Official 2023 Oscar Nominations And Discussions Thread (1 Viewer)

[SD_Brian]

It may not help with the TV ratings, but one thing that would make the awards more compelling to me personally would be if they went back to only having 5 Best Picture nominees. There is a direct correlation between when the number of nominees increased and when my interest began to wane. Now it's like Oprah is giving out the Best Picture nominations: "You get a Best Picture nomination! And you get a Best Picture nomination! Everyone gets a Best Picture nomination!!!"

Well, except for She Said and The Woman King, obviously.

 

[Tino]

but one thing that would make the awards more compelling to me personally would be if they went back to only having 5 Best Picture nominees.

Agreed 100%

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Agreed 100%

I’d also like them to go back to 5, but if they had for this year, this is what the slate likely would have looked like:

• "All Quiet on the Western Front"
• "The Banshees of Inisherin"
• "Tár"
• "Triangle of Sadness"
• "Women Talking"

They’re barely willing to acknowledge the films that the moviegoing audience enjoys with ten slots. If they go back to five, it’s going to be all indie and indie-wannabe titles with limited audience appeal. And then they’re right back where they started before the expansion, which is, unable to acknowledge that there are other kinds of films besides modestly budgeted downers.

 

[Tino]

I’d also like them to go back to 5, but if they had for this year, this is what the slate likely would have looked like:

• "All Quiet on the Western Front"
• "The Banshees of Inisherin"
• "Tár"
• "Triangle of Sadness"
• "Women Talking"

Don’t know about that Josh. I definite think EEAAO would have made the top 5 for sure.

 

[SD_Brian]

I’d also like them to go back to 5, but if they had for this year, this is what the slate likely would have looked like:

• "All Quiet on the Western Front"
• "The Banshees of Inisherin"
• "Tár"
• "Triangle of Sadness"
• "Women Talking"

They’re barely willing to acknowledge the films that the moviegoing audience enjoys with ten slots. If they go back to five, it’s going to be all indie and indie-wannabe titles with limited audience appeal. And then they’re right back where they started before the expansion, which is, unable to acknowledge that there are other kinds of films besides modestly budgeted downers.

I'd actually be okay with that (though I suspect EEAAO and The Fabelmans would still be in the mix). The Oscars once had at least the illusion of prestige attached to them, but now what they really seem to want is to be The People's Choice Awards.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Don’t know about that Josh. I definite think EEAAO would have made the top 5 for sure.

I think it’s possible but I also think it’s equally possible that they would have gone with the lowest grossing titles across the board. Under the old standards, Everything has action, science fiction and comedy, which means that by a certain way of thinking much of their membership subscribed to, it’s not a “real” movie.

I'd actually be okay with that (though I suspect EEAAO would still be in the mix). The Oscars once had at least the illusion of prestige attached to them, but now what they really seem to want is to be The People's Choice Awards.

I don’t think they want to be that at all. If they did, they’d look at the top ten grossing films of the year, pick five choices from that list, and call it a day.

I certainly don’t want it to be the People’s Choice Awards.

But until the time of about when Miramax started making a big splash, the Academy was regularly able to acknowledge films that hit that sweet spot in the Venn diagram of “well made” and “widely appreciated” that they’ve had substantial difficulty with since then. It used to be very common for films like Jaws, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark to be nominated for best picture, and then all of that ground to a halt at a certain point.

 

[Tino]

I'd actually be okay with that (though I suspect EEAAO and The Fabelmans would still be in the mix). The Oscars once had at least the illusion of prestige attached to them, but now what they really seem to want is to be The People's Choice Awards.

It’s supposed to be about art, not ratings. How sad.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s supposed to be about art, not ratings. How sad.

Agreed - the problem isn’t so much ratings in my view, the problem is that the Academy used to understand and regularly acknowledge that artistry took many forms and came in many varieties, and then at a certain point went all in on the idea that only modestly budgeted dramatic films, particularly those one might call “downers,” were the only things that counted as art. And I think that’s self-defeating and insulting to the many members who make art in other styles besides that one particular one, as well as condescending to a general audience that appreciates the art form in more varieties than just that one.

 

[bujaki]

Whaddya doin' tonight, Marty?
And that was a 1955 movie.

 

[benbess]

Agreed 100%

Why do you want to go back to five Best Picture nominees?

Overall, I think I like having ten. But I can see there are pros and cons either way.

 

[Joe Wong]

I thought Condon was better than both Hsu and JLC, even though I liked both movies.

I don't think the ratings will be any better, even with two massive blockbusters nominated for Best Picture. The kids don't actually care, and anyone that does care knows neither will actually win anything other than technical awards. Even if one of them had a real chance, though, I still think the ratings battle is lost.

That's the issue even if big blockbusters are up for Best Picture with a 10-film race - is there a real chance? Titanic and Return of the King were genuine contenders when there only 5 noms (and the ratings were there). However, would The Dark Knight have had a chance if included in an expanded BP list?

 

[Matt Hough]

But with a more substantial role.

Let's face it: Louis B. Mayer was very high on Luise Rainer during her first year and a half at MGM and pushed her enormously. He was sick of Garbo's demands and peculiarities especially since her box-office drawing power was waning in the US by 1937 (she was still big in Europe). I suspect he put a bug in the ear of Metro's staff who were Academy members to support Luise and not Greta. I need to look up in my Oscar books to see if Greta ran second in 1937 (they used to reveal the top three vote counts).

 

[MartinP.]

I'd like to go back to five nominees because I don't like the weighted ballot system of voting when there's more than five nominees. I think a case can be made that some films would not have won Best Picture since 2009 if there had been five nominees. Notice that it used to extremely rare that a film that won Best Picture did not also win for the director. Since 2009 that's happened 6 times in 12 years or 50% of the time. From 1950 - 2008 it happened 11 times in 58 years or 18% of the time.

It's stated that movies with more intense support by fewer people win in a weighted ballot voting system, rather than a film with generally broader support (more people like it) winning.

Let's take 1932/33 for example. The nominees were:

Cavalcade
A Farewell to Arms
42nd Street
I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
Lady for a Day
Little Women
The Private Life of Henry VIII
She Done Him Wrong
Smilin' Through
State Fair

This particular year they changed the eligibility so that the following year, 1934, the awards would be given by Calendar year, January through December. So the 1932/33 year encompassed 18 months of eligible films and the winner that year is arguably the worst film on the list, Cavalcade. In many surveys of the worst Best Picture winners, this one is at or near the bottom. AMPAS' website actually lists what came in second and third this particular year. The second choice is the second worst film on this list: A Farewell to Arms. I've seen all these films and these two are the only two films I'd not choose to see again. (I've seen Cavalcade twice in a theatre. Ugh.) The third choice was Little Women.

It's interesting to note that if AMPAS wanted to, they could find out, since 2009, if only five films had been nominated each year, what they would've been and if any of the actual winners wouldn't have even been in the running.

 

[SD_Brian]

But until the time of about when Miramax started making a big splash, the Academy was regularly able to acknowledge films that hit that sweet spot in the Venn diagram of “well made” and “widely appreciated” that they’ve had substantial difficulty with since then. It used to be very common for films like Jaws, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark to be nominated for best picture, and then all of that ground to a halt at a certain point.

There was a period from 2004-2008 where there were not any real box-office Blockbusters nominated. Looking at the top-10 grossing movies of those years, however, there is almost nothing that seems Oscar-worthy. I think only The Dark Knight was even legitimately in the Oscar conversation. Prior to 2004, the 5 nominations frequently included at least one blockbuster.

 

[SD_Brian]

It's interesting to note that if AMPAS wanted to, they could find out, since 2009, if only five films had been nominated each year, what they would've been and if any of the actual winners wouldn't have even been in the running.

In my mind, there is likely a correlation between the Best Director nominees and which movies would have been the top five. Prior to the increase in picture nominations, 4 out of 5 BP nods were usually up for Best Director as well.

 

[jayembee]

And yet it wasn’t nominated for any Oscars. I think that the backlash, especially from the African-American community, certainly had an impact.

Maybe, maybe not. There could be any number of reasons why it didn't get nominations. It's possible that it was nominated by any number of people, but not enough of them to get on the final ballot.

 

[Tino]

Maybe, maybe not. There could be any number of reasons why it didn't get nominations. It's possible that it was nominated by any number of people, but not enough of them to get on the final ballot.

Sure. We’ll never know but I think that backlash contributed.

 

[bujaki]

I'd like to go back to five nominees because I don't like the weighted ballot system of voting when there's more than five nominees. I think a case can be made that some films would not have won Best Picture since 2009 if there had been five nominees. Notice that it used to extremely rare that a film that won Best Picture did not also win for the director. Since 2009 that's happened 6 times in 12 years or 50% of the time. From 1950 - 2008 it happened 11 times in 58 years or 18% of the time.

It's stated that movies with more intense support by fewer people win in a weighted ballot voting system, rather than a film with generally broader support (more people like it) winning.

Let's take 1932/33 for example. The nominees were:

Cavalcade
A Farewell to Arms
42nd Street
I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
Lady for a Day
Little Women
The Private Life of Henry VIII
She Done Him Wrong
Smilin' Through
State Fair

This particular year they changed the eligibility so that the following year, 1934, the awards would be given by Calendar year, January through December. So the 1932/33 year encompassed 18 months of eligible films and the winner that year is arguably the worst film on the list, Cavalcade. In many surveys of the worst Best Picture winners, this one is at or near the bottom. AMPAS' website actually lists what came in second and third this particular year. The second choice is the second worst film on this list: A Farewell to Arms. I've seen all these films and these two are the only two films I'd not choose to see again. (I've seen Cavalcade twice in a theatre. Ugh.) The third choice was Little Women.

It's interesting to note that if AMPAS wanted to, they could find out, since 2009, if only five films had been nominated each year, what they would've been and if any of the actual winners wouldn't have even been in the running.

For my money, the flat-out masterpiece is I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. #2 would be A Farewell to Arms. BTW, I've seen all the nominees in good to excellent prints.

 

[Wayne_j]

Considering EEAAO led with 11 nominations including 4 in acting categories it would most certainly have been included in the top 5.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Certainly could have been. They don’t release the voting totals so we’ll never know.

There have been plenty of films in the Academy’s history that have received numerous technical nominations but come up short with the best picture nomination, so from my point of view it’s perfectly plausible that somewhere in the multiverse, there’s a world where that happened to this film too.