There’s a provocative piece on IndieWire by filmmaker Jamie Stuart that is likely to provoke strong opinions on either side of the film-or-digital cinematographer divide. Looking back on a number of major 2011 releases, Stuart wonders if 2011 was the year things conclusively shifted in favor of digital, and takes filmmakers like Steven Spielberg to task for his “stubbornness” in shooting “War Horse” on film when it doesn’t, in his opinion, adapt well to digital projection. (Conveniently for his argument, he doesn’t mention “The Adventures of Tintin” at all.) I’d have more time for Stuart’s argument if he admitted to seeing more than two films in theaters in 2011, but aside from that, who’s to tell an artist what medium they may or may not paint in? [IndieWire]

Historian Alex von Tunzelmann takes “The Iron Lady” deliciously to task. [The Guardian]

Steve Pond wonders if “Pina” can nab an unprecedented double of nominations: Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Feature. [Reuters]

The top seven box-office champs of the year have all been sequels. Michael Cieply ponders this depressing stat. [New York Times]

Speaking of box office, Patrick Goldstein wonders why many of Hollywood’s power relationships produced dud movies in 2011. [The Big Picture]

Do the Oscars hate kids? Gold Derby thinks so, including Asa Butterfield’s probable non-nomination for “Hugo” as evidence. Maybe he’s just not very good? [Gold Derby]

Scott Feinberg on why all animated features other than “Rango” may as well stay home on Oscar night. [Hollywood Reporter]

We’ve seen him in “War Horse” and “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” but is 2012 set to be the year of Benedict Cumberbatch? [Herald Sun]

Brad Brevet wishes he was more excited about the films in the 2011 Best Picture race. [Rope of Silicon]

Stephen Farber lists his 10 favorite movies about the movies, picking five of the titles I included in my own such list last month. [Daily Beast]