And the 10 best picture nominees are…
Nikki Finke just posted a release from a press conference given this morning in Beverly Hills where Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announced that next year’s Oscars would feature 10 nominees for best picture.
This was the practice up through the 1943 ceremony, but why are they returning to it? It sounds like another attempt to broaden the appeal of the telecast. If your favorite movie gets nominated, you’re more likely to tune in.
Is there a downside to this? Well, it makes the nominations about as meaningful as the first round of the NBA playoffs where more than half of the teams get in.
I don’t know. I’m realizing as I write this it’s pretty much a non-issue as far as my movie-going year is concerned, but I’ve already gone to the trouble of typing it up so I’m posting it.
Filed under: Awards, News
Tags: Academy Awards, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, AMPAS, Oscars, Sid Ganis
This was the practice up through the 1943 ceremony, but why are they returning to it?
So that movies like TDK can make the cut and please the fanboys. Which is pretty much what you said, only you put it in a nicer way. :) In fact, there are already people moaning over the fact that if they’d done this last year TDK would have made the cut.
On the one hand, I agree about the downside – it can make the nominations less meaningful, particularly in a lean year. But on the other hand, in the stronger years (like 2007) excellent films that just couldn’t make the cut because of the limited space can be acknowledged. For example, if they had 10 nominees in 2007 we might have seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Sweeney Todd in that best picture lineup.
Rather than fixing the broken parts of the process, let’s just make them more like the People’s Choice awards. Kudos, AMPAS, kudos.
I think this is a really bad idea, to be honest.
“And now, the 17 nominees for Best Cameo in a Motion Picture, Rom-Com or Dramedy…”
I think this is an excellent idea and I applaud the Academy on this wise decision, one that should not have been scrapped in 1943.
A number of worthy films did not make that elitist five, and this includes the recent DREAMGIRLS, which was edged out two years ago. As to the argument that the short list of ten will “water down” the choices as Craig has suggested I feel differently. Many of us see around 150 films a year, and invariably there are at least a minimum of around 25 films that rank either at 4, 4 1/2 or 5 stars. Ten films will FINALLY allow animated films (like UP in) and it will curb the cut-throat jockeying that informs a tiny short list of 5.
Few serious moviegoers take the Oscars seriously anyway, so this open house will finally allow indes and foreign language films more than a fair chance of making the expanded cut.
For me it’s a no-brainer, and a glorious return to th elate 30’s and early 40’s where it worked quite well before some masterminds decided to make the competition more acute.
It does mean that there’s a (slightly) greater chance of a dark horse winner (in a year where that’s applicable) because there are more chances for votes to be split over multiple movies, but even that outcome is still very low. The front runners and the outliers aren’t going to change unless the nomination process significantly changes.
A better rule would have been a ten-year moratorium on any nominations for any Holocaust movies or biopics.
Chuck, that comment made me LOL.
This brief post explains further, using 2008 as an example when WALL-E and THE DARK KNIGHT couldn’t break into the top five.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten
So when Up gets nominated for Best Picture but not Best Animated Feature and doesn’t win either, that will make it more better?
Ten films will FINALLY allow animated films (like UP in) and it will curb the cut-throat jockeying that informs a tiny short list of 5.
Will it really? I’m not so sure. The obstacles animated, independent, and foreign language films face for Best Picture consideration have little to do with the five film limit, I think.
Right now, the way I see it, unless the Academy finds a way to put a cap on the amount of money studios are allowed to spend on campaign ads, and/or figures out a better way to deal with animated and foreign language films, the same exact types of films will be nominated for Best Picture. Except now there will be 10 instead of 5.
“Few serious moviegoers take the Oscars seriously anyway, so this open house will finally allow indes and foreign language films more than a fair chance of making the expanded cut.” This is a pretty excellent point, Sam.
It does add interest, but I still can’t get away from the idea it waters down the honor. In the end, no one will really care and I’m sure this will have the desired effect.
This is a roundabout way of saying I’m neither really for it or against it.
I have no doubt at all that a field of ten will accomodate films like UP, which has a wide constituancy to begin with. Had ten films been allowed in you can be certain that THE DARK KNIGHT and WALL-E would have been in that ten.
What would have been last year’s ten?
Let’s see:
Slumdog Millionaire
The Reader
Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Wrestler
Doubt
The Dark Knight
WALL-E
The Class or Waltz With Bashir
Yes, I know neither foreign film won, but the noms would allow a popular choice, rather than the relatively obscure film that won.
When there are FIVE choices I feel the campaigning gets intense. There is more room with a larger field, and it also easier to make assumptions that with five are not so obvious.
I can see both points K, but I see more good here. I do understand there will be campaigning no matter how many nominees there are, but I think we’ll see a slight relaxing on that. But I could be completely wrong on everything, these are just my vibes at this point.
I’m thinking of 1989, when there were four films that deserved noms, but got shut out:
Henry V
Cinema Paradiso
Glory
Do the Right Thing
and one of these:
Drugstore Cowboy
Born on the Fourth of July
Sex, Lies and Videotape
10 choices that year would have been perfect.
Again Sam, in your scenario all of these films get the glory of the Best Picture nom but that means they likely would not be nominated in their respective Foreign, Documentary, or Animated categories. It’s highly unlikely any of these other movies would have won Best Picture, so really none of them get any awards.
How is that better?
I think it’ll make the prediction game more interesting, but beyond that it feels meaningless to me.
I definitely see the good, but I tend to side with the bad when it comes to the Oscars. (At least that way I can be pleasantly surprised when I am wrong!) Maybe it will open a door for overlooked films, but I would have to see it to believe it. Here’s hoping!
I still think they should have focused on making the animated foreign language categories better before doing something like this, but whatever.
It does add interest, but I still can’t get away from the idea it waters down the honor.
That was my initial gut reaction as well. Something about it just feels like a stunt to get better ratings for the show.
On the other hand, as I said in my comment above, it could be a good thing in exceptionally strong years like 2007, and maybe we’d get more of a mix in the lineup – more comedies as well as dramas, and maybe better chances for excellent comedies, which are often overlooked or downgraded, to be recognized. Sam and others here made the suggestion that perhaps this would open the category up for more indies and foreign films. I agree, but with reservations, about indies possibly breaking ground, but I’m afraid foreign films and animated films will most likely still be segregated into their respective category ghettos unless there is a huge name attached to the film or all kinds of promo and campaigning going on.
“Again Sam, in your scenario all of these films get the glory of the Best Picture nom but that means they likely would not be nominated in their respective Foreign, Documentary, or Animated categories. It’s highly unlikely.”
Joel, if a foreign-language film were to get nominated in the Best Picture category, why would you be inclined to think it would not get in the respective categories, unless rules prohibit a cross over? By my way of thinking (and Craig is right that anyone who gets worked up over this………..ah well, I’m incurable with these contests. ha!) it is the definitive honor to get into the top ten. Every film that gets nominated in the Best Picture category is fully eligible to be nominated in all the other categories, so their chanaces at winning that ultimate prize is as strong as part of a field of ten as it is in a field of 5?
Am I making any sense here? LOL!
K, I can see this back-firing, don’t get me wrong.
I’m just excited at the various possibilities, but we’ll have to see what happens.
One mistake on my 2008 list: I think “Revolutionary Road” would have gotten in with a field of 10., probably ahead of “The Class.”
It’s a bloody ridiculous move…and I’m positive it won’t be permanent after the inevitable uproar. Hopefully they’ll realize SOON that it’s an experiment gone very bad.
The film community (even internationally) simply doesn’t have the same quality output as it did during the golden age of Hollywood. More lousy pictures are being cranked out as we type.
This might have worked successfully in 2007. But that year was an anomaly. That’s the entire point of making it FIVE FILMS. It’s difficult to be nominated when the numbers are that small.
It’s a matter of excellence and prestige. Well, theoretically, anyway…
This essentially renders a BP nod almost meaningless.
The ACADEMY has done a lot of boneheaded things over the years. But this is a complete joke.
If they’re doing this to pacify the fanboys/girls and increase viewership, they’re going in the wrong direction.
And here’s what our fearless Oscar Leader herself, Ms. Sasha Stone says on this:
(and she is as pleased as pink!!!)
Say Holy Crap, but Ryan’s email to me actually Holy Fuck! This news comes to me while vacationing in Yosemite. Ten years of watching the Oscar race I’ve never seen such a dramatic change and I’m wondering what was the motivating factor.
Either not enough interest by the general public?
Too much focus on a handful of “Oscar movies” that no one sees — hence, it’s become like a predictable (for the most part) vacuum?
They are tired of defending themselves against the haters who accuse them of having bad taste?
They just like to shake things up every now and then?
It’s a matter of having to improvise, adapt and overcome or else face extinction?
Nothing could have breathed more life into a mostly flaccid race than this most unexpected and delightful development. I’m looking forward to seeing how many more films and studios have a shot in this kind of race, with such wide open possibilities.
I’m going to venture a guess that, with so many opportunities in the Best Picture race, the focus will be slightly more heated on the lead acting categories. But that’s just a random thought on how it might impact our experience.
Also, I’m thinking that the Foreign Language race could benefit from a similar change. Either way, from high atop the Sierras, I’m thrilled. Way to go, AMPAS.
Sasha and I are in complete agreement!!!! Way to go Oscar girl!!!!
If they’re doing this to pacify the fanboys/girls and increase viewership, they’re going in the wrong direction.
No argument there. And I think k makes a good point that AMPAS still needs to improve the whole process for nominating foreign films and documentaries, which would hopefully have the domino effect of getting more of those movies distributed here and seen.
I don’t think the rules preclude a nomination in two Best (insert qualifier here) Picture categories, but the Academy isn’t likely to nominate a film as Best (insert qualifier here) Picture twice (I don’t recall this ever happening) and even if it did, said nominee would only end up splitting its own votes as most voters won’t vote for it in both categories.
We can look forward to Ice Age 3D and Aliens vs Monsters duking it out for Best Animated Feature this year. Maybe Ponyo will upset.
“In fact, there are already people moaning over the fact that if they’d done this last year TDK would have made the cut.”
I don’t see how anyone would argue that it would NOT have made the cut under this system. The film also had a great portion of critical acclaim, after all, so that film wasn’t a case of mad fanboys. It was a case of a film that critical acclaim also wanted it to be considered, like in recent years with CHILDREN OF MEN, EASTERN PROMISES, ZODIAC, THE WRESTLER and every other film that has enough quality to be included but isn’t due to the Academy’s no-more-than-five system. Serious and educated moviegoers also benefit from this, like you said, and TDK was one of those films as well.
On that regard, this is good.
On the other hand, I agree about making it a little cheap. Every year there are one or two more films (like the ones I mentioned above) that should have been nominated and didn’t, but you’d hardly find a year in which FIVE more films should have. Opening it to five will be good for those in the 6th and 7th spot, but the quality is already going down a little by the 9th and 10th.
In most cases, it would be better for, say, seven films – or a system in which the films that get a certain amout of points or ratings from voters get nominated, instead of limiting the list. But we like round numbers, I guess.
But still, I’d say this is a good move and a necesary one for the Academy, if we just agree that this is more of a show than anything serious. They need ratings. They need people who are interested. This is an extreme action in extreme consequences.
Yeah, Alison.
Totally agree with k on every point she made. As usual…
Ahhhh Oscar news….how I missed thee to pump up page views!
Here’s my final opinion now that I’ve had time to think about it: It makes the horse race more fun, but it diminishes the actual honor. Since the honor part doesn’t hold a lot of water with me even with 5 nominees, this is sort of a lossless scenario from my perspective.
I have to say though it also increases the chance that some oddball undeserving movie will sneak off with a victory as the vote will be spread out among more nominees.
And I agree with every point that Sasha made!
If this meant a film like Goodbye Solo or Adventureland or The Hurt Locker (I’m just naming the third film, as I haven’t seen it yet) could actually be a conceivable nominee, then this might be a decision worth rhapsodizing over. If it just means more patented Oscar bait can be nominated, like, say, Revolutionary Road or Dreamgirls–which it almost surely does–I think it is not only meaningless but perhaps harmful.
I’m all for the smallest of the small (Goodbye Solo) and the biggest of the big (The Dark Knight) being legitimately in contention, but I fear this would only make nomination-round upsets like Dreamgirls or Walk the Line or Cold Mountain things of the past. In other words, more baity mediocrity would “get in,” and many worthwhile films would still be left out in the cold.
My first thought when I read this was that it’s all about The Dark Knight. The Academy realized almost immediately what kind of mistake it had made, particularly with regards to the ratings for the telecast, when it failed to include it among the five Best Picture nominees, and this is their roundabout way of admitting it and seeing that it does not happen again.
I think there should be a voting system by which the number of nominees is decided by the total number of votes a particular film receives. So, in a remarkably strong year (2002, 2007) you could have ten nominees, but in a lean year like, say, 2006, you may have only three or four. It will never happen, and I don’t know why I care enough to write this excessively long post about Academy puerility.
Craig, I think you hit the nail on the head…
What if they changed the nomination process for BP to be more like Best Song? Where they can nominate up to 10, but after the initial 5 are picked, if a film doesn’t get an average ranking of 8.5 (out of 10) it isn’t nominated. So they would have 5 nominees for sure even if no others make the cut, but could also have anywhere from 6-10 in the end. I mean, I don’t know how they would do this and be discreet about it, but…
Am I making any sense? I know I’m not explaining this very well, haha… Although it looks like Alexander just summed it up much, much better than I did.
I generally agree with you, Villalba, but CHILDREN OF MEN, EASTERN PROMISES, and ZODIAC had little chance of gaining Best Picture nominations in their respective years because they were either under-served by their respective studios or subjected to poorly planned theatrical runs that undermined their chances. In the case of Zodiac, it was both.
The problem isn’t the lack of nomination slots for these films. The problem is the existing nomination process. Adding more nominees doesn’t change any of that.
And as always Alexander, you present a most thorough and an intelligently reasoned argument, never tainted by emotional outbursts and one-sided reasoning. That’s one of your many admirable traits, my good friend!
Wow, that was really well said, Alexander. My favorite part is the last sentence, particularly the last two words: Academy puerility.
Alexander and k, I agree with both of you 100%. Not sure a different scoring process would work any better, Alexander, but that makes more sense than the current process which rewards heavily-marketed awards fodder like The Reader (sorry Sam).
k, they know they’ve made a big mess of this. Or they will.
I’m sure they’ll straighten it out somewhere down the line.
Thank you quite sincerely for the truly kind words, Sam, Alison, k and Joel. :)
Off to see Moon.
I am thrilled that Ms. Sasha Stone, who I respect over anyone when it comes to Oscar decision-making, is 100% behind this change, and I urge all supporters of Sasha, who are for this decision to head over to Awards Daily and let your voice be heard!!!
Heh heh, this is great news for Variety, the LA Times, and the NY Times. Their respective ad buys just doubled for next February.
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
indeed Joel, indeed!
“My first thought when I read this was that it’s all about The Dark Knight. The Academy realized almost immediately what kind of mistake it had made, particularly with regards to the ratings for the telecast, when it failed to include it among the five Best Picture nominees, and this is their roundabout way of admitting it and seeing that it does not happen again.”
Absolutely. And let’s be honest: if we’re in agreement that the Academy, as it is now, is a show and for entertainment purposes only, and in the business of pleasing people. That the films they nominate are “Oscar-bait” melodramas, and ignore more worthy films. Is there a point in debating from the point of view that is not business for them? This is business, and it always has.
As a show that is trying to please everyone, this is ultimately good.
“I think there should be a voting system by which the number of nominees is decided by the total number of votes a particular film receives. So, in a remarkably strong year (2002, 2007) you could have ten nominees, but in a lean year like, say, 2006, you may have only three or four. It will never happen, and I don’t know why I care enough to write this excessively long post about Academy puerility.”
Yeah…
in the glory years, the choice of 10 worked exceedingly well. Look at 1939 for example, but again today is today and yesterday is yesterday:
Best Picture Nominees:
“GONE WITH THE WIND”, “Dark Victory”, “Goodbye, Mr. Chips”, “Love Affair”, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, “Ninotchka”, “Of Mice and Men”, “Stagecoach”, “The Wizard of Oz”, “Wuthering Heights”
If there were five only I would speculate these would have made it:
Gone With the Wind
Wuthering Heights
The Wizard of Oz
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Yes, Villalba, I agree…
Sam, yes, indeed… 1939 is often referred to as Hollywood’s greatest year. The year was so great, Turner Classic Movies is programming the month of July around it, stuffing their schedule with Hollywood classics from that one year! Everyone should look into this…
And now I really am headed out to see Moon!
I actually just watched Ninotchka again on TCM last night. Forever fabulous.
I actually just watched Ninotchka again on TCM last night. Forever fabulous.
I quite agree Alison!
Enjoy MOON, Alexander. I expect a full report!
And for those of you that have TCM, tonight they’re showing Dr. Strangelove again. 10:30 EST. :D
Well folks, I think we can safely say that the best and most economical position on this Oscar controversy was posted at Awards Daily a little while ago by a person named “Kelly.”
Here it is:
Part of me really loves this. Part of me really hates this.
Well, AMPAS got everyone’s attention, didn’t it? Score AMPAS: 1, Oscar haters: 0
The awards I’m most interested in are the Muriels of course. With it’s creator (and Muriel’s human) gone, what will become of them? :(
I will visit this thread for a final time now.
Yesterday I was embroiled in defending my position here with marked aggressiveness. While I did not insult anyone, I believe I was perhaps too firm. While Ryan Adams and Sasha Stone are defending the Academy’s desicion with vigour over at Awards Daily, I have encountered at my own site and elsewhere that there are just as many cons as there are pros. I guess we will have to wait to see how this all pans out.
But the joke is on me, as I must seriously have my head examined for caring so much for something that means so little in the grand scheme of things.
Hi. I just wanted to let all of you know that I disagree with my husband on his position here. My daughter will now have to make twice as many posters to hang on our walls for our annual Oscar party! Seriously though, this is a bad idea. It’s all commercial.
Welcome to LiC, Lucille! I imagine marketing people all over LA are in the same position as your daughter “oh great, now we have to pay for Oscar campaigns for twice as many films!” In an economic climate like this, that’s gonna hurt.
For us the viewer, I still think it’ll make the lead-up to Oscar more fun if a bit less meaningful. Harder to predict 1 in 10 than 1 in 5.
Stick to your guns, Sam. Don’t back down now!
LOL!!! Hi Lucille! Nice to meet you. :D
And Craig, what about the Muriels? I hope they’re not going for the same ‘commercial’ approach. ;)
On the plus side, Alison — more Muriel nominations probably means more Muriel posters.
I haven’t heard if there will be any Muriel tinkering Alison. Don’t mess with perfection, right?
Then again, with a new guy in charge, who knows what will happen?
Anyone who’s happy with having only 3 great movies nominated for Best Picture every year, alongside a couple of inevitable sacks of rubbish should be upset about this disruption to the status quo.
But if expanding the field to 10 nominees results in half of them truly qualifying as the “Best” of the year, then I’m all for it.
I’d have been a lot less pissed at Juno and Michael Clayton if The Assassination of Jesse James…, Le scaphandre et le papillon, Ratatoillle, Into the Wild, and The Bourne Ultimatum had been in the line-up to “dilute the honor.”
yeah ok, I know all 5 of those would never have made the cut, but I’d have been glad to see any 3 of them nommed — even if the other two additions had to be Fred Claus and Norbit. Because I instantly ignore the annual trumpery of vaunted mediocrity, and try to focus on the genuine excellence.
Does anybody look back with nostalgia at the BP nomination for The Towering Inferno? No, we remember it as the year of The Godfather II, Chinatown, and The Conversation.
We might be able to speak with apt respect about Best Picture nominees Young Frankenstein, Lacombe Lucien and Amacord, too, if there had been 10 available slots in 1974. How cool would that be?
But why am arguing about this here, where everybody recoils from Oscarnage, when I could be aggravating our readers at AD instead?
Oscarnage has led to the most entertaining and active thread at LiC since….well…since the Oscars.
So twice the nominees would’ve diluted the sting of Juno and Michael Clayton in the same way it would dilute the honor for No Country and There Will Be Blood. I don’t feel a lot better about that. I ignored Juno and Clayton as the bastard step-children they were anyway.
If anything, a ten nominee list only threatens to increase the chances that the vote will be spread and populist twaddle like Juno or Clayton could actually win the thing. That would be a disaster no matter how many good movies get nominated.
It’s all theoretical, but everyone has a stinky opinion and that’s mine. I’ll withhold further judgment until the nominees are announced, but if Star Trek and Hangover actually get nominations…
“So twice the nominees… would dilute the honor for No Country and There Will Be Blood.”
Only if somebody thinks The Assassination of Jesse James… I’m Not There, 3:10 to Yuma, The Bourne Ultimatum and a dozen other brilliant films are scumdog ne’er-do-wells, unworthy of being mentioned at the same podium.
Under the current system, those neglected movies are barely footnotes in Oscar history.
Either mock the Oscars for being trash, or be happy that they want to improve. Or, hey, I guess try have it both ways.
“I’ll withhold further judgment until the nominees are announced, but if Star Trek and Hangover actually get nominations…”
Yeah, that would be painful but maybe more good movies can have the honor of “Nominated for Best Picture” adorning their DVD sleeve. Cause they still only award this to one movie, kids, so I’m still not seeing much point beyond marketing…and f*cking up everyone’s Oscar pools just that much more.
“Oscarnage or How the AMPAS Got Around the Griefers and Love the next Dark Knight.”
All this really means is that Clint Eastwood will have to start making three films a year rather than two.
Just think, we could have had Changeling and Gran Torino both nominated!
LOL, very true Alexander.
Yeah, Bourne and 3:10 would’ve been a dilution though that’s just my opinion.
I don’t actually believe Jesse James would’ve gotten a nomination. The critics didn’t even get behind that movie.
Can I mock the Oscars for being trash and then mock them for wanting to be trashier?
I’m pretty busy coordinating my own mocking, so I don’t have time to exec produce yours, indie boy.
;-)
Jason Bourne vs. Juno
The Bourne Ultimatum vs The Unborn Ultimatum
yes, the structure of my dichotomy was flawed since fucking Gilroy has his scripty finger up so many prestigious asses.
This may be the part where we kiss and make up, but Gilroy isn’t getting anywhere near me with his finger. I’m just saying.
Also, with Tranformers 2 making $60 million on 24 hours, perhaps we can join forces and mock the same thing.
There are apparently new rules in effect for the Original Song category. The plot
sickensthickens.The only Original Song rule I need is one that says that songs that only play over the closing credits of a film are disqualified.
Craig, I thought they made that rule in 2007?
Or am I remembering that rule incorrectly?
No, they probably did, but I’m an idiot.
In 2007 they seemed to get really weird about the music categories… Greenwood and Vedder disqualified early, Hansard and Irglová nearly disqualified after they were nominated… I swear, I remember reading that they were implementing a new rule where end credit songs were not allowed to compete, but I don’t think it stuck. Though it wasn’t nominated, “The Wrestler” made the shortlist last year, so I don’t know.
I would like to see that become a rule, though.