The New York Times went and spent 1,543 words on an article which attempted to uncover the real reason(s) behind Dreamgirls' snubbing in Oscar's best picture category, only to come up with a bunch of "yeah, maybe that's what happened" excuses. Perhaps not enough academy members caught a screening, or maybe Clint Eastwood's Letters of Iwo Jima sliding in there at the last minute, moving up its release date so that it would qualify, ultimately knocked Dreamgirls out of the running. Then you have my personal favorite: Could it be that no one actually liked it? In the end, though, do you really care?

Well, you probably don't, but a lot of people do -- hence the article and the fact that this topic won't be hittin' the road anytime soon. See, Dreamgirls was the front-runner early on -- all the big online pundits picked it as a shoe-in for best picture -- and Paramount went crazy promoting it, setting up $25 pre-screenings of the film as a way to initiate the big buzz. And early on, the buzz was there, yet it was competing against some very strong films. Yes, say all you want about the state of movies, 2006 was a good year. A very good year. Still, there's a reason why -- with all of its other nominations -- Dreamgirls did not walk away with a nod for best picture.

So, I ask you: What is that reason?