Every year, studios find themselves with overcrowded slates by the end of the year as they are attempting to qualify and compete for the Academy Awards.

The organization's policy states that a film can only qualify for the Oscars if it is released during the calendar year for seven days in LA and New York. With so many films being released, this creates a problem for most studios as they become scared that their films will not receive the visibility and traction needed for Oscars. As a result, the studios opt for an Academy qualifying run which consists of a one-week-only run and a full release later in the next year.

However, these Oscar qualifying runs create issues with audiences, critics and visibility for the movies. Additionally they hardly ever work.

This year, Focus Features is planning an Oscar qualifying run for "Map to the Stars," even though its official release date will be Feb. 27, a week after the Academy Awards. The film has been screened in a number of festivals and Julianne Moore is receiving extensive buzz for the role she plays in the film. Additionally, most critics have already seen it. The problem lies in the fact that the film may receive attention by the critics, but audiences will surely not be able to view it until after the Oscar season has ended. Audiences are sometimes the reason certain films win as the Academy notes which have been big box office hits.

Focus Features currently only has two films that it is planning on campaigning for the Academy Awards and the studio only has one more release this year. So the question is: why not release it in December and allow the film to expand organically through word-of-mouth? This can only help its Oscar campaign, as well as its chances to become a box office hit.

If the film fails in the Oscar race, then it will most likely be dumped in February and have no exposure because the studio will most likely have spent most of its marketing resources on an Oscar campaign. The result will be hurtful for the film and the studio as it would have wasted money and the potential to obtain returns and possibly awards.

The Oscar qualifying run will also be used for "Still Alice," also starring Moore. After it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, it was hailed for its masterful performance and critics automatically called Moore the front runner to win best actress. However, Sony Pictures Classics has opted for a January release and an Oscar qualifying run instead of a 2014 release. It does not seem logical, since it is a film that audiences will want to see immediately before the Golden Globes and the Oscar nominations. Additionally, the movie has not been seen by all critics and it could affect its campaign if critics are unable to see it by the time they vote for their awards. The Academy sometimes bases its awards on the early critic's circles and if the movie is not seen on time, it will cause an issue for the campaign.

Sony Pictures Classics has a much tougher schedule of films, but if this is really the Oscar contender that has been raved about, why not give "Still Alice" a more organic release and allow it to expand with word-of-mouth?

Both these films are risking a lot on the awards race and it hardly ever works. Last year alone, Paramount decided to scrap release plans for "Labor Day" and decided on an Oscar qualifying run. The film ultimately failed to capture awards and was later released in January. 

Essentially, its box office totals were only counted for 2014 and the little run in December was never really visible.

More interesting was the Weinstein Company's "One Chance" release plan. The film was released on Dec. 27 to qualify for awards. It received a Golden Globe for Best Song and quickly disappeared. 

So when was it actually released for audiences? 

The film finally saw a decent theatrical run on Oct. 11, 2014 and a week before was screened on Yahoo Screens for free. The result was a poor domestic box office opening weekend and totals that were recorded for this year. The Weinstein Company also seemed to forget that it was a Golden Globe nominee especially since it was never mentioned in the marketing campaign. The question is, does "One Chance" count as a 2013 or 2014 film? According to box office mojo, which records grosses, it was released in 2014.

Both these movies may have benefited from awards runs this year, especially "One Chance," since the song category is a bit weak this year and the film scored very good reviews. However, the intense awards pushes basically buried the film and will not allow it to qualify for 2014 awards.

Back in 2011, Tilda Swinton's performance for "We Need to Talk About Kevin" failed at the Academy Awards even though it had gained a lot of traction throughout awards season.

Sony Pictures Classics found worse results in 2011 with "Barney's Version." The film may have won a Golden Globe, but the purpose of the Oscar qualifying run was to get Paul Giamatti an Oscar nomination. The result was a makeup nomination and a short-lived theatrical run. The film also disappeared from radar.

In 2011, "The Way Back" also had a similar fate. Newmarket released the movie for a 2010 Oscar qualifying run hoping that Peter Weir's association with the Academy would get the film a Best Picture nomination. However, the film never really registered with the critics and it only received a makeup nomination. Like "Barney's Version" it also disappeared upon its January release.

So why rush the release of the film?

Last year, Sony Pictures Classics did one of the smartest things by delaying "Foxcatcher." The film was slated for November, but when the studio saw it was not ready and had no chance in the race, it pushed back the release for a year later. The result has been incredibly favorable as buzz has been strong and the movie is now one of the front-runners for the Oscars.

Take, for example, Summit's release strategy for 2009's "The Hurt Locker." The company could have immediately released the film in 2008 when it premiered at the Venice and Toronto International Film Festival. However, instead the company decided to wait since it knew the Oscar race was already crowded. The result was the Best Picture award.

This is something most studios should learn from because it could be helpful for the release of their films. Rather than spend so much money on awards campaigns, they should be patient and give the directors and their editor's time to release a well-made product instead of a rushed product. It could also prevent the studios from having so many flops at the box office. 

Additionally, studios seem to forget that a year has 12 months. This year alone, a number of critically acclaimed films were released to great results. However, those movies will not get a proper Oscar campaign because they are not the latest toy in the market. 

Take, for instance, Sony Pictures Classics, which released "Only Lovers Left Alive" back in March to great reviews. Tilda Swintons's performance alone merits an Oscar nomination but the studio will prefer to campaign a later release. Additionally, the studio also released "Love Is Strange," which was adored by critics and was an audience hit. It also has two performances by John Lithgow and Alfred Molina that should be recognized by the Academy, but will be ignored.  

The same can be said with the Weinstein Company which essentially lost opportunities with "The Railway Man," "The Immigrant," "Tracks" and "The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby." If all these films would have been released in a better time period and with a correct marketing plan as well as awards, they would have succeeded and potentially been awards contenders.   

While it is unlikely the studios will ever learn, it will be interesting to see how many of the films that receive an Oscar qualifying run this year actually succeed and how many of them will actually become box office hits.

FOR MORE MOVIE AND ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, CLICK ON THIS LINK TO VISIT LATIN POST.COM'S ENTERTAINMENT PAGE