And Oscar night will likely draw a larger audience than last year's 36.3 million.

Those are the findings of a Media Life poll of media planners and buyers earlier this week.

Asked to pick which movie would win best picture, 49 percent of respondents chose "Locker" versus 33 percent for "Avatar."

No other movies were even close. No. 3 was "Up in the Air" at 6 percent.

Bridges was the clear favorite to win best actor, with the support of 76 percent of respondents. A very distant No. 2 was George Clooney for "Up in the Air."

In the best actress category, Bullock is up against Meryl Streep, a longtime Hollywood favorite, but readers give her a clear edge at 61 percent versus 23 percent for Streep. Coming in No. 3 was Gabourey Sidibe for her role in "Precious."

Last year, the Academy Awards drew 36.3 million viewers, and it's a good bet this year will do even better.

Just 15 percent of respondents thought the show would do poorly or just so-so.

Asked how ratings for this Academy Awards will fare, the largest share of respondents, 38 percent, thought fairly well, agreeing with this statement: “There isn't much timeslot competition, and the changes in format last year and this year should help.” They include shortened acceptance speeches and the elimination of best song performances.

Almost as many, 30 percent, thought the show would do very well, agreeing with this statement: “People are looking for escapism right now, and if there's one thing the Oscars provide, it's a chance for escape.”

And 16 percent thought turnout for the show would be excellent, agreeing with this statement: "’Avatar’ is nominated. Enough said.”

Asked to guess how many viewers would tune in Sunday night, the majority of readers thought the number would be higher than last year’s 36.3 million viewers.

Just 14 percent thought the audience would be 35 million or less.

The largest share, 34 percent, put the audience at between 35.1 million to 39 million, while 21 percent thought it would come in at between 39.1 million to 42 million. And nearly as many, 20 percent, thought it would come in between 42.1 million to 45 million. Nearly 8 percent thought viewership would be between 45.1 million to 50 million, and 3 percent figured it would top 50 million.

One reason readers think viewership will be up is because the annual gala in which Hollywood celebrates itself is escapist fun at a time when America needs to escape the woes of recession, unemployment and war.

Asked why awards shows in general have done so much better this year, 42 percent of readers agreed with this statement: "The escapist element. In a year of bad economic news, it's fun to forget about your problems and watch Hollywood glam it up."

But another factor, one that didn't exist just a few years ago, is the impact of social media. That got 19 percent of the vote. Those readers agreed with this statement: “These days people aren't just watching the event, they're experiencing it online with friends via Facebook, Twitter, chats and more.”

But lest we draw too many conclusions from the whole issue of why viewership is up for award shows, almost as many respondents, 16 percent, thought there was no particular reason, agreeing with this statement: “It's just a coincidence that they're all up; the boost probably won't last.”

This year’s event is being hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, which raises an interesting issue. Will these two unpredictable funny men be terrific or will they go overboard and turn the night into an embarrassment?

It looks like America is safe.

Just 10 percent of respondents though the two would turn the night into an embarrassment, agreeing with this statement: “I can't figure out why they have two hosts to begin with, and Baldwin is a real wild card.”

Just over 20 percent thought the two would do brilliantly, agreeing with this statement: “If they play off each other as well as I think they can, it should be a very entertaining evening.”

But the largest share, 70 percent, thought the two would do just fine but not spectacularly, agreeing with this statement: “They're two funny, quirky guys who will provide some laughs, commit some gaffes, and keep the evening rolling along.”

In any case, most media planners and buyers will be watching the show, and that has not changed through the years that Media Life has been polling readers about Oscar night. This year 84 percent of respondents said they would be watching the show, which is airing on ABC.

Lastly, Media Life asked readers to opine on what brands advertising on the Oscars made the most sense, and for which it would be a waste of money.

Here are some of the responses:

“Brands that target women as well as family-friendly brands make the best choices for advertising on the Oscars. Despite the Motion Picture Academy allowing ads for upcoming movies in the telecast for the first time, it may be a waste of money because Oscar viewers may not be interested in some of the movies being advertised, and some of the films that will be advertised may be months away.”

“Female-focused brands make the most sense. There's a reason why the Oscars are called the Super Bowl for Women. Cosmetic companies and distaff-skewing movies such as the upcoming ‘Sex and the City 2’ movie fit right in. Any man-focused items need to have some universal humor to make the pricing worth it; the recent Old Spice commercial (‘I'm on a horse’) would be a good example.”

“Advertising during the Oscars is an image thing and makes sense for brands that want to tie to the Hollywood glamour image, for example luxury cars, liquor, travel, and fashion. Advertising for household goods like orange juice and laundry detergent during the Oscars is a waste because those brands don't gain anything from the association.”

“Oscar buys make sense for hip products like iPhone. All the drug companies are wasting their money.”