OSCARS to pick 10 Best Picture Nominees

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by toefer

Yeah, I think the solution would be to either have a two-step voting process (whittle the 10 down to 5, then re-vote), or separate Best Picture categories (Golden Globe style, with a Drama group and an Everything Else group).

I know there are more than 10 good movies each year, but I don't know if I could easily list 10 movies that should've been nominated last year, or the year before.

5 was plenty. Drop The Reader and add Doubt, and there you go. 5 worked well.

This was what APMAS was doing before, they had a shortlist and then the five nominees were voted on, then that list were the "official nominees" which were voted on for Best Picture.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I wasn't applying it to film production, but film viewership (and only in some cases, at that).

Using the AMPAS membership numbers from to Wikipedia, it will only take (approximately) just over 660 votes to decide the Best Picture for 2010, whereas Slumdog Millionaire had to acheive more than 1,321 votes to win this year.

It's not the number of votes that has tainted the Academy over time with "film buffs" -- it is what the Academy has chosen to nominate and the films that have been neglected.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It's not the number of votes that has tainted the Academy over time with "film buffs" -- it is what the Academy has chosen to nominate and the films that have been neglected.

And this does almost nothing to solve that problem. Yes, it increases the chances of your favorite garnering a nomination, but it's likely that the voting patterns won't change. I believe with the increase we'll see a few dark-horse independent films which are deserving, but have no chance of winning, and then some summer blockbusters, (like Star Trek, possibly) which, while they have NO PLACE in a Best Picture category, will be all anyone ever talk about when it comes down to voting. From late January to March, all we will hear from the masses is "YES, I can't believe Star Trek is nominated for Best Picture!", and then when an obvious choice (like a drama film) wins, we'll hear "I can't believe it! Star Trek was robbed!"

I'm sorry, but that is why ten is just too many. I feel sad that my home country, which stood at the forefront of cinema for decades, is slowly turning into a carnival celebrating cinematic crap.

EDIT: And think about this, too. If ten is how many nominees there are, how long will the shortlist be (or will the criteria simply be downgraded)? How many movies must these members see and how many of them will actually see all ten nominees in order to vote?

[toef]

After thinking more about it, I still don't really like the idea. I'm all for more movies being recognized or honored, or whatever you want to call it, but 10 just seems like too many movies, if only one movie is going to be picked as the winner.

Might as well do a runner up award too, or something, because having 9 losers every year seems like too much.

If I take a particular liking to one of the 5 nominees, I can tune in and hope it wins, and since it's 1 of only 5 movies, even if it's the odd-one out, there's still that small glimmer of hope that maybe it will win.

When you have 10 movies nominated, I don't know how else to put it, other than it seems like too much.

Maybe the solution is to have 5 Best of Genre categories, and then the winner from each square off in the Best Picture category. I don't know what the categories would be, but maybe Drama, Musical/Comedy, Animated, Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi, and something else.

The big problem with that would be the voting process, because clearly the voters would have to know the winners of each, to vote on the overall Best Picture winner, and good luck not allowing those to be leaked out. I guess the solution would be to send the voters a couple fake ballots and a real one, so they don't really know which set of 5 was the real set of winners from the genre categories.

[GreenScar]

Well, I imagine they are doing this to generate revenue. It's a terrible idea IMO. Not that the Oscar's mean much more than it generates extra money for the nominees and winner.

There's more of a chance of the votes getting split and having an undeserving movie win (like that doesn't already happen ).

So, I thought the goal was to make the awards show shorter not longer.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by GreenScar

Well, I imagine they are doing this to generate revenue. It's a terrible idea IMO. Not that the Oscar's mean much more than it generates extra money for the nominees and winner.

There's more of a chance of the votes getting split and having an undeserving movie win (like that doesn't already happen ).

So, I thought the goal was to make the awards show shorter not longer.

Which is why it is tough for most people to watch the Oscars. It runs so gosh darn long!!! Well past 11pm usually. Did anyone watch The Tony Awards? It ran till 11:03pm. They ended it pretty much on time and it still was a great show. The Academy needs to take notes on that.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

Which is why it is tough for most people to watch the Oscars. It runs so gosh darn long!!! Well past 11pm usually. Did anyone watch The Tony Awards? It ran till 11:03pm. They ended it pretty much on time and it still was a great show. The Academy needs to take notes on that.

I never had a problem with the length per se (of course part of the problem for the East Coast is that it's broadcast from California), if only it could be interesting for that long. The awards themselves are great, but the host/audience banter and stiff introductions are what isn't necessary. Especially since not everyone gets to see the nominated films, the show should have much more footage from them, specifically scenes highlighting why a film is nominated for a specific award. I could watch a broadcast like that for 4 or 5 hours, especially as it's only once a year.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by GreenScar

So, I thought the goal was to make the awards show shorter not longer.

Cut out the rubbish and find someone who can present then the ratings may go back up. Also, cut out 95% of award shows. Why do we need so many different awards, this dilutes the impact of an Oscar win.

[RiseDarthVader]

Watchmen nomination FTW!

[SonOfArathorn]

What I really want to know McCrutchy.. is if the Oscars aren't that important etc why do you have such a strong opinion about it? I read this article and though "meh, now there's another 5 nominess I could give a sh*t about, I'll still watch the films I want to watch".

But you seem to be truly angered. As a "true film buff" (whatever that means, far too subjective a term to be taken seriously) I wonder why it matters all?

I know we all here take movies et seriously, we wouldn't be here discussing if we didn't. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Anti-SD]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Watchmen nomination FTW!

Oh god no - absolutely hated that movie. Not that my opinion counts when deciding who's up for best picture, but my word it was tedious.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Yeah, this is incredibly stupid. The only way this would make any sense is if they eliminate the Animated Feature category and allowed foreign films to compete for Best Picture.

Then most of hollywoods best picture nominations would no longer be nominated which probably isn't in the oscars best interests.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

Yea, but in the 30's and 40's, there were a ton of quality films being made. I can't say that about movies nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I still think that there are great films being made, but 10 Oscar noms is too much for me. 5 is plenty.

5 seems like plenty when they pick a bunch of lame garbage like they did last year. Just because a movie is slow and boring and typically has a sad ending does not make it a good movie.

And dont give me crap about "movies being art" and "being nominated on how well they were made" Dont you think it was harder to make Dark Knight or Iron Man then it was the Reader, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, Milk, etc?

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

5 seems like plenty when they pick a bunch of lame garbage like they did last year. Just because a movie is slow and boring and typically has a sad ending does not make it a good movie.

And dont give me crap about "movies being art" and "being nominated on how well they were made" Dont you think it was harder to make Dark Knight or Iron Man then it was the Reader, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, Milk, etc?

The only one I really enjoyed from last year's picking of Best Film was Frost/Nixon. All the others I thought were just ok. Like I have stated before, I think Doubt was better among most of them. But I do agree that 5 is plenty (maybe for not the same reasons as you, but 5 is enough)

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I never had a problem with the length per se (of course part of the problem for the East Coast is that it's broadcast from California), if only it could be interesting for that long. The awards themselves are great, but the host/audience banter and stiff introductions are what isn't necessary. Especially since not everyone gets to see the nominated films, the show should have much more footage from them, specifically scenes highlighting why a film is nominated for a specific award. I could watch a broadcast like that for 4 or 5 hours, especially as it's only once a year.

You are absolutely correct. I would love to see a little more footage from the nominated films, not to mention short clips of those nominated for Best and Supporting Actor and Actress. They should cut out some other stuff to make the run time a little shorter. I actually don't have a problem with the length either, but I know a lot of people that do and get mad because they don't want to wait till midnight on a sunday/monday morning to see which film wins Best Picture.

[toneloctr]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

You are absolutely correct. I would love to see a little more footage from the nominated films, not to mention short clips of those nominated for Best and Supporting Actor and Actress. They should cut out some other stuff to make the run time a little shorter. I actually don't have a problem with the length either, but I know a lot of people that do and get mad because they don't want to wait till midnight on a sunday/monday morning to see which film wins Best Picture.

I would enjoy that more, lets remove all the useless filler and concentrate on the films and people nominated. I think it would make the show more enjoyable and seem like its running on and on.

[Grand Bob]

It appears as though the Oscar committee has finally realized that the general public is losing interest in the depressing or disturbing "works of art" that comprise the majority of Oscar nominations. The additional five nominated movies will no doubt include movies that did well at the box office - but don't have a prayer of winning - just to get more people to watch the ceremony. Although they occassionally throw us a bone (Return of the King and Titanic), I began to lose interest in Oscar when Annie Hall beat Star Wars for best picture in 1977, symbolic of the degree of disregard that the Hollywood powers have for the general public that makes them rich.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

Yea, but in the 30's and 40's, there were a ton of quality films being made. I can't say that about movies nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I still think that there are great films being made, but 10 Oscar noms is too much for me. 5 is plenty.

People seem to forget movies are more mass produced these days. There are still the same qualitity films released today as there was in the 40s. Can you say there was never a bad film made in the the 30s and 40s? We get a lot more films today because of home video. Honestly the five they picked last year were crap picks imho. I thought Wall*E and The Dark Knight were better then at least 4 of those films. A lot of critics do there top ten and I think this should be interesting on how they (OSCARS) compare with the critics.
I doubt they will move Animation and foregin into this category. They will have and should have their own category.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Watchmen nomination FTW!

Let's hope Jackie Earle Haley gets that Best Actor nomination.

I'm also pretty certain Public Enemies will get a Best Picture, Best Costume Design, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Stage Design. I mean, this movie will certainly deliver the box office and the critics.

[Batman1980]

The only shoo-in for the Oscars right now I think is Up, way too early to tell in the other categories.