note: I was supposed to do an interview with 50 Cent early this week, but it ended up falling through, which was a shame, because it probably would have redefined unintentional comedy for future generations. I'm actually looking at my notes right now, as besides referring to 50 as "Mr. Cent," nine of the 14 questions I prepared are some variation on "What does it feel like to get shot?" As the interview wears on and I get more and more flustered — which always happens when I interview a celebrity — I see myself pulling a Jim Rome and forgetting to refer to 50 as "Curtis Jackson" and getting my ass kicked by the toughest man in the world. We really need to make this interview happen …

Will the Woody Allen love-fest continue through Oscar season? Everybody from Cannes to Toronto is sweating Woody Allen's new whodunit, "Match Point," saying he is finally back in top form. I'll believe this when I see it, especially since critics were saying the same thing earlier this year about "Melinda & Melinda," which was absolutely terrible. So let's just all take a deep breath and wait until we actually see "Match Point" before we say it's the new "Crimes & Misdemeanors."

Will Universal's $200 million "King Kong" gamble pay off? It's hard to understand the reasoning behind this film project. Universal gave Peter Jackson, a man who has not made a financially successful film that did not feature little men with pointy ears, $200 million dollars to remake a movie that's already been remade once (and bombed)? And they aren't putting any A-list stars in it? And they are releasing Jackson's cut, which clocks in at three hours? And it's a period piece? It just doesn't make sense.

Look, I don't care how classy it is, it is still a monster movie and monster movies don't win Oscars. And people don't sit through three-hour movies unless they win Oscars. Oh, and Peter Jackson had to hustle out to New Zealand this summer for some reshoots? How do you spell "disaster"? I haven't been more terrified since my dad told me Sean Taylor was thinking about buying the house next door to us back home in Washington.

Can Steven Spielberg put together a best-picture winner in less than six months? Steven Spielberg's new film "Munich" started filming on June 29 — less than six months before it was set to premiere. It wrapped on Sept. 29, giving Spielberg and his longtime editor Michael Kahn less than six weeks to put together a two-and-a-half-hour film. This is an absolutely insane timetable.

Let me put things in perspective: Steve Zallian finished filming on "All the King's Men" last April, but still had to bump the movie from its Christmas release because editing wasn't finished. It takes that long to edit a movie.

Still, we all have so much confidence in Spielberg, the whole world seems to think "Munich" is going to be a lock for best picture. If anybody could pull this odd, it would be Spielberg (or his non-union Mexican counterpart, Senor Spielbargo): he's no stranger to fixing movies on the fly (he started rolling on "War of the Worlds" in December and it was released in July, and he famously re-shot the ending to "The Terminal" a week before it premiered), but I have my doubts.

I think the schedule is going to end up being too tight: I could barely complete five college applications in six weeks, and this guy thinks he's going to be able to put together a best-picture winner in that time. Still, I just don't think you can bet against The Golden Boy … (Yes, I realize I just pulled a Paul Maguire on everybody and started an argument with myself).

Is this the year Oscar remembers its history? Everybody has their own thing that frustrates them the most about the Academy Awards. For some people, it's the fact that comedies or animated movies never get any love. For some, it's that there aren't enough foreign films or minority actors competing in the top categories. What really drives me up the wall is that movies released before Sept. 1 rarely get any love. This year, though, look for that to change, especially considering how many high-profile films with Oscar aspirations have fallen.

What are some early season films to keep your eye on? I'd watch out for "Crash" getting a best-picture nomination and Matt Dillon and Thandie Newton getting supporting nominations. Joan Allen and Kevin Costner were fantastic in the underrated "The Upside of Anger," which has had a nice little run on DVD. I hated "Sin City," but admired Mickey Rourke's performance immensely. Another movie I didn't like from earlier in the year was "A History of Violence," but I think it will at least get a look in all major categories (don't be surprised to see William Hurt and Ed Harris both pull down nominations for best supporting actor, even though both have been better).

The one I think that has the most legit shot at getting recognized is "Cinderella Man," since it's the kind of big, sappy movie Oscar voters love. Universal is re-releasing it in the coming weeks, trying to give it some extra juice. Ron Howard has to be in the mix for best director and it is still a contender for best picture, despite tanking when it was released last summer. Personally, I think their best hope is to push Paul Giamatti hard for best supporting actor; He was great in the movie and he is seriously due after not getting any love for "Sideways" or "American Splendor."

My pick for big sleeper this year is "The Constant Gardener," which I just think is going to end up beating out other politically charged movies like "Syriana" and "Good Night, and Good Luck."

One thing you've always gotta remember: Oscar voters are gutless.