Oscar ordeals: It's all over but the celebrating for this year's Oscar season.

While this was one of the most wide-open races in years, it also was one of the least exciting. The lack of energy throughout much of the season reflected a highly fragmented race with too many contenders and too few front runners. On the best picture front, for instance, Alexander Payne's "Sideways" swept the critics group awards and dominated December. It really didn't run into competition until January when Martin Scorsese's "The Aviator" started soaring and Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" began throwing knockout punches.

In focusing on the best picture nominees, what can't be missed is that all five nominees were made independently or by specialty divisions of the studios. None of these are major studio productions in the traditional sense. They share another common denominator in that their filmmakers all faced monumental challenges in getting these projects financed and distributed. In talking about those struggles with me in columns that ran here throughout the awards season they made it clear that however prominent their films are now thanks to critics, awards groups and moviegoers it was exceptionally difficult to convince Hollywood to bankroll or release them.

As a result, this year's Oscar race is revolving around independents rather than around the majors. Several studios are distributing nominated films that they either didn't finance or only partially financed. And other studios just don't have anything of their own to root for this year. All of this is likely to translate into lower ratings for the Oscarcast since the nominees are mostly smaller films that were made independently and released so strategically that moviegoers in much of the U.S. couldn't see at all or had only a very brief window of opportunity to catch up with in theaters. Because people really aren't invested in these films the way they were in blockbusters "Titanic" or "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," they're less likely to sit through a three hour-plus Oscarcast to find out who wins best picture.

To put it all into perspective, here's a look back at what the filmmakers who got these five best picture nominees made told me about their struggles to bring them to the screen:

"Sideways" (Fox Searchlight Pictures) -- After an early look at "Sideways," I didn't have any doubts that it would emerge as one of the year's prime awards contenders. That was reflected in the headline I wrote for my column that ran here last Oct. 13 with director Alexander Payne: "Awards season has pleasure of Payne's 'Sideways.'" In that interview Payne described how he and the film's producer Michael London had personally bankrolled the project early on.

"Michael London and I, ourselves, financed a preliminary casting period where we got an office and hired my casting director and told everyone we're making a movie," Payne told me. "So on that basis I began meeting actors and auditioning actors and then I selected the cast that I would like to work with. I was not able to make offers because there was no financing at that moment. (We then) went to the studios and said, 'Okay, here's a screenplay, a director, a budget, producer and preferred cast. We had a budget made (and) it was about what we ended up making it for -- $16 million. It's a lot by European or Asian standards. It's a little by American studio standards.

"We essentially said (to the studios) 'in or out?' I think it's the only way (to go out with a project). We got very good response. People really liked the screenplay. The only raised eyebrows were, perhaps, over my preferred cast. But we then began negotiations with four different studios. Some of them said, 'Well, we can give you that budget, but not with that cast. We didn't have any superstar names, any A List names. I was urged to consider so-and-so or so-and-so for the parts instead and I just said, 'No. This is the cast I want.' I was willing to take less money with which to make the film in order to make it with these actors. By my saying 'take less money' I don't mean me personally, I mean the overall budget of the film. One studio said, 'Well, you can have that cast, but you have to make it (for much less). We ran our numbers with foreign sales and we couldn't afford to spend more than $10 million on it or $11 million.'

"But, finally, Fox Searchlight was willing to give us the budget we needed and they had no comments about the cast. They had evinced a lot of skill with marketing films like this. They have a great track record. It's what they do really, really well right now. I think they're just a fantastic studio. Everything with Fox Searchlight has been grand. They gave me tremendous trust and creative freedom. They want intelligent movies. Just straight down the line it's been my best filmmaking experience."

Searchlight, he said, committed to the project in May or June of last year and then "we began pre-production immediately and then began shooting Sept. 29. It was extremely felicitous and happy. You know what? I'm not hyping it or anything because I'm just not that kind of guy. It was by far my most pleasant filmmaking experience to date. It was very beautiful shooting outdoors during harvest time in Santa Barbara County. The cast and the crew worked with great harmony. We shot a lot of film, came in a day under, returned some money to the studio even and just had a great time. There were no calamities. And we drank a lot of wine, of course."

In a conversation with London that ran here Jan. 28, he observed, "We didn't start with movie stars. Alexander and I used to say for a long time that we fought really hard to get this movie made without movie stars. But now I think we kind of do have movie stars. So we're going to have to stop saying that because I hope that we've created one or two movie stars. But the truth is when Alexander cast these actors and when we were faced with the prospect of trying to get a financier to pay for the movie with that cast, it was really daunting and really difficult and if you had told us we would get into 500 theaters we probably would have taken that deal."

Looking back, London noted, "In December when the movie had been out there for six weeks and we were still in only a hundred theaters we were really frightened and it was a kind of panicky moment that if we don't get this movie out into more theaters now we may never pass this way again and may never have a chance to get a wide release for the movie. We didn't know what would happen with critics. We didn't know what would happen with the Golden Globes or nominations. I mean, all of this has happened so quickly and so recently. Four weeks ago Searchlight had a really difficult decision, which is do they continue on that slow roll out and hold the movie back, hold the movie back, hold the movie back. I was really concerned. I was really pushing (Searchlight president) Peter Rice really hard to think about taking the movie out into more theaters earlier in December and (was) frightened that if we didn't get the kind of attention that we've gotten that January or February would around and the release of the movie would be over and we would have never had a chance to go wide.

"It was a really difficult decision and an expensive decision because when you hold a movie that long, keep it in the theaters and then go out wide later it costs a great deal more. He and (Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairmen) Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos had such faith in it early on, more than we did in some ways. I mean, we had creative faith in it, but they had a business faith in it that we didn't have. They said, 'You know what? We're going to sit in this small number of theaters. We're going to let people continue to discover the movie and people are going to write about this movie and write about this movie. And by the time that nomination weekend comes around six weeks from now you guys are going to be sitting pretty and you're going to thank us for waiting.' It was an amazingly smart strategic move and we fought them pretty hard. It just seemed like a really dangerous strategy and the strategy worked and we get the benefits of that now, seeing the movie go out with a wide audience."

"Finding Neverland" (Miramax Films) -- "Finding Neverland" was another film I perceived from the start as having best picture potential. In a column here Nov. 12 headlined "Miramax has awards contender in 'Neverland'" I spoke to Richard Gladstein (who produced it with Nellie Bellflower) about the film's origins as a stage play called "The Man Who Was Peter Pan."

"There was another producer, Nellie Bellflower, who had optioned the play and commissioned that first draft (screenplay called 'Neverland') from David Magee," he pointed out. "It's that that we sold to Miramax five or six years ago and began a sort of long road of redeveloping it and mining it for several years until we sort of came to Marc and Johnny and then made the movie. So it was a long in-between."

After he'd acquired the material, Gladstein brought it to Miramax. "They liked the idea very much, but were unsure," he told me. "So it took quite a bit of convincing for them to acquire the material on our behalf. I think (what tipped the scales was) our passion for what we thought it could become."

Why was Miramax unsure at that point? "I think the material needed mining," Gladstein said. "I think it was a bit of a diamond in the rough, if you will. The screenplay that sold them spanned a far greater amount of time. I think the premiere of 'Peter Pan' was somewhere in the middle of that screenplay as opposed to the conclusion of our film. So one's ability (was important) to go in and sit with them and say, 'This is the movie. This is the tone of the movie. This is the spirit of the movie. And this is the story of the movie.' I think to persuade them to invest development dollars you need to persuade them of what it will become, not necessarily what it currently is."

About 18 months of work went into getting "Neverland's" screenplay in shape to be sent out to directors. "We were passed on by probably about 50 directors, I would say," Gladstein recalled. "Over the course of those 50 directors, that sort of two years of looking for a director, I met Marc (Forster). He read the screenplay. He had done the film 'Everything Put Together' (a psychological horror story starring Radha Mitchell that premiered at the 2000 Sundance Film Festival). He had not ever heard of a movie called 'Monster's Ball' yet. He said, 'I love this. I want to make this movie.' I saw his movie 'Everything Put Together.' I enjoyed it, but didn't think that I would be able to get that director hired onto this project given the content and his experience being that limited.

"I met with him though and I really liked him. I told him, 'There's no way I can hire you. There's just no way. There were directors that have wanted to do it that either Miramax passed on or that came to me and I passed on (who) had far greater experience. So there's no way that you're going to get the gig.' But we became friends and stayed in touch with each other. And then he found 'Monster's Ball,' directed 'Monster's Ball,' called me again and asked me if I would look at an almost finished movie -- I wouldn't call it a rough cut, but it wasn't a finished movie -- of ('Ball'). I thought it was magnificent and I particularly responded to the kind of integrity in the performances, the restraint he used and thought that that would be really ideal for 'Neverland.' So I arranged for Harvey (Weinstein) to see the movie and we met with him and he hired Marc. Once we hired Marc, we went to Johnny and Johnny said yes and we were shooting six months later."

Among the challenges the filmmakers faced with "Neverland" was not having much money to work with. "We shot the whole film in London, mostly on location, in the summer of '02," Gladstein said. "We had a very modest budget. The interesting thing to create was there were days when we were a very big movie doing effects and pirate ships. On certain days we were 'Moulin Rouge' and then on other days we were a very limited film. I think the scheduling and combining those things allowed us to be able to do it for a very reasonable budget. So on some days if you came to the set you'd think we were a massive film and on other days you'd come and you'd think we barely had a budget. It was very modest -- in the low twenties (of millions of dollars)."

"The Aviator" (Warner Bros., Miramax Films, Initial Entertainment Group) -- "The Aviator's" potential as a best picture Oscar contender was evident from the start because of its epic scope and the fact that there were no other awards-worthy epics out there to compete with it for Academy members' votes. Given its 11 nominations, more than any other film this year, some insiders consider it a favorite to win best picture because traditionally the film with the most noms has the broadest support from Academy branches and, therefore, those votes add up to a win. In a column here Feb. 4 with Graham King, who produced "The Aviator" with Michael Mann, Sandy Climan and Charles Evans, Jr., King explained how "Aviator" got permission to take off.

"Aviator's" green light came only after King and his Initial Entertainment Group signed on to finance the film. "I said, 'Okay, not only am I going to finance it, but I want to obviously be the producer of this one.' We bought the rights," King told me. "On 'Gangs (of New York),' 'Traffic,' movies like that, we came in to buy the foreign rights. This was a different deal. We brought in Miramax and Warner Bros. We own the rights. I think everyone's heard enough now (about how) I was the on-set producer. But the reason for that is that we were on the hook for the movie. What we did on the 'Gangs of New York' deal is actually the same, but turned around. For 'Gangs of New York' Miramax was on the hook and Harvey (Weinstein) made the movie and delivered me the movie. What we did on 'Aviator' was exactly the opposite. We were on the hook. We made the movie. And we delivered it to Miramax. Harvey was very helpful to me during shooting, watching dailies and stuff like that."

"Aviator" is the only big budget film competing for best picture this year. "Between $110 and $115 million," King replied when asked how much it cost to make. "A pretty sizable movie. A lot of the comments that have been said to me, which are a real compliment, is that when people watch this film they can't believe it was made so cheap!"

"Ray" (Universal Pictures, Bristol Bay Productions) -- From the moment it opened last October, "Ray" was generating a best actor Oscar buzz for Jamie Foxx's performance as Ray Charles. At that point, insiders really weren't anticipating that Academy members would also be singing "Ray's" praises for best picture and for Taylor Hackford's directing. Those additional nominations make it even more ironic that so many studios turned down the project when Stuart Benjamin (who produced "Ray" with Hackford, Howard Baldwin and Karen Baldwin) and Hackford originally took it around.

"It was really, really, really a long odyssey," Benjamin told me in a column that ran here Feb. 11. "A friend of mine just asked me did I ever doubt? And the answer is no. Taylor and I got our hands on this project when it came to us in like 1988, after we'd made 'La Bamba.' As you can imagine, after we made 'La Bamba,' everything was coming at us that had a musical quotient to it. We met Ray Charles, Jr. -- he was introduced to us through a mutual friend -- who said, 'Would you consider making a movie about my dad?' We fell all over ourselves (to see) how fast can we do this. Then what we discovered is that it was much easier said than done. Through the years what really happened was that we tried to get in business with a number of studios. Some of them were interested more than others, but ultimately we were just never able to put it together."

What Benjamin said he and Hackford consistently heard from the studios was that the project was "difficult to market, tough subject matter, won't travel foreign (and) may be better off as a TV movie. And I think everybody that we dealt with studio-wise had a degree of skepticism as to whether or not this was a movie that could earn money at the boxoffice. I always believed that this was a really special story and I always believed that if we told this story well people would come and see the movie.

The project finally made it into development, he explained, "because I was in business with Phil Anschutz and Howard Baldwin in a company called Crusader Entertainment (now known as Bristol Bay Productions). It's always been my pet project and I said, 'Let's put it in development here' and they agreed, which was lovely. We hired Jimmy White, who'd been a dear friend of mine for years and who is one of those people who in my heart of hearts I always knew was the right guy to write this piece. And I guess he was. So Phil and Howard stood behind it. And then we got to a point in the process where Taylor was into it, Jamie Foxx was into it, we had a script and Phil couldn't find a studio partner to finance it or co-finance it. And to his everlasting credit -- as far as I'm concerned and everybody (else is who's) associated with the movie -- Phil said, 'I believe in this and I'll put up the money.'

"I think Phil got a lot of advice from a lot of people around town and a lot of people in his Denver offices that he shouldn't do it. The same kind of advice (that Benjamin had been hearing from the studios) -- 'it's a biopic, it's a TV movie, it's all African-Americans,' those kinds of things. And Phil believed and Howard believed and so we got the movie made."

Even after "Ray" was made, however, it still was tough getting a distributor to take it on. "You sit here today and we have done (about) $75 million at the boxoffice. The DVD is selling like hotcakes. We have six Oscar nominations. And I don't know what else I could say. And then you look at this movie and you say, 'What were all these people thinking that they didn't want it when they looked at it as a completed movie?'" Benjamin asked. "But, I think, a lot of the studios had the same kinds of fears and concerns even though the movie was completed that they had had over the last 15 years (when it was looking for financing) -- until Universal stepped up. Those guys loved the movie and, I think, not only did they believe in us and in the movie, but they believed in themselves. Their marketing team believed that they could bring this movie to the marketplace and get people to come to the movie theaters and see it. And they were right."

Asked how Universal came to distribute the picture, Benjamin recalled, "What happened was that we sort of systematically started screening the movie. We had done a research screening of the movie in Kansas City in October of '03. NRG (National Research Group) came in and set it up for us and we did it two nights in a row, back to back. One night with a predominantly African-American audience and the other night in a suburb, which was more diverse ethnically. Both nights, it was huge. Audiences really loved the movie. This was a two hour and forty-five minute version. We were still fussing with it in terms of editorial things. (The final version is) 2:20 or 2:22 plus credits. This was 2:45 without credits. But the audience loved it.

"So we did a little bit of tweaking and trimming and we got it down to about the two hour and twenty minute length that you see right now. We had that plus the NRG book (of results) and we started showing the movie to studios. We just couldn't get them to move until Universal (said yes). There was nothing magical about what we did. It was just screening the movie and hoping it would speak for itself and speak to somebody. It obviously spoke to Ron (Meyer, Universal Studios president) and Stacey (Snider, Universal Pictures chairman) and (Universal Pictures vice chairman) Marc Shmuger and Adam (Fogelson, Universal Pictures marketing president) and Eddie (Egan, Universal Pictures marketing co-president) and the marketing (team) at Universal. It was pretty much a completed picture and the marketing guys were the guys who had to put their collective asses on the line and say, 'We can do this.' And they did."

"Million Dollar Baby" (Malpaso/Ruddy Morgan Productions, Lakeshore Entertainment, Warner Bros.) -- Considering that many Hollywood handicappers are predicting a best picture win for "Million Dollar Baby" and see it as a top contender in several other prime categories, it's something of a shock to hear about the difficulties Albert S. Ruddy (who produced "Baby" with Tom Rosenberg and Paul Haggis) encountered for years in trying to get it made.

"The problem that you have is that if you actually try to pitch the script and you go through the actual story, most studios are going to start looking at the clock and wondering when you'll be getting out of the office," Rosenberg pointed out in a column here Feb. 16. "I remember when I first read it, I called Gary Lucchesi, my partner, and said, 'I just read a script that's fantastic and we're going to make this film.' And he said, 'What is it about?' So I said, 'Well, it's about a girl and she's a boxer.' He said, 'Oh that's not very good.' And then I started saying what happens to her on her journey and what happens to her in the end. And he said, 'My God, do you have to pick the hardest things in the world for us to do? I don't know how we're ever going to make it.' I said, 'I couldn't do it justice in describing it. You've gotta read the script and then you'll know and you'll feel the way I feel.' And he did. He read it and said, 'This is great.' Many scripts you read and many of the films you do have a possibility to be good or very good. Very few have the possibility to be great. This had that possibility. It could become a great film if everything went right (and it was) cast right and directed properly."

Even when Eastwood came on board to direct and star in the picture it still wasn't clear sailing for "Baby." "Looking back at it now," Ruddy told me, "as you can imagine, it seems like, 'Gee, what a beautiful movie.' But it was a hard sell. Clint has a great line in the movie when he turns her down (after Swank's character has asked him to train her as a fighter). He says, 'Women boxing? That's the latest freak show.' So a woman boxer with an unhappy ending with two older guys -- I mean, what is the audience for this movie? Clint had his deal at Warner Bros. and they couldn't make the proper deal there for the movie for any number of reasons. But, look, when you deal with Clint Eastwood everyone knows he comes in with 'Dirty Harry' or 'Unforgiven' or a murder mystery, but this was not (that kind of film). We all knew it was not going to be that easy.

"So then it went from Warners to Universal. Universal liked it, but they had their boxing movie with Russell Crowe ('Cinderella Man,' directed by Ron Howard and opening June 3, the story of Depression era fighter Jim Braddock). Then it went to New Line and, I believe, Paramount. And they all for one reason or another didn't want to do it. Then we made it more palatable to Warner Bros. by working out a split rights deal where Lakeshore and Warners split the risk, even though the risk was miniscule, where they each put up $15 million. And that's how the deal was finally made."

Rosenberg applauds Warners for its efforts on behalf of "Baby" since the studio came on board. "Warner Bros. has done a terrific marketing and distribution campaign," he said. "Once they did commit to the film, they've been very supportive."

"This is the greatest buy in the history of the movie business," Ruddy laughed. "Would you like to have all domestic rights in 'Million Dollar Baby' for $15 million? What a deal. And if this movie goes the way we think it's going to go, everyone's going to make a substantial amount of money. But, look, we had no intention of competing this year (for Oscar consideration). Don't forget, Clint didn't get through shooting this movie till about Labor Day. We started the movie in the summer. When Clint ran his cut at the studio for the first time there was just a small handful of us -- (Warner Bros. president and chief operating officer) Alan Horn, me and (a few others). People were crying in the theater. That was just the first pass (by Eastwood and they were) crying in the theater. And it was so good, everyone said, 'Hell, let's make a run this year.'"

Ruddy's been around the Hollywood track for a long time and has no illusions about how difficult a business it is. "This was a tough one," he said, summing it all up. "I read a great quote the other day that said, 'Paradise is on the other side of the jungle.' And that's true. You've got to get through the jungle to get there. Look, unfortunately, the cost of failure in our business today has become too high -- and not just fiscally. So people are much more guarded. It's much easier to say no, for any number of reasons. And I don't blame any studio that didn't want to do this movie originally. You know, it's a tougher market out there. We all acknowledge it. I give credit when someone stands up and (says) let's make this movie. I feel like they're setting fireworks off because they're sticking their neck out. Now they may want to get as much insurance as they can whether it's big name stars or directors or whatever it is. But, still, no one gives you a guarantee today that anything's going to be successful."

Martin Grove is a regular contributor to CNN Headline News' "Showbiz Tonight" weeknights live at 4-5 p.m., PT (7-8 p.m., ET) with repeats at 7 & 9 p.m., PT (10 p.m. & Midnight, ET).