Oscars' Best Pictures Nominees To Go From 5 To 10... (1 Viewer)

[DavidJ]

Add me to the list that thinks 10 is excessive, but there have been many times when I thought 5 was too limiting. For me, this past year is a perfect example. Of course, the argument can be made that no matter were you set the limit a "worthy" film will be left out.

 

[Tino]

I think its stupid. 5 works fine. 10 will be a mess

 

[Brandon Conway]

I think without that category feature animation would be just as ignored today as it was from 1928-2000. Despite its shortcomings (which is somewhat overcome by this expansion of the Best Picture noms) it has helped feature animation gain prestige since 2001.

In general, I think this will be a good thing. As a friend of mine on another board said: "There is far more contention every year over the which is the 5th best movie of the year than which is the 10th. This will definitely aleviate some soreness over certain movies not being nominated and lend legitimacy to more films."

Every year there's the "I can't believe _______ got nominated instead of __________" complaint. Last year it was The Reader. Honestly, this reduces the chances of this being a common occurrence. Nobody would have complained about The Reader being nominated if the likes of The Dark Knight and WALL*E were also nominated.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I would have complained if TDK or WALLE got nominated over THE READER.

I don't see it as a big deal because the Oscars aren't what they use to be. It's all about the red carpet and fashion so I'm really not sure adding five noms is going to help ratings or anything like that. Perhaps Best Rumored Love Affair or Most Unfaithful Actor would be better.

And I'm sure great movies would still be left out. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN didn't get a Best Picture nom even though 12 were given that year.

 

[Craig S]

I think it's great. If this had been in place last year, I guarantee The Wrestler, Wall-E, and The Dark Knight would have been in. Not only would that have made me very happy, it would have increased interest and ratings.

As far as this year's crop of films, well we're not quite halfway through, and the studios do load up the final quarter with their "award-worthy" films. Up is the only film I've seen so far this year that's BP-worthy, but there are plenty of potential nominees coming.

 

[Brent M]

Just heard on TV that one of the main reasons they're expanding the field is because The Dark Knight didn't get a nomination last year. Personally, I think it should have received one of the 5 nominations as there are a couple of films in last year's field that it could have easily replaced(including The Reader), but I don't think it should be the reason they're expanding the field next year. The film has already been overlooked so this after the fact gesture is totally meaningless IMHO.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I think the Academy faced pressure from both sides; the ratings have been dropping for ABC with the renewed focus on little-watched independent and prestige pictures. Getting a popular favorite or two in the running has been proven to increase ratings, because the audience has a horse in the race so to speak.

On the other hand, the studios get to advertise five additional movies every years as Best Picture nominees. The problem with that is the distinction of becoming a Best Picture nominee is diluted.

It'll be interesting to see next year if the ten pictures are still all indie or prestigue pictures. That would made a tedious result even longer and more tedious for the show's producers.

 

[Jose Martinez]

I'd prefer, as others have suggested before, to just have two Oscar seasons in a year. The first half and then the 2nd half.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I don't mind increasing the field, but doubling it seems a bit over the top. I realize that there's a history of this from the 30s, but it still seems a bit too much for my taste.

I think they would be better off doing something like the globes and having a best Drama/Action film and a best Comedy/Musical film or something along those lines.

Picking 1 film out of 10 will be even more arbitrary than before and will allow lesser films to win the award. This will obviously allow lesser films (i.e. more widely seen) to be in the field and the more widely seen films will be likely to get more votes.

I'll guess I'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

 

[Adam_S]

Well, having seen most of the nominees from the 10-12 nominee era of best picture, I think this is a mistake and overall a bad idea.

I don't think that had this been in place last year we would have had Dark Knight nominated, Wall*E is a possibility, but more likely than Dark Knight would have been BP nominations for films like Doubt and Revolutionary Road, in other words I expect the five other films to continue the tendancy of best picture nominees that are middle brow moderately arty fashionable dramas, rather than representing an increase in diversity across the board. This does open up room for zero to two 'edgy' picks per year, but this is noticeable in even the older years, when unlikely BP nominees such as Adventures of Robin Hood or Wizard of Oz managed to secure a nomination. Most of the time, though, I do not expect to see more films from all genres represented (such as comedy).

In other words, rather than Dark Knight, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men or Eternal Sunshine earning nominations you're more likely to have 'eh, more of the same' films like Far From Heaven, Little Children, Into the Wild or Crash nominated. And who would want a film like Crash to win? (oh wait...)

On the other hand, it's entirely possible this will pave the way for no traditional oscar film nominees, as it lowers the barrier in a big way for a niche film to sneak in. consider that you now only need 1/11 plus one vote to secure a best picture nomination. That's a hell of a lot easier when there's 5829 members, works out to 531 number one votes to secure a nomination rather than 973.

Still, I find it hard to believe 531 members of the academy would have put Dark Knight as their number one pick.

There is a possibility this will change voting trends. Most years, I imagine, support coallesces around 4-8 films that are considered realistically frontrunners, most academy members are aware of this and see those films in particular, because these films are more seen they are more likely to be nominated, so it is a self reinforcing cycle. The possibility exists that by lowering the barrier by 400+ votes that the 'crowd wisdom' will no longer provide a set of strong frontrunners. This may mean that only one-three films may make it past 531 votes in the first tier of voting. if so, I think you can only rely on another one-three films per tier of voting in order to secure 531 votes. That makes the third place nomination votes more important than ever and makes the fourth and fifth place nomination votes matter for the first time pretty much ever.

Harvey Weinstein made a career out of getting his films nominated by talking people into giving him number two and number three place nomination slots (rather than trying to persuade a number one placement from them, which many would view with a bit of effrontery), this expansion of ten nominees makes that strategy all the more effective and useful this year than in other years.

What I expect this year, in terms of nominees
5 middle brow Weinstein esque somewhat arty films, like Doubt and Revolutionary Road
1 animated film
3 audience pleasing but artful oscary films (like Slumdog Millionaire, or for this year, Shutter Island)
1 surprise (like City of God, or in this year's case, The Hurt Locker)

 

[steve3050]

dont know why such increase with nos for oscars. i too smell some cooked politics

 

[Brandon Conway]

The Dark Knight had 8 other nominations. It would have easily been nominated if there were ten spots last year. Easily.

 

[Steve_Tk]

They should of made it twenty, that way Transformers, Terminator, and Wolverine could all make the list.

 

[Brent M]

Without a doubt.

 

[PatrickDA]

I hope this means "Public Enemies" will be nominated even if it bombs at the box office.

 

[Adam_S]

sometimes I forget how awesome the academy is. Tonight they brought Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf) back to America for the first time in thirty+ years and he played three songs from Harold and Maude for us. Fucking tremendous!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Well we were all wondering how they were going to make room for the expanded list:
Oscarcast eliminates Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, and honorary Oscar acceptance speeches; some years there will be no Best Song category

Another example of undermining the purpose of an awards show to make more audience-friendly television. Now granted, the Thalberg award hasn't been presented since 2001. But Jerry Lewis accepting the Hersholt Award was a highlight, as are the honorary Oscars. It looks like last year's bastardized presentation of the Best Song category was only the beginning.

 

[Brandon Conway]

If they make the Honors ceremony available online for viewing I'm all for it. The Best Song tweak is interesting. Not sure how that will play out.

 

[mattCR]

Well, this whole idea went from bad to way worse today.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-hath-sherak-wrought-new-system-for-best-picture-voting-wont-express-will-of-oscar-voters

This fall, an announcement will go out to the membership about how, on the final ballot, Oscar voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference, then the same complicated preferential system used to tally Best Picture nominees will be used to determine one winner. As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but still not win Best Picture. Instead, it could be pushed out by another movie that got fewer No. 1 votes but more No. 2's and No. 3's. This is to ensure that a Best Picture can't win with less than one-fifth of the vote.

In other words: there is no real rundown process, the nomination IS the vote, and it basically goes into the final tally.
This is complete crap, because it means any film without huge recognition has almost no chance to build any momentum.. because the voting is way long over. More then that, the system that favors this tally method will largely benefit films which manage to please the majority, but not necessarily develop ardent advocates.

I have no idea who thought this was ever a good idea.. and can someone explain how, in an attempt to make Oscar night shorter, this will do anything but expand it into a 4+ hour snoozefest?

 

[DavidJ]

Oh, good grief. We may have some genuine surprise when the winner for Best Picture is announced.