Academy To Extend Best Picture Nominess To 10

[Gilpesh]

And now there's five more spots for the Weinsteins to buy.

 

[Boom]

This is stupid as hell.

 

[jmc]

that's subjective. the ones nominated are what the ACADEMY thinks should be nominated. If it's what the people want then you're thinking about the People Choice Awards...

Who the hell said anything about People's Choice?

They do nominate films through out the whole year..Crash was released in May of 2005 and won best picture, Fargo was nominated and was released in Febuary. The Wrestler was good,but other movies that came out were better. The Best stuff gets released during Oct-December cause they trying for an oscar and want that movie to be fresh in people's mind during Jan voting season. Get educated about the oscars then come back and make a post.

I've been watching them closely year in and out for the best part of almost 20 years, so please don't make assumptions. The films you named are the exceptions not the rule, they are increasing rarities (of which Crash was one of the most undeserving Best Picture wins in history). October - December has become Oscar baited month, with films made purely to win awards, not necessarily the best films of the year, films made to win awards, seriously how does a film like Zodiac, perhaps one of the best films of 2007 miss out on nomination? Last year was the perfect example as to why this is true, the only film that truly deserved to be there was Slumdog (which wasn't even suppose to be in contention in the first place), hell the Academy's bone headed decision to increase the best picture nominees to 10 smacks of them realizing it themselves that they really dropped the ball last year. You can't honestly tell me the ''best'' films of the whole year are all released in October-December.

 

[Tojo]

1. Ten nominations is ridiculous and excessive. There are not even 5 movies a year that are oscar worthy, so this will surely dilute the qulity. On the other hand, it will likely broaden the appeal of the Oscars to a younger generation. If this happened last year, then Dark Knight would have been nominated, which is a good thing. However, a film like Dark Knight is not going to be equalled by Iron Man or Star Trek. Sorry to break the news.

2. The Oscars are long and boring enough as it is. Don't prolong the pain.

3. The Oscars is not a democratic forum. It is political(meaning $$$), and riddled with agenda. Did the Departed really deserve an Oscar for best film? As decent as it was, this, to me anyway, was just Mr. Oscar giving Scorcese a lifetime Oscar cos they weirdly hadn't given him one yet.

4. The Oscars are really boring and i don't think it has any prestige anymore.

 

[Tojo]

the only film that truly deserved to be there was Slumdog (which wasn't even suppose to be in contention in the first place)

Firstly, i hated Slumdog, and i don't believe it's an Oscar-worthy film at ALL. But that is personal opinion and niether here nor there since millions of people thought it was great.

Thing is, Oscars is every single year, and while i agree that all the nominated films were nothing special, they still have to fill the spaces with what is perceived to be the best films of that year. There are never going to be 5 exceptional films in a year, so The Oscars success depends largely on the quality of films produced that year.

But why The Wrestler wasn't even nominated is beyond me. But i can see why the others were nominated, even if they weren't exceptional films.

 

[Boom]

The Wrestler not getting nominated was a sham and a mockery.

 

[Sentinel X]

I loved Star Trek but it is NOT oscar material...its a really good summer film and thats what it was trying to be and it succeeded. (Its also my second favorite film of the summer after Up).

The Dark Knight WAS oscar material but the oscars screwed up. Next time they should just nominate good movies. I think its a good idea to have more nominees but 10? holy...

I think that the mainstream movies out this year that have a chance of being nominated are Public Enemies, Up, and Avatar. Everyones reaction to the scenes in Avatar was a fake I'd say its now garunteed to get a best picture nomination. Up has a really good chance too.

 

[marvelman2006]

I loved Star Trek but it is NOT oscar material...its a really good summer film and thats what it was trying to be and it succeeded. (Its also my second favorite film of the summer after Up).

The Dark Knight WAS oscar material but the oscars screwed up. Next time they should just nominate good movies. I think its a good idea to have more nominees but 10? holy...

I think that the mainstream movies out this year that have a chance of being nominated are Public Enemies, Up, and Avatar. Everyones reaction to the scenes in Avatar was a fake I'd say its now garunteed to get a best picture nomination. Up has a really good chance too.

this is about 4 months too late. this could have helped the dark knight, the wrestler and gran torino. I just wish the dark knight would have got nominated. i mean it was only the second highest grossing movie of all time. thats why normal public hate the oscars because movies they like get snubbed.

 

[Sentinel X]

^TDK didn't need an oscar nomination. Not giving TDK the nomination did show a lot of people who the academy REALLY is (People with very limited movie taste who are wowed by the same movie every year with a different name).

In 20 years I think people will more likely remember The Dark Knight than Slumdog millionaire....and any of the other nominees.

Honestly I miss the days when earning an oscar actually meant something. Now you have a bunch of fools who give awards to the most cliched dramas. Not only that, they're giving awards to people they feel "they cheated the last year or deserves an oscar now" (even though the performance they nominated he/she for was not that good) or their favories actor and actresses simple because its their favorite actor or actress (**cough** Meryl Streep **cough**)

Too bad there probably will never be an awards ceremony as "prestigious" as the oscars...because now its become more like "Who are we going to give this award to so they can get 10+ million a picture" instead of honoring great films

 

[jmc]

Firstly, i hated Slumdog, and i don't believe it's an Oscar-worthy film at ALL. But that is personal opinion and niether here nor there since millions of people thought it was great.

Thing is, Oscars is every single year, and while i agree that all the nominated films were nothing special, they still have to fill the spaces with what is perceived to be the best films of that year. There are never going to be 5 exceptional films in a year, so The Oscars success depends largely on the quality of films produced that year.

But why The Wrestler wasn't even nominated is beyond me. But i can see why the others were nominated, even if they weren't exceptional films.

Yes, but the quality films didn't make the list, that's the issue, two of them were overlooked for their genre, gods knows why the other one didn't make it. I'm not gonna disagree with you on the Wrestler, absolutely appalling that that was overlooked, seriously how the hell Button or The Reader got in ahead of that is beyond me.

 

[jmc]

Honestly I miss the days when earning an oscar actually meant something. Now you have a bunch of fools who give awards to the most cliched dramas. Not only that, they're giving awards to people they feel ''they cheated the last year or deserves an oscar now'' (even though the performance they nominated he/she for was not that good) or their favories actor and actresses simple because its their favorite actor or actress (**cough** Meryl Streep **cough**)

If there's one thing I hate more than anything is the 'make up' Oscar. Scorsese was long over due but The Departed was nowhere near his best work.

 

[Evil Twin]

There's nothing I hate more than the "make up" Oscar as well. If you did your job more conscientiously in the first place, you wouldn't have to make amends later.

I'm very skeptical of doubling the field. Yeah, in a strong year, it's probably not going to be an issue, but there are years when there's some pretty weak films in the top 5. Let alone top 10. Even last year, let's say you add TDK, Wall-E, and The Wrestler. Combined with the top 5, does adding a couple of Doubt, Gran Torino, Frozen River, or The Visitor, for example, really make the field that much stronger and more interesting? Especially since it was unlikely to change the winner?

Are people now going to tune out of the Best Animated Feature, Documentary, and Foreign Language Film categories? What kind of controversy is there going to be if you have a Pan's Labyrinth / Lives of Others situation and Pan's wins Best Picture but loses Foreign Language film?

One of the problems is that The Oscars have three goals, that aren't always compatible.

1. Recognize and reward the "best" movies of the year.
2. Draw attention to worthy movies that could use a box office boost.
3. Garner large tv ratings for the ceremony.

This move seems likely to only really address that third goal. The least important goal to me.

The underlying problem is that the Academy that votes is made up of aging Baby Boomers that neither represent the current film going demographics or the cutting edge elite. Nothing much is going to change about the Oscars until there's a large influx of new blood.

 

[marvelman2006]

^TDK didn't need an oscar nomination. Not giving TDK the nomination did show a lot of people who the academy REALLY is (People with very limited movie taste who are wowed by the same movie every year with a different name).

In 20 years I think people will more likely remember The Dark Knight than Slumdog millionaire....and any of the other nominees.

Honestly I miss the days when earning an oscar actually meant something. Now you have a bunch of fools who give awards to the most cliched dramas. Not only that, they're giving awards to people they feel "they cheated the last year or deserves an oscar now" (even though the performance they nominated he/she for was not that good) or their favories actor and actresses simple because its their favorite actor or actress (**cough** Meryl Streep **cough**)

Too bad there probably will never be an awards ceremony as "prestigious" as the oscars...because now its become more like "Who are we going to give this award to so they can get 10+ million a picture" instead of honoring great films

I couldnt agree more with you. I know the academy creams for these "wine movies" but come on if they want to increase ratings and draw in a younger audience then they are going to have to start nominating more mainstream movies.

prime example: no country for old men was on starz last week and i convinced my girlfriend and her family to watch because we all heard it was good for being an oscar winner. after it was over they said to me it was ok but not there cup of tea. not alot of people i know like that movie and slumdog or other best movie winners from the past couple years.

The only movie i can remeber liking that won best picture was the departed. It just blows my mind year in and year out that movies that make no more then 10 million win and claim all the awards but yet bigger more loved movies dont even get a nom? sorry to ramble but man it gets annoying.

 

[weezerspider]

Firstly, i hated Slumdog, and i don't believe it's an Oscar-worthy film at ALL. But that is personal opinion and niether here nor there since millions of people thought it was great.

Thing is, Oscars is every single year, and while i agree that all the nominated films were nothing special, they still have to fill the spaces with what is perceived to be the best films of that year. There are never going to be 5 exceptional films in a year, so The Oscars success depends largely on the quality of films produced that year.

But why The Wrestler wasn't even nominated is beyond me. But i can see why the others were nominated, even if they weren't exceptional films.

I hate The Oscars as much as the next guy, but The Departed was a damn good movie. One of the few Best Picture's I've agreed with. You know the Oscars are flawed when a movie like Saving Private Ryan doesn't win Best Picture. All three LOTR films should of won Best Picture. Oh, and TDK is going to be what everyone remembers from 2008, not Slumdog, or The Reader, or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or Milk, or Frost vs Nixon. TDK and even Iron Man will be remembered in the long run over those films.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

The only real complaint last year was The Reader so I don't know why people act like **** movies are getting nominated every year. Who cares if they're all the same type of movie? That type is quality. Not to say blockbusters or any other films that have been dismissed by the Academy weren't high caliber, but is it really a snub to be beaten by the likes of Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed or No Country for Old Men?

And disagreeing with the new format is one thing, but if you don't like the Oscars at all then this obviously isn't the thread for you. Comments like "who cares about these awards anyway" are completely unnecessary.

I'm sorry but No Country for Old Men was a terrible film. If you want to look at it in quality, there was no climax, almost the entire film was left up to inference, there was no music, and the only real Tragic Hero in the movie was Sheriff Bell, and he wasn't even the main focus. Chigurh's character contradicted himself in practically everyscene and moreso in the movie because at least in the book you kind of have an idea as to why he's doing what he's doing. The book was just as bad, too much gun talk, not enough detail on necessary things but too much detail on uneeded stuff (like guns and dead bodies). There was 0 punctuation used and there were no quotation marks. No Country for Old Men was one of THE worst movies and books I have ever scene and read.

 

[Max J Power]

I couldnt agree more with you. I know the academy creams for these "wine movies" but come on if they want to increase ratings and draw in a younger audience then they are going to have to start nominating more mainstream movies.

prime example: no country for old men was on starz last week and i convinced my girlfriend and her family to watch because we all heard it was good for being an oscar winner. after it was over they said to me it was ok but not there cup of tea. not alot of people i know like that movie and slumdog or other best movie winners from the past couple years.

The only movie i can remeber liking that won best picture was the departed. It just blows my mind year in and year out that movies that make no more then 10 million win and claim all the awards but yet bigger more loved movies dont even get a nom? sorry to ramble but man it gets annoying.

Popularity is not the same as quality. A movie is not good because it's "loved" by masses who go and see it. I mean, Spider-Man 3 was a huge financial success, but I doubt any discerning movie fan thought it was award-worthy. The fact that a movie like No Country For Old Men is not everyone's cup of tea is irrelevant to whether or not it should win awards. I'm not saying that every movie that gets an Oscar nomination deserves it, but awards should be given based on film quality, not fan reaction or popularity.

Although the decision to up the number of Best Picture nominees seems to be influenced primarily by poor TV ratings for the last few Oscar telecasts, which were certainly due to a lack of movies that a lot of people had seen.

 

[marvelman2006]

Popularity is not the same as quality. A movie is not good because it's "loved" by masses who go and see it. I mean, Spider-Man 3 was a huge financial success, but I doubt any discerning movie fan thought it was award-worthy. The fact that a movie like No Country For Old Men is not everyone's cup of tea is irrelevant to whether or not it should win awards. I'm not saying that every movie that gets an Oscar nomination deserves it, but awards should be given based on film quality, not fan reaction or popularity.

Although the decision to up the number of Best Picture nominees seems to be influenced primarily by poor TV ratings for the last few Oscar telecasts, which were certainly due to a lack of movies that a lot of people had seen.

finally a good debate, that right there is my point. Granted quality is the main reason these smaller movies win over the bigger ones but where im coming from is the general audience today does not care about these smaller ones that garner more awards. I'm just saying that the academy shouldnt complain about a decline in ratings when most of the movies nominated will be forgotten a year later. which will you remember more the dark knight or the reader?

just saying that people are turned off from the academy awards because movies like dark knight and saving private ryan and lord of the rings get snubbed for the slumdogs of the world. Bottom line is there are too many old farts running this show that favor the depressing an boring movies over far more enjoyable ones.

 

[marvelman2006]

I'm sorry but No Country for Old Men was a terrible film. If you want to look at it in quality, there was no climax, almost the entire film was left up to inference, there was no music, and the only real Tragic Hero in the movie was Sheriff Bell, and he wasn't even the main focus. Chigurh's character contradicted himself in practically everyscene and moreso in the movie because at least in the book you kind of have an idea as to why he's doing what he's doing. The book was just as bad, too much gun talk, not enough detail on necessary things but too much detail on uneeded stuff (like guns and dead bodies). There was 0 punctuation used and there were no quotation marks. No Country for Old Men was one of THE worst movies and books I have ever scene and read.

testify.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Popularity is not the same as quality. A movie is not good because it's "loved" by masses who go and see it. I mean, Spider-Man 3 was a huge financial success, but I doubt any discerning movie fan thought it was award-worthy. The fact that a movie like No Country For Old Men is not everyone's cup of tea is irrelevant to whether or not it should win awards. I'm not saying that every movie that gets an Oscar nomination deserves it, but awards should be given based on film quality, not fan reaction or popularity.

Although the decision to up the number of Best Picture nominees seems to be influenced primarily by poor TV ratings for the last few Oscar telecasts, which were certainly due to a lack of movies that a lot of people had seen.

I disagree. Spider-Man made a lot of money but no one liked it. Titanic made a lot of movie and almost everyone liked it and it got the award. Same with Gone with the Wind, the Godfather I and II, Rocky and even Gladiator. The quality argument doesn't work either. Rocky and Titanic were not of amazing quality. They were just entertaining and popular. The Dark Knight passed the 1 Billion Dollar Mark and virtually EVERYONE who saw it thought it was amazing. The Dark Knight also had quality and sent out multiple messages. Slumdog is way overhyped and not very entertaining. And again, with quality, NCFOM had NO quality to it. Both No Country for Old Men and Slumdog also didn't even make it close to the Dark Knight's success. The Academy is and always has been bought out. They are completely biased too and have even been called out on it by one of the greatest actors of our time, Marlon Brando.

 

[Evil Twin]

And again, with quality, NCFOM had NO quality to it. Both No Country for Old Men and Slumdog also didn't even make it close to the Dark Knight's success. The Academy is and always has been bought out. They are completely biased too and have even been called out on it by one of the greatest actors of our time, Marlon Brando.

That's an awfully bold statement there. I also expect the statement of someone who's younger, and hasn't been disillusioned with the world and the difference they thought they were going to make in it. (But, I could be wrong on that.)

But, to say that NCFOM has NO quality is baffling and completely undercuts any real argument. It has great cinematography. It uses visual storytelling flawlessly. It's loaded with terrific acting. It has a terrific hotel action set piece in the middle of it.

What it does is subvert expectations. It's not your standard action movie with a 3rd act set piece with the villain getting his comeuppance, but a sucker punch where we see the cruelty of random chance intervening.

(But, I'm dragging this off topic. I understand that NCFOM isn't everyone's cup of tea. And there's no Best Picture winner that will get 100% concensus. That said, NCFOM was a critical darling and hardly a controversial choice. And, it's not a movie with no quality.)

 

[marvelman2006]

That's an awfully bold statement there. I also expect the statement of someone who's younger, and hasn't been disillusioned with the world and the difference they thought they were going to make in it. (But, I could be wrong on that.)

But, to say that NCFOM has NO quality is baffling and completely undercuts any real argument. It has great cinematography. It uses visual storytelling flawlessly. It's loaded with terrific acting. It has a terrific hotel action set piece in the middle of it.

What it does is subvert expectations. It's not your standard action movie with a 3rd act set piece with the villain getting his comeuppance, but a sucker punch where we see the cruelty of random chance intervening.

(But, I'm dragging this off topic. I understand that NCFOM isn't everyone's cup of tea. And there's no Best Picture winner that will get 100% concensus. That said, NCFOM was a critical darling and hardly a controversial choice. And, it's not a movie with no quality.)

1) cinematorgaphy, i wasnt blown away by this. i saw a few desert shots but thats it.

2) hotel? oh you mean the part where brolin is taking cover just walking through and as he's driving a gun shot hits his car but yet the bad editing job doesnt even create suspense that he might actually die. boring scene and bad editing if you ask me.

3) hmm maybe we saw a different movie at this point because all i saw was us follow a character the whole movie and we dont even see him die?
the coen's can suck it at the point. granted no big third act is fine but to not even show us how our hero goes out is bull crap.

also tell me the quality you found in this turd? I found a movie that was so boring that it became hard to follow.

 

[Evil Twin]

I'm not going to turn this into a NCFOM debate, because that's arguing the trees for the forest.

That said, you're arguing the minority opinion. Especially saying NCFOM has NO value. There's 158,474 voters on IMDB who disagree with your opinion. Tons of critics. And the academy. Now, opinion is opinion, but saying that NCFOM wasn't widely accepted as a worthy Best Picture winner is unsupported. It was the favorite. There was no outcry or dispute. Nobody was going, if only such and such had been nominated. It was nominated and won awards and nomination from every major and minor film body. Including MTV and the Saturn Awards. Along with LotR and The Departed, it was one of the least controversial wins of the decade. And it will end up on many Best of the Decade lists.

Basically, this is clearly a reaction to TDK not getting a nomination, nothing else. Arguably a knee jerk reaction too, since other than Crash winning, there hasn't been that much controversy about the winners. Gladiator was a popular film. LotR was nominated all three years. There was some talk in that perhaps Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter, The Bourne Supremacy, The Incredibles, or The Passion of the Christ should be nominated for best picture, so that's the first really controversial year of the decade. 2005 was obviously controversial, especially with the Crash win. The Departed won in 2006, and although far from Scorsese's best, there wasn't much controversy that it wasn't a high quality film with not much concensus for what should replace it. 2007 NCFOM won everything. And, 2008, was obviously controversial. Still, 2, maybe 3, years of controversy about the BP nominees in a decade isn't that unusual. Other than the 70s, which decade doesn't have some controversial choices?

 

[Dark Victory]

Also, hopefully this leaves enough space for a Potter nomination for one of these last 3 movies

 

[weezerspider]

Raiders of The Lost Ark and A New Hope were both nominated for Best Picture. Now days, any movie with the same quality of these and as successful as these wouldn't even be nominated for Best Picture because the Academy is now a bunch of stuck-up, biased, liberal pricks who would disregard them simply because their popular. Therefore, they can't be works of art. These are probably the same people who act like their better than everyone else for not liking the Beatles.

 

[Evil Twin]

Raiders of The Lost Ark and A New Hope were both nominated for Best Picture. Now days, any movie with the same quality of these and as successful as these wouldn't even be nominated for Best Picture because the Academy is now a bunch of stuck-up, biased, liberal pricks who would disregard them simply because their popular. Therefore, they can't be works of art. These are probably the same people who act like their better than everyone else for not liking the Beatles.

Considering that The Sixth Sense and all three LotR movies were nominated for Best Picture, is it fair to conclude that "nowadays" is simply 2004 to present?

Heck, Juno and The Departed certainly fit a general definition of popular, as they were significant financial successes even before awards season. Benjamin Button too. Slumdog Millionaire also had been building for awhile. Yeah, the Academy skipped TDK and there are probably another 3 or 4 blockbusters this decade that were worthy of consideration, but it's hardly some conscious superiority attitude. There are probably just as many foreign language films that would have been worthy nominees as there are snubbed blockbusters. The Academy is decidedly middle brow in taste, and biased in favor of actor driven movies.

There's some nuance to be had here.