Voting began this week for the Writers Guild of America (WGA) awards in the Screenplay category and it could be a preview into what we can expect come Oscar time. Both awards’ nominees are determined by other writers, who, in theory, should know a thing or two and truly allow the best contenders to rise to the top. Though a WGA member myself, let it be stated up front that I opted not to take part in the nominee process (I didn’t feel like I could make an informed enough decision based on the hundreds of possibilities). I will, however, of course, be casting my vote. And it’s an interesting list to choose from.

In the Best Original Screenplay category, the WGA has selected “(500) Days of Summer,” “Avatar,” “The Hangover,” “The Hurt Locker,” and “A Serious Man.” That’s a pretty eclectic bunch. And in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, the WGA nominated “Crazy Heart,” “Julie and Julia,” “Precious,” “Star Trek,” and “Up In The Air.” Again, quite a mix. To put it in perspective, only two of the WGA nominees were also nominated for the upcoming Golden Globes (“The Hurt Locker” and “Up In The Air”). Proof that it was a fertile year for writing, out of ten total nominees, the WGA didn’t get around to recognizing the excellent “District 9,” or the much beloved “Inglourious Basterds,” two of the other Golden Globes picks.

The biggest surprises, for me, are in the Best Original category. I’m proud to be a member of an organization in the motion picture industry that recognizes the difficulty of comedy. “The Hangover’s” nomination is well-deserved and I hope many of those who nominated it will do the same come Oscar time. But I doubt it will get that far. Both “Hurt Locker” and “A Serious Man” still have solid Oscar chances, but the one that I think has the best chance at going on to obtain Oscar glory is “(500) Days of Summer.” Not only is it a clever, funny, and heartfelt script, it was written by newcomers which seems to sit well with Oscar voters (see “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Juno,” “Good Will Hunting”).

The other big surprise here is “Avatar.” Should that screenplay go on to pick up an Oscar nomination (or especially if it picks up a win), it will surely spark raging debates amongst writers everywhere. On the one hand, James Cameron made up and populated and entire world. On the other hand, the inhabitants of said world are protecting a rare and hard to come by mineral called, uh, unobtainium. Clunky at best, no? Cameron’s last magnum opus, “Titanic” scored a record tying 14 nominations, but Screenplay wasn’t one of them.

The Best Adapted category is a little hard to judge, especially with no knowledge whatsoever of any of the source material. But the standout surprise is “Star Trek.” The writers did such a great job of retooling, reinventing, rebooting the iconic franchise that it hardly feels like an “adaptation.” Unfortunately, I think its chances of moving on to the Oscars are nil. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see any of the other four Best Adapted nominees in the exact same place come Oscar night.

Personally, I’m not sure I would choose any of these as the best of they year (if you must know, I love “Where The Wild Things Are” for Best Adapated and, because my vote doesn’t matter, I’m going with Rian Johnson’s “The Brothers Bloom” in Best Original, cause boy was it ever). At any rate, given that both the WGA awards and the Oscars nominated and voted on by writers, it will be very interesting to see how the lists compare. If the Oscar ballot is as varied as these WGA nominations then justice will have prevailed. But something tells me (sorry to be a cynic) that there’s a bias between the two. One (the WGA nominees) are what you really feel and the other (the Oscar nominees) are what you say in public.

How do you turn a children’s book with a handful of sentences into feature-length film? Mix one part rebellious boy, one part masterfully rendered “things” with monosyllabic dialogue and a dash of Karen O you have “Where the Wild Things Are.” The latter could earn a best score nod come awards season, but adaptation, director and special effects statues? Best look elsewhere.

It’s not to say the film wasn’t entertaining (it was), but parts seemed stretched as thin as a string of Silly Putty. Silly Putty that was once a dense hearty ball of substance. A strange analogy, sure, but throw-back amusements seem relevant when describing the target audience, which given the more adult thematic elements (broken home, troubled boy, furries) seems to be more of a tractor beam for the hipster set rather than the Yo Gabba Gabba crowd.

There was quite a bit of internet chatter discussing whether or not the movie was “kid friendly,” a laughable term in this day and age really. In response, the book’s author Maurice Sendak flatly told those concerned parents to “go to hell.” As jarring is some parents may find it, the film could have been much more disconcerting. Filming began in 2005, and come 2008 Warner Brothers was so unhappy with Jonze not-so-family-friendly adaptation, the entire project was nearly leveled and reshot. While there were indeed reshoots, the dark elements of societal woes still remain along with that slapdash feeling of pasted together scenes spanning three plus years.

Really, light violence and anger-issues aside, since the movie seems torn between children’s entertainment and adult escapism to simpler, pre-iEveryting, times it comes across as bland. Not colorful or silly enough to capture younger minds, not deep or engaging enough to keep grown-ups from sitting still without serious ADD-like fidgets and finger tapping.

The story-line is expectedly simple given the source material. Again, not a detriment per se, but it makes the hour and half long adventure feel contrived and a bit wooden. Max (wonderfully portrayed by Max Records), runs away from home following a spat with his fingers-worked-to-the-bone single mother (Catherine Keener) and run-in with a rough-housing group of older kids. He journeys via boat to the island inhabited by the “wild things,” lead by manic-depressive Carol (James Gandolfini) and his band of sullen comrades (Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano and Forest Whitaker). Max convinces them that he is a displaced Viking king, and he quickly becomes their omnipotent leader, commissioning the construction of a giant structure to be their home along with heaps of false promises that the things eat up like well, monsters.

The climax and ensuing resolution revolve mainly around Carol’s strained relationship with KW (Ambrose) and Max’s ill-fated reign over the group and experiences a sort of catharsis, realizing that his actions can create pain in the lives in others. They part ways. Max goes home a changed boy. Mother tearfully relieved. The ending, somewhat bare-bones and heartwarmingly raw, serves as a simple reminder that this beloved book has a place in both children and adults on the big screen.