Contrary to what organizers have been saying this week, this is hardly “business as usual” for the Academy Awards.

True, the writers’ strike, which killed the Golden Globes and had the industry debating which side of the picket line to stand on if “Oscar Night” was forced to take place in the shadow of a work stoppage, has come to a peaceful resolution. But while the sound of commentators offering their premonitions and predictions may sound the same as always, there is still a fog of doubt lingering above this year’s telecast — questions of legitimacy and relevance that have not surfaced as prominently in years past.

The Strike — Blessing or Curse?

Throughout the strike, many on both sides of the picket line looked ahead to the Academy Awards as a D-Day of sorts, convinced that the industry’s decision makers wouldn’t allow the impasse to cripple Hollywood’s biggest night. Sure enough, with less than two weeks to spare, the mess was cleaned up in time to put on the party.

But it’s worth wondering what would have happened had the Oscars indeed been rendered star-less or cancelled as a TV event altogether. Would there have been a public outcry? A backlash against the striking writers, who deprived audiences of the world’s greatest red carpet? Or, as we saw with the truncated Globes, would life have gone on pretty much as normal?

As I traveled among various movie events this winter (even after the Academy Award nominations), there didn’t seem to be much panic about losing the Oscars ceremony. Is it possible that if a glitzy Oscars had disappeared for a year, the public’s *lack* of anxiety would have said more than anything else? The highest-grossing nominee for Best Picture, “Juno” (roughly $125 million at the box office), finds itself ranked at no. 21 in a final tally of 2007 grosses. The truth is, few Americans saw this year’s Best Picture nominees. Many didn’t even have the chance at the local multiplex.

How much would the public have missed a ceremony that’s poised to honor a group of movies few people have seen?

Best Picture — Not Showing in a Theater Near You

It was 10 years ago that “Titanic” won the Oscar for Best Picture — a rare moment in time when the most popular film in the land also barnstormed the Oscar stage (and no, “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” doesn’t count; the Academy was two years behind the curve).

But the triumph of “Titanic,” and the accompanying surge in ratings for the Oscar telecast, is the exception, not the rule. The 1998 ceremony was the highest-rated Oscars telecast since 1983, when “Gandhi” beat out such hugely popular contenders as “Tootsie” and “E.T.” Otherwise, Oscars viewership during the past quarter century has stagnated and waned. In comparison to 1998’s 55 million viewers, only 39 million people watched last year’s ceremony — and that was a marked increase over the previous year.

Of course, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should not be in the business of recognizing only blockbusters, and in years when lesser films are nominated, there certainly will be a dip in viewership. But this year we are faced with a bigger disconnect than ever before between voters and audiences. “Juno,” with its current $125 million haul, has grossed nearly four times that of frontrunner “There Will Be Blood.” In fact, the four films competing with “Juno” for Best Picture made less money *combined* than 11 separate movies this year. And if you throw “Juno” into that mix, the five Best Picture contenders still amassed less money than “Spider-Man 3,” “Shrek the Third,” or “Transformers.”

So it’s hard not to pose the question: If the Oscars are increasingly becoming a ceremony filled with movies no one has seen, will the awards still matter to the average moviegoer?

The Academy Awards — Too Little Too Late?

In the decade since James Cameron made himself “king of the world,” the rise of the Oscar blogger has diluted the authority of the Academy. Today, an array of commentators and pundits live the Oscars on an hourly basis, from the Toronto Film Festival in September through the final telecast in February. “The Oscars” is its own beat, with writers covering the news much as Mets writers obsess over Johan Santana.

The constant barrage of hype has reached a fever pitch this year, with every awards body, nomination, and ceremony generating large-print headlines. Even a decade ago, the annual awards handed out by the New York Film Critics Circle (NYFCC), the National Board of Review (NBR), or the Producers Guild of America (PGA) didn’t warrant such blanket coverage. But in today’s world of 24/7 Oscar mania, each win and snub, each acceptance speech and personal appearance, earns an article somewhere.

A side effect of all this, particularly in a year when one of the Oscar front-runners premiered nine months ago at the Cannes Film Festival, is that the Oscars feel almost as if they’re arriving stale. Now that we’re fully in the era when the news cycle has shrunk from a day to a minute, the Oscars seem to be unfolding about two months too late.

ssnyder@nysun.com