The New York Times has re-visited the issue of the demise of the "old media" film critic, after a number of U.S. dailies and weeklies laid off staff amid falling advertising revenues, fears of a full-blown recession and competition from free Web sites and blog pages.

Critics have long been defending their corner, many embracing (at least publicly) the rise of the film blogger and stressing the difference between reviewing (personal opinion, reactionary) and criticising (analysis, broad knowledge base) a movie.

But many traditional reviewers must surely be feeling the heat, as are many other members of print and non-print media struggling to come to terms with the digital revolution and availability of free news over the Internet.

Movie makers will have mixed feelings about the prospect of film critics becoming extinct -- though reviewers argue that their profession is in ruder health than we are led to believe.

On the one hand, there is often a disconnect between what critics say and what the public decides to do. When "The Da Vinci Code" was panned by reviewers and booed at its press screening at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006, studio bosses wondered how the negative reaction would affect ticket sales for the most anticipated movie of the year. In the end they need not have lost too much sleep -- it went on to earn $758 million worldwide, making it the second most successful film of the year.

But there are films for which critical acclaim and debate are important. Today's New York Times article cites Scott Rudin, a producer of Oscar hits "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". "For those of us who are making work that requires a kind of intellectual conversation, we rely on that talk to do the work of getting people interested," he said.

My impression is that there were few, if any, really controversial choices last night at the Oscars. One reader feels strongly that "There Will Be Blood" should have won best picture ahead of "No Country For Old Men", but if our office sweepstake is anything to go by, most people guessed the eventual winner right. Except for me, that is. I got it wrong and went for "Blood" instead. I'm too embarrassed to add up how many I was right on. Very few, suffice it to say.

But may be there are some dissenting voices out there. In the actress category the Brits were gunning for Julie Christie, who lost out to French actress Marion Cotillard. Pundits had predicted Cate Blanchett would win best supporting actress instead of Tilda Swinton. Did Oscar get it right on the night? Or will this turn out to be one of those "What were they thinking?" years?

We're in the home stretch, and in Hollywood at least, it does not take long for the conversation to turn to Oscar predictions. Of course, it's next to pointless. At a party last night, a studio rep and I swapped opinions, explaining each choice, and narrowed the field for best actor to 3.5 ...from five. We confidently agreed Viggo Mortensen would not win, and thought it unlikely, though possible, that Tommy Lee Jones was destined for a statuette on Sunday. But then pretty much anyone could have told you that.

It is one of those times when I'm glad I'm not a film critic, having to put my reputation on the line with educated guesses, all of them in danger of being completely wrong.

Of course, one way of hedging your bets is to say who you think should win and who you think definitely shouldn't, thereby sticking to your opinions as opposed to second-guessing 5,800 Academy voters, most of whom you have never even heard of.

So come on, it's time to have your say. Any thoughts about who will and who won't. Or at the very least, who deserves to win and who doesn't?

And the next James Bond film is ... "Quantum of Solace". When the title of the eagerly anticipated "Bond 22" was unveiled at Pinewood Studios on Thursday, the world's press issued a gasp, not of admiration, but bemusement. The "what of what?" you could see them thinking. Where was the sexy snap of "Die Another Day", "Dr. No", "From Russia With Love"? What has Einstein got to do with the world's most suave film hero? Doesn't the word "solace" suggest something sad, tragic even -- far removed from the fun and fripperies of Bond's character?

Personally, my confusion comes from the fact that quantum can be something very small, or so my dictionary tells me, and yet when used as an adjective, can mean something very big indeed -- "quantum leap", for example. I think it actually can mean any amount.

The producers of the next Bond film, who are likely to be spending upwards of $150 million to make it, were quick to defend the title. It comes, they explained, from an obscure Ian Fleming short story. Apparently, Bond is told a story by his dinner host, who explains that the quantum of solace is the amount of feeling between two people required for love to survive.

All a bit heavy for 007? Well, we are led to believe that Bond is out for revenge on those who blackmailed his late love Vesper into seemingly betraying him, and Daniel Craig has been credited with turning Bond-the-Indestructible into Bond-the-Oh-So-Vulnerable, in keeping with the times.

But is this title a quantum leap too far? Some bloggers are asking if it's the worst Bond title ever. Can you think of something better to call "Bond 22"? Will you go and see the film anyway, even if you think the title is lousy?

Online ticket exchanges like eBay, Viagogo and Seatwave breathed a sigh of relief this week after UK legislators published a report saying they would be reluctant to legislate the one billion pound industry.

While there is little argument over the need to clamp down on dubious practices, like selling tickets that were distributed for free charity events, the report does raise a more fundamental question that has sparked some debate.

Should bands share profits from tickets re-sold on the secondary market? When tickets to the recent Led Zeppelin concert were re-sold on the Internet, for example, they fetched an average of 7,425 pounds each, according to Seatwave, or around 60 times their face value. The sums involved can clearly be huge.

That particular concert may not be the best example in that it was a charity gig, in which case Led Zeppelin might argue that a worthy cause should have shared in the profits.

But in general, should bands benefit from tickets changing hands on sites like eBay? If they have already sold their ticket once for the price that they set, should they be paid a second time? Is it not the same as paying Ford once for a new car and again when it is sold second hand? Is this business nothing more than a supply-and-demand, free market concept?

Plenty of artists, be they writers, painters or potters, have spoken about the rise of self-censorship when it comes to potentially contentious issues like religion. The trouble is that whatever is self-censored does not see the light of day, and so will never be recorded.

That is why it was interesting to read comments attributed to Perry Grayson, a British cross-dressing potter and winner of the prestigious Turner Prize, in which he said he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise provocative work out of fear of a threat of reprisals.

That raises two issues.

One is the broad question pitting freedom of expression against the sensitivities of a particular group or religion, the kind of debate that surrounded moves by a Christian activist to take a BBC executive to court for the broadcaster's decision to air "Jerry Springer-The Opera", which many Christians found offensive.

The other is whether artists are more nervous when dealing with Islam than they are with other religions, Christianity included. It is an argument made recently by the lawyer representing Stephen Green, the Christian pursuing the "Jerry Springer" case, who said no theatre would have staged the musical had it targeted Islam not Christianity, and nor would the BBC have aired it. Many would argue that the broadcaster is also unlikely to have run such an unrestrained send-up of Judaism.

Should artists have complete freedom of expression, without fear of reprisals? Or do they have a responsibility to take into account the feelings of communities who may not agree with their position? Should they treat one community or religion differently from another? There have been many cases highlighting the dilemmas in recent years, and there are likely to be many, many more.