Weinsteins Want Miramax Name Back 
'Saw 3D' vs 'Paranormal Activity 2' Battle … 
TV TUG OF WAR: It's Ellen vs Simon, And … 
Robert De Niro Returns To CAA From WME; Jane … 
Fox Wins Studio War For Robert Rodriguez' … 
Weinstein Co Gets "New Lease On Life"? 
Nicole Kidman Hires Angelina's Manager 
So What Are The Hot Films At Sundance? 
Huge $70M Settlement In TV Writers Age … 
TOLDJA! Momoa Chosen 'Conan' Barbarian 
Oscar Campaign Badmouthing Has Begun! 
This hugely surprising and dramatic change for the 82nd Academy Awards is the direct result of intense lobbying by the major studios of the "Acadummy" Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. 
And outgoing president Sid Ganis, himself a former Sony/Columbia top executive, was especially vulnerable to the studio pressure because of his personality penchant for kowtowing to power and influence. I've learned he personally helped the studios impose their agenda on what is supposed to be the independent AMPAS board (but really isn't). Let's face it: this is great development for the studios who can now make their more successful releases even bigger cash cows with an Oscar nomination. But this is a terrible idea. It is nothing short of nonsensical for such an extreme departure from the Academy Awards' recent past to be taking place. So what if, from 1932 to 1943, the Academy members nominated 10 films for Best Picture? (Embarrassing how AMPAS trotted out all those posters from 1939 to make their point without acknowledging that the major studios started a new picture once or twice a week in their heyday. Bette Davis alone starred in 4 to 6 pictures a year: that’s why Academy members could nominate 10 great movies for Best Picture.) That was then and this is now. And today it devalues the rarity of an Oscar nomination and belittles the judging process. (The Academy Awards now resembles the Golden Globes...) It's no secret that the studios have grown increasingly frustrated that their mainstream fare -- the four-quadrant films, the family-oriented toons, the superhero actioners, and the high-octane thrillers -- have not been able to garner enough Best Picture nods in recent years while the art house offerings of the rapidly dwindling specialty divisions and indie prods dominate the process. That, in turn, has hurt the Oscar broadcast ratings as little seen and often little known films compete with one another while blockbuster hits are left out of the Academy Awards show. AMPAS buckled for reasons of self-preservation. Understandable, to be sure. But today's announcement cheapens the entire nominating process. Why not 10 Best Actor or Best Actress or Best Director or Best Foreign Film nominations as well? The studios got what they wanted at the expense of the Academy's integrity.
Beverly Hills, CA (June 24, 2009) — The 82nd Academy Awards, which will be presented on March 7, 2010, will have 10 feature films vying in the Best Picture category, Academy Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announced today (June 24) at a press conference in Beverly Hills.
“After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.”
For more than a decade during the Academy’s earlier years, the Best Picture category welcomed more than five films; for nine years there were 10 nominees. The 16th Academy Awards (1943) was the last year to include a field of that size; “Casablanca” was named Best Picture. (In 1931/32, there were eight nominees and in 1934 and 1935 there were 12 nominees.)
Currently, the Academy is presenting a bicoastal screening series showcasing the 10 Best Picture nominees of 1939, arguably one of Hollywood’s greatest film years. Best Picture nominees of that year include such diverse classics as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” “Stagecoach,” “The Wizard of Oz” and Best Picture winner “Gone with the Wind.”
“Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”
The 82nd Academy Awards nominations will be announced on Tuesday, February 2. The Oscar® ceremony honoring films for 2009 will again take place at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center® in Hollywood, and will be televised live by the ABC Television Network.
Loading ...
The nominees should be:
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
Wall-E (for last year’s snub)
Sound like a way to appease the masses to me, however maybe not such a bad idea. I have always felt that mass market pictures lucked out in this category to the smaller art house pictures.
But I think the studios are kidding themselves if they think it is going to work. More choices does not always equal better outcomes!
I guess you can thank all those fools who were complaining that The Dark Knight didn’t get nominated last year. Regardless- it will still only be a two movie race ( it always is )…
Or mabe this was done for Harvey- Since he’s broke now- he can make one movie a year and concentrate on that flick to steal the Oscar next year ( hey..it worked for him in the past )
Sound like a way to appease the masses to me, however maybe not such a bad idea. I have always felt that mass market pictures lucked out in this category to the smaller art house pictures.
But, I think the studios are kidding themselves if they think it is going to work. More choices does not always equal better outcomes!
Amen Nikki, Amen. Twilight 2 for best picture?!?
Others may have said this already but hard to believe ten films could ever be deemed Best Picture quality when five seem a stretch sometimes. The whole thing smells.
At least it wasn’t ten songs we’d have to sit through and while I’m at it, if broadcast time is always an issue with the Oscar show, why do they allow the presenters to take that lengthy “perp walk” to the microphone. I’ve never understood that. There really aren’t enough genuine movie stars to ogle these days anyway.
Next they’ll be thumping for ten Best Actor nominees, ten Best Actress nominees, ten Best Screenplay nominees…
Why is this bad? Doesn’t this just mean more DVD screeners?
Now movies like MEET DAVE can finally be recognized by the Academy.
This is like the bar owner who watered down his drinks so much even the alcoholics won’t go there anymore.
The Academy is now the bar that movie fans will avoid.
Remember when it used to a honor just to be nominated?
Now there is plenty of room for every studio to get one of their major releases a nomination if they spend enough money. Like an automatic berth in the NCAA 64 tourney.
This is good news for VARIETY and THR’s ad revenue though.
Any pretense of Acadummy “integrity” went out the window with Crash winning Best Picture…
..or Denzel over D.D. Lewis for Bill in Gangs. Is Don King a member of the Acad?
While they’re making changes can they just make it Best Acting in a Film? And Best Acting in a Supporting Role in a Film? Get rid of the separation of male and female performances. They don’t have best male director and best female director, nor best male editor/writer/costume designer and then best female editor/writer/costume desginer and so on. So many actresses refer to themselves as “an actor” these days, anyway, why is the academy still discriminating by gender? It’s sexist.
As a member of the Academy I have to ask WTF? There was a line in “The Incredibles” a few years back that basically said (I’m paraphrasing here): If everyone is special then nobody’s special. This decision kind of reminds me of that line.
There are some years when even the Best Picture winner is undeserving of a nomination and there are certainly many years when some of the nominated films are undeserving of a Best Picture Nomination. By doubling the number of nominees for this category we’re basically giving credibility and legitimacy to a bunch of films that don’t deserve it and are thereby marginalizing the award and our organization in the process. For what? So that the studios can put “Academy Award Best Picture Nominated” or some other such tripe on movie ads and DVD packaging? I wish the Board of Governors had put this up to a general membership vote. Sad.
That is one stupid, lame ass ego driven idea! So now the award show will DRAG on even longer. I could understand if this was the 30’s 40’s or 50’s at least they made great films to chose from. What’s next? 10 nominees for the actors (oh god I sense that will be in their next contract negotiation). Have two winners? Good timing since the studios are scaling back on production which means less film competition too! (eveyrone a winner) Plus Gold is going up! (the Oscar trophy will be worth more too) god help the help the film industry.
There’s usually not even five movies worth nominating in a year. And when there are, the Academy goes out of the way to avoid anything most people have heard of and nominate mediocre films that are either ultra-depressing or about Nazi Germany.
So stupid movies that make a lot of money will get a nom (but don’t win), and their producers and studio execs and directory get to call themselves nominees? And cream all over themselves? Priceless.
It actually IS a GREAT idea, economically speaking.
This move will bring more cash to the studios in these financially strapped times, which will hopefully allow more (aka BETTER) motion pictures to come from Hollywood, and, help with California’s struggling economy.
Here’s how. Every year, when the nominees are announced for Best Picture, Movie buffs will rush to the theatres to see the nominated films BEFORE the awards actually air. (Creating more revenue) Also, when these films are released on DVD, MORE DVD’s will be sold to movie buffs. (Again, creating MORE revenue for Hollywood.)
Then, hopefully, this will allow Hollywood to produce more product, which in turn will create more work in the industry, which spurs more spending, creates more jobs outside the industry for California and this ripple effect goes on and on.
We should EMBRACE this decision, and remember that in fact, REGARDLESS how many nominees there are, that there in fact can only be ONE WINNER.
And besides all this increased revenue, job creation and kick-starting of the economy, It will increase the length of the Academy Awards show itself. (Which, by the way, we all can agree is too SHORT in it’s current content.)
I know what this will mean.
Even more tedious “gimme an Oscar” vanity projects.
Excellent idea! Long overdue.
The Academy Awards used to mean something. After 1998 it became clear that the Best Picture category was decided by studio marketing and publicity departments. Now Harvey Weinstein will have more movies to pimp as “Best Picture Nominees”. ANother meaningless, yet overly sold, designation.
It supports the industry Nikki. It doubles marketing revenue to legal to restaurants… More money for all of us.
Obviouly, the intention is to get some “popular” films (aka “blockbusters”) onto the final ballot- but I think it’ll backfire, and you’ll just end up with even MORE obscure “critical darlings” nominated, and Oscar will seem more elitist than ever.(There was a time when the most commercially successful film of the year was almost always a film with geniune merit- a GODFATHER or STAR WARS or some such- but this year’s biggest hit looks to be TRANSFORMERS 2… good luck with that…)
Double the playing field? Really? After last year’s show??? Who was the host again? Did they even have a host? You can’t please all of the people all of the time and every year someone’s inevitably disappointed by the five pics that get the nod. But ten??? At a time when the show already seems weighted down by its own self-importance?? Maybe it’d be a better idea to reconnect with the (dwindling) audience and rediscover the fun of the awards. Ten best picture nominees…I guess we all better brace an even more bloated 4 1/2 hr show…..
Please please please reverse this, this is depressingly misguided and defaces what little integrity we continue to hold dear in the Academy Awards.
Studio heads, the profits incurred from this will be at best minor, and the outrage long-term. Unless all categories are expanded to 10 nominations, the irregularity will be staggering year after year.
Academy, I beg you, please retract this. Just say you drunk-texted Nikki and awkward it out for a day or two.
Now Hollywood just needs to produce ten movies that warrant a Best Picture nom.
Can you say five-hour Oscarcast next year?
I wonder how many other non-mainstream categories will be jettisoned off the air to accommodate all these extra clip packages? We may never see a documentary or short subject mentioned again…
One would think that this will force the producers to finally get rid of silly song/dance routines and pointless themed montages, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Get ready for “Savion Glover’s Tapping Tribute to Trek” somewhere in hour 5.
oh silly Academy, did you forget that this industry is all about exclusion not inclusion? make everyone special and no one is special… take that away and the majority of these people have no identity.
not to mention this will qualify a whole lot of random people to Academy membership… yeah, i bet you did not think of that, did ya?
This means that more likely than not Transformers 2 will be nominated.
“Best” doesn’t actually mean good …
What has more credibility, a best picture nomination or an Iranian election?
Shame on Sid Ganis.It cheapens the Academy nominations and the Academy itself.
…And the steady march towards devaluing and cheapening every inch of our culture continues in the name of squeezing out every bottom line penny, and enslavement to the dysfunctional stock market. This is a corporate dictate.
Re: the masses. Every other awards show caters to “the masses.” Must everything be “MTV’d” ? Look what’s happening to them. Ha.
May the Oscar broadcast nosedive to teach a lesson. It’s more than likely.
“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” – Luke Skywalker
Yes, this is a very, very, very bad idea, Luke.
If we had another year like 1939, then 10 nominees would make sense. This year it means The Hangover has a shot.
Gotta love the comments planted by the studios cheering this on.
I would have preferred splitting the category off into best drama and best ????? film you pick the name either comedy,adventure feature. They did add the best animated category so how about giving the regular folks movies a shot. You may deride and chortle at the box office money makers but those are the films that keep the studios open so you can make you’re depressing movies that film snobs love.
They should eliminate the Best Animated Feature category now. It’s not needed anymore.
“Every year, when the nominees are announced for Best Picture, Movie buffs will rush to the theatres to see the nominated films BEFORE the awards actually air.”
Except that when you look at the actual BO numbers, it’s obvious that this is happening to a VERY small degree. If at all.
Nominations and awards give a boost to ticket sales, but it seems like the movies that need it the most get the smallest boost.
What a stupid STUPID idea! I agree with Nicki – it cheaps the nomination, makes the whole thing less meaningful, and will make the broadcast even more tedious to watch. I’m sure it will also cause ratings to go down. I’m guessing by next year they’ll be back to five nominees for Best Picture.
Probably similar to what previous Nobel Prize Awardees felt when Gore was handed the award for a complete farce.
So, with ten nominees, a film can be awarded as Best Picture of the year with 10.1% of the vote? So a few fanatics can control the outcome like that? Wow that would be horrific!
The Academy needs to re-work it’s balloting system then to reflect 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices to make sure that a film really is considered worthy by more than just 1/10 of the members.
This is shocking news alright, but I really don’t believe it
“cheapens” the one statuette that one film(or producer) will take
home. The wonner, as always, is the wniner and no one remembers the
also-rans by next year, be they absurd or stately.
AMPAS has made a clever decision: certain films that are perceived as
less “tony” will finally get their due (as they should) but it also
follows that many more of the so-called arthouse/indie titles will
also get a decent chance. There have been many years where a
wonderful smaller film with impeccable reviews has been left out
because there are only five slots.
On the other hand it’s doubtful this will result in a Jonas Brothers
movie among the best picture contenders. In other words: not the end
of the world and perhaps a more exciting competition.
What I’d really like to know is-what was behind the change to only 5
nominees down from 10 back in 1944 in the first place? I wonder what
the pressure was there, if any? It couldn’t have been a mandate to
shorten the (untelevised) ceremony, nor was there a dearth of good
films to draw from.
The quantity and genre variety of films produced nowadays is far greater than when the Oscars began. It seems fair to expand the category to include the larger, more diverse contestant pool.
How are they going to come up with 10 films for best picture? This is a joke.
James Maszczak you are a MORON. Go suck some studio teats please.
Only plus from this is more screeners for the video wall.
Oh great, and who’s gonna count the votes, Diebold?
What would make more sense is if the rules could be applied to allow UP TO ten nominees, establishing a threshhold of X percent of first ballot votes to qualify. If they can do it for funding for political candidates in a crowded field, they can do it for movies. It would also be nice if the Academy would announce the vote tally the world would know who came close (I know, I know: close only counts in hand grenades, horeseshoes, and net profits).
Well I’m ‘the masses’ and it doesn’t appease me one little bit. They might as well just stick a gold star on all the movies and praise them for trying hard, it would have just about as much meaning.
They should eliminate the Best Animated Feature category now. It’s not necessary anymore.
At least they haven’t decided that the top two vote-getting pictures will both be awarded the Oscar for “Best Picture.”
Okay, seriously? “…The race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.” What are the odds of there being FIVE great movies from 2009, let alone TEN? Have there even been ten great movies since 2000? Yeah, 1939 was a banner year that we can all wax nostalgic for — I know I do — but it was a fucking long ago! If this would somehow inspire studios to greenlight more movies that actually have compelling stories instead of banal franchises, lowest common denominator comedies and CGI crap-fests, then awesome, I’m totally behind it. But somehow I don’t think all those execs and big box agency douchewads who are in dick measuring contests with each other about opening weekends are sitting around going, “Gee, if we actually greenlit something worthwhile, we might get NOMINATED for an OSCAR!” If only!!!
Why not look back to the very first Academy Awards ceremony where pictures were presented in two categories. “Best Productions” were given to studio tentpoles and the blockbuster “Wings” won, for Paramount incidentally. A second category for “Artistic Quality” awarded Murnau’s “Sunrise” (Fox) the Oscar. That 2-category scenario could accommodate a universe where “Dark Knight” co-exists with “Milk,” “Doubt” or even “Benjamin Button.” Of course then you have to argue over whether a film is Artistic or Commercial.
AWESOME!! this means they get to nominate TEN movies that NO ONE WATCHES instead of five!
like every dumbfuck idea–this thing will backfire..I can see the studio/academy confab now: “let’s see, what else can we fuck up…I KNOW…let’s tarnish the luster of the oscars by nominating ten movies for best picture every year”
and they all jerk each other off…
what little cultural cache the Oscars used to have was just obliterated
I’ve sensed this all along…Hollywood, going the way of Broadway
the self absorbed out of touch motherfuckers that run this town haven’t got a damn clue
soon every movie will either be unwatchable shit like terminator salvation
OR
unwatchable shit like the reader
that fat fuck harvey weinstein did in fact ruin the oscars..and in the immortal words of christian bale
GOOD FOR YOU!!!!
And so by “Best Picture” category, it roughly translates to “Top 10 Grossing Films of the Year – Which Isn’t Saying Much Considering the Many Box Office Bombs”.
What started out as an award show for creative filming has now ended up a dancing monkey show for the thickest wallets in Hollywood. I have to agree with most others here that there are barely even 6 worthy films of being nominated each year let alone 10. This will most assuredly drive viewers away from watching them, especially since about 25% of the country didn’t make the digital conversion yet. Kudos to the “Acadummy” (as someone else put it) brain trusts who thunk this one up.
This is a last attempt by the studios to stay afloat and maintain any semblance of credibility when 30% of what they distribute is crap. Coupled with the fact that this year’s economic downturn has all but obliterated hedge funds, the 2010 Awards ought to be a joke. “And now, the winner for Best Picture is ….. I knew …. ‘Year One’”. (Wild Cheers and applause as Jack Black has tears streaming down his face.) Oh, wait a minute, comedies aren’t truly recognized as Best Pictures. If they were, there would be no more credibility in the Academy’s, right? ‘Cause we know they’re all about credibility.
What a farce!!!
Hey, are our comments going to be heavily moderated now that DHD has gone corporate????
Perhaps next AFI should change its list to the top 10,000 movies of all time, so that one or two films from the last 10 years can make the list (by default). 5 nominees, 10, 20 – doesn’t really matter. They’ll all be as quickly forgotten as this past decade’s Sundance and Canne winners and nominees.
As a member of the Academy, I don’t know if this change is a good idea or not. How would I? Members weren’t notified that this was being considered, nor were our opinions solicited. We read about it in the press, just like the folks in Des Moines. Someone should tell the Board of Governors that they serve the members interests, not the other way around.
There will still only be 5 Best Director nominees whose films will also be nominated for Best Picture. The other 5 films will just be throw-aways that no one will take seriously.
And let’s not forget they added Best Animated Feature a few years ago. That category usually has three nominees. (One really good Pixar film and two also-rans.) So now we’ll have up to 13 films nominated for best film.
Gotta love all the comments planted by assholes tearing this down.
This is nothing but a cheap, venal ploy that makes me ashamed to be an Academy Member. I particularly resent the fact that the membership didn’t get to vote on this subject. Now we’ll have twice as many producers complain about not winning!
It’s true that in the old days there were 10 noms for Best Picture, but there were also more than twice as many movies made per year.
Brian: “I would have preferred splitting the category off into best drama and best ????? film you pick the name either comedy,adventure feature.”
How about Best Film and Best Movie? I never tire of bringing up that old semnatics chestnut!
Best Picture is an outdated description anyway.
The Hollywood industry has always been, and will always continue to be, the biggest whore in town.
Nikki spends Oscar night live blogging the Oscars and trashing it in every way possible yet now moans that this move is at the expense of the Academy’s “integrity”.
HA! There isn’t even 10 good movies out to be nominated. All the awards are baught and all this will do is allow the acadamy to take in more bribs or payments even though highest bidder will still win. It’s a fact, ask your marketing dept.
So does this mean STAR TREK and THE HANGOVER will get nods this year? *barfs*
For all those who think this will economically bolster the industry, it should be noted that when the value of the “Nominated for Best Picture” declines due to excess supply, the masses will be less inclined to see these movies. So this can, in fact, backfire on a financial basis.
Brian, above, had a better idea, similar to what happened at the original Oscars (where Sunrise won for “Best Picture – Unique and Artistic Production”). Though, they can always create one for the mainstream… Best Picture Not Worthy of Best Picture.
Way to water down the playing field. What happened to the concept of glory. Now with the economy there will certainly be less films and now an even greater number of them will be Oscar nominees.
Disheartening…
Well, money talks in this town. They can open best picture up to 10, but they can’t give Hair their own separate category? Whatever, “Academy”.
I don’t think so Nikki. First off, isn’t the Academy now skewing toward older, foreign voters who ignore films like “The Dark Knight”?
Who’s to say that the technical wizardry of that film should not be recognized like the technical wizardry of Kate Winslet’s Reader performance was?
Remember, in today’s fractured media age, you have to do everything you can to be heard, and frankly, the Oscars were in danger of becoming a dinosaur themselves.
Do you really think anyone in the 18-34, hence foaming at the mouth advertisers group, is paying attention to these outdated awards? The only way to get the youth of today to pay attention is to nom films like the latest Pixar (which are always worthy), or Dark Knight etc.
This will also open up the field for the grossly overlooked comedy genre, may get good indies like Frozen River in, and may take excellent foreign and animated entries like All About My Mother or Wall-E out of their respective ghettos.
It may also get in films which opened early, but whose “buzz” has faded. Maybe we won’t get hammered by every quality film at the end of the year and they will be spread out accordingly.
Ok, if The Hangover gets in, I’m with you. But let’s not deride it as cheap until we give it a chance.
It’s just The Oscars. Everyone knows it’s the People’s Choice and The MTV Awards that really count.
Joking aside, it’s good for the economy and hundreds of people in Hollywood will profit. Let’s revisit this when the economy gets better.
@Bryan Majessic
You’re oddly emotional and hyper-defensive over an awards show.
The vulgar ad hominem attack really rounds it out.
Just for fun, and with the caveat that I have only seen one of these titles as of now (UP), here’s a possible list of nominees that includes some commercial meat mixed in with the choice cuts:
SHUTTER ISLAND
NINE
THE ROAD
AVATAR
PUBLIC ENEMIES
AMELIA
THE LOVELY BONES
UP
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
“It is nothing short of nonsensical for such an extreme departure from the Academy Awards’ storied past to be taking place.”
In all fairness, there were more than 5 noms and upwards of 10 all through the 30’s up until 1944. So basically, the Oscars began with close to 10 noms in its storied past.
Great-this could be the best pic this year now for UP . yeah
and maybe now commercial hits can at least be nominated which would bring in a bigger crowd .
I would have preferred that they separated the awards — comedy/musical and drama — which would equal 10 nominees. It will make the Oscars I guess more exciting and much harder to predict because now there will be a less percentage needed to actually win. Critics choice, national board of review, etc — they all do ten nominees. But it’s rather sad that if you don’t make the top 10. We always said that the dark knight was the 6th nominee, now we will know. This gives me hope that Star Trek and My sister’s keeper have a chance at being nominated now. Hopefully more comedies (such as Funny People) and more sci-fi get nominated.
I really believe the real problem is that they are rushing the awards — not enough people get to see the films (audience and voters), so I’m glad it’s been moved to March and hope it stays there. You can’t be interested in the show if they insist on nominating movies no one has seen and expect to watch them all in a span of three to four weeks.
The Academy is one of the only bodies that offers up only 5 nominees…countless other critics circles and societies have a list of the TOP TEN films of the year…I think this is a great idea to make the awards more entertaining
It kinda reminds me of Grade School Sports: The “Guys, EVERYONE is a winner.”
It’s just pointless, because now the pool will be even MORE diluted. And usually there is never 10 movies WORTH being nominated. People can say, “well what about 1939 when all 10 nominees are now classics.”
If hollywood could actually make 10 classics in one year that would be AMAZING.
Dear Hollywood, make this a worthwhile endeavor, and make it worth it!
Great – now the Oscar show will be FIVE hours long and even less interesting.
Yikes.
These cry-baby Academy members lambasting this change have only themselves to blame. What have they done to reverse or compensate for the divide between the Academy and mainstream America? If they would stop nominating pretentious drivel like The Reader or stop kowtowing to egomaniacal talent or bully exectuives, then today’s change may never have occurred or been necessary.
Ten Best Picture nominees?!! Ha Ha Ha! Well I just got my chuckles in for the day. Thanks for that laugh. What’s that? You’re serious? This isn’t a joke? Oh…
Most everything in life suddenly seems placed in the context of a “top 10″ list. Not original, not warranted, not exciting. I wonder how many years before the Academy goes back to 5.
I would rather see more than one catagory. best comedy fil, best drama, best action/sci-fi.
“The studios have grown increasingly frustrated that their mainstream fare — the four-quadrant films, the family-oriented toons, the superhero actioners, and the high-octane thrillers — have not been able to garner enough Best Picture nods in recent years while the art house offerings of the rapidly dwindling specialty divisions and indie prods dominate the process. That, in turn, has hurt the Oscar broadcast ratings as little seen and often little known films compete with one another while blockbuster hits are left out of the Academy Awards show.”
You said it yourself, Nikki; there was a horrific imbalance between Sundance-esque stuff and what mainstream America appreciated last year. There needs (and always needs to be) such a balance. But the Academy voters were exposed for the genre snobs they are by snubbing The Dark Knight, and if more blockbusters that are embraced by audiences *and* critics alike make the list, the better.
This is an opportunity to be a bit more open minded during the nominating process. We can maintain our devotion to nominating high minded though little loved art films while possibly opening our eyes to the possibility of recognizing, say, a comedy for the award.
Why is this a bad idea? Who cares about the “Award’s storied past”? The argument that there can ever really be a “best” picture or actor is specious. So why not open up the field to allow a crowd pleaser (like “Gone With The Wind” was) into the fray to “compete” against the bought and paid for nominations of films that walk and talk like award winners but may not actually be “best”. Or even truly good.
What a cynically laughable move. Especially considering that members weren’t notified. Sid picked his marketing cronies over the Academy. SHAMEFUL!
RE: James “The Academy is one of the only bodies that offers up only 5 nominees…countless other critics circles and societies have a list of the TOP TEN films of the year…”… the Academy also has the Best Animated Feature, Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Feature… so it already recognizes more than 5 films (as many TOP TEN lists combine categories).
The cynic in me says this is only being done to allow five more films to use “Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture” in their marketing materials.
Nikki, I know you need to take the “controversial” route of calling it the “worst idea ever”, but the rest of your article provides no support for that claim and is filled with reasons why upping it to ten is a GOOD idea. Better box office for movies, better ratings for the ceremony, mainstream movies have a better shot, etc. I like the idea.
I like this. It will be good for ratings, is good for the studios, and it brings some well-needed freshness to the proceedings.
If American Idol can rejigger its format every year or so, why not the Academy Awards? And let’s not pretend that nominations are some kind of scientific process only given to the truly deserving. If anything, this legitimizes the Awards more, as potentially more worthy films will be considered for the Big Prize.
I have two things to say about this:
1) Bad decision.
2) A big fuck you to the Academy for pulling this shit a year too late.
How will they even list the 10 movies on the screen??
Heck, the Brady Bunch could only list 9 people on the screen!
How are we going to read 10 tiny logos (especially if they are as long as “The curious case of benjamin buttons”)??
If you spend 10 seconds on each one, you’ve already wasted nearly 2 minutes!
Stupidest idea, ever. I could live with, perhaps, max, seven. They could market the heck out of “The MAgnificent Seven” or “The Lucky Seven”… but ten is gluttony at worst level.
10 nominees is a double edge sword. Good for sci-fi and animated movies that were snubbed in the past. Bad for movies that dont deserve recognition. I have a feeling that if ten movies were picked for 2008 that TDK would still have been snubbed! Good to see the studios are returning to their marketing self-congratulatory roots.
Looks like ‘The Hangover’ is gonna be a Best Picture contender.
5 more opportunities for shameless self promotion and self congratulation? Fantastic idea! I can feel the egos swelling now. Every hack will be able to call himself an “artist” in league with his “heros”. It cheapens the real artists. There are still a few out there. Hey, in 5 years, let’s make it 15! If only this could inspire the studios to make 10 Oscar worthy films a year. Wouldn’t that be a silver lining…if only….
After 1998 it became clear to me that the Best Picture category was given to whoever’s studio marketing and publicity departments spent the most cash pimping their Academy-quality pictures. All 10 nominees means is Harvey Weinstein will have more movies to sell as “Best Picture Nominees” that actually suck.
So it will be like the 30s. Ten films will get best picture nominations, and we’ll know the real nominees are the ones who also got best director nominations.
To whomever blamed fans of the dark knight for this:
I saw the best pic nominees, and I like to think of myself as a pretentious elitist who only likes arthouse, indie drivel. That said, The Dark Knight was hands-down the best picture of the year. Easily. The plot, the dialog, the writing, directing – visual candy aside, it was a FANTASTIC movie. Chris Nolan bridged the gap between mainstream America and QUALITY filmmaking, the way James Cameron did with Titanic, and Coppola did with The Godfather.
The only reason I can´t think it didn´t get a nomination for writing (adapted), directing, and picture of the year is because the Academy LIKES being pretentious and elitist, and it would imply that high-grossers should ALWAYS get oscar nods. And then this year they go and throw it all away.
Why did last year´s telecast feature clips of Twilight and Pineapple Express? The oscars aren´t supposed to be mainstream, because MAINSTREAM AMERICA is what´s making TRANSFORMERS 2 one of the biggest movies EVER. Between this new format and last year´s ¨let´s examine all of the movies that AREN´T GOOD¨montages, the oscars are really sacrificing whatever shred of dignity they used to have. And it saddens me.
I saw the Oscar for The Departed in person, and it meant something. I just hope in 2 years, it still does.
If the Academy really wants higher ratings, they should FIRST issue a mass apology for last year’s dismal broadcast. Most egregious, the Memorial to those Hollywood lost. Instead of the dead’s pictures, or clips from their films, we see a fat woman caterwalling some lousy song. To make it worse, Patrick McGoohan was left out of the list. What were the producers thinking—oh, that’s right, THEY WEREN’T.
Does that mean Best Actor, Actress and Director will have 10 nominations also?
Does this mean the awards show runs 6 hours instead of 4?
This wont help studio films, I dont think many people go see films just because they are nominated. I haven’t watched in Oscar telecast in years and I know I wont start now.
oh well… the oscars have been irrelevant for years now any ways…
Perhaps the Academy should change their arcane nominating rules instead of this cheap ploy of raising the nominees of Best Picture to 10.
Most years, it’s hard enought to pick 5 worthy nominees.
Well, look on the bright side. The producers of “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” have something to look forward to now.
“The studios got what they wanted at the expense of the Academy’s integrity.”
So another post by DHD attacking someone for caving and giving up their integrity, just a few days after DHD did the same thing. TOLDJA!!!
Not much for thinning the herd, are they? Trying to cite the amount of nominees from 1939 doesn’t make it any more palatable either. Those were different times and a different quality of filmmaking. There’s only a handful of directors/producers out there who really care, or know, about filmmaking and their respective audiences anymore. Most of it’s marketing, marketing, marketing, and what do the demographic numbers estimate for the opening weekend? What franchise can we resurrect, or destroy? What lame TV show or concept can we regurgitate into a lame film? It’s not about innovative, literate filmmaking anymore, it’s what’s going to bring in the numbers for the Academy, and the sponsors, all the while satiating the crybabies who can’t handle the Academy’s nominating or voting.
Why stop there? Lets make it into a weekly competition where the ten finalists are stranded on an island and forced to dance in competition with the islands cannibal inhabitants. “Losers” would be prepared and cooked on episodes of “Top Chef Academy Island”. Think of the sponsorship opportunities!
You constantly bitch about layoffs, make fun of low ratings, so when moves are made to get more people to watch the Oscars and get more people to see movies, you defend the sanctity of the academy? Oy! What good is it if it all goes away because only three people give a shit? Evolve, please.
Some of you people need help….
First of all, if it isn’t INCREDIBLY obvious WHY this is happening, no matter what anyone says, it’s for this reason and this reason alone: so five more movies can benefit from calling themselves “Best Picture Nominee” for marketing and commercial purposes. There still is one cause-and-effect from the Oscars- films nominated get more theaters, a bigger ad budget, and thus a greater gross than they would otherwise. A much smaller reason is to see the nomination of some respectable crowd pleaser, like “The Dark Knight” or a “Bourne” movie. Everyone in town would know those would never win Best Picture, but you might fool everyone else into watching to see if they would.
Secondly- when will you guys (and I’m talking to you too Nikki) wake up about this box-office-vs.-quality riff? It wasn’t so long ago that some of the best movies really were box office hits (”The Godfather”, “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”). Even the really big blockbusters were exceptional entertainments: “Jaws”, “Star Wars”, and “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” were all nominated for Best Picture, and rightly so. Are you really gonna wail away if “Transformers 2″- which looks completely crappy and boring- doesn’t get a nomination, really going to pull out the word “snub”? Hey, “Smokey and the Bandit” and “The Cannonball Run” weren’t nominated either- because THEY SUCKED. Bad movies don’t and shouldn’t get it- and the amount of money they made means jack.
Point is, right now, the best and most intelligent movies are not scaling the box office heights, save for Pixar movies. Chris, “The Dark Knight” was not, absolutely not, the Best Movie of 2008. It was intelligent, it had style, it was technically excellent. And all 5 films nominated for Best Picture were better than it. They were more complete, more involving, and more moving. THAT makes something a Best Picture for me. And if millions of people don’t see it that way, the “Smokey and the Bandit” audience if you will, they can go throw in with the 100 other awards shows that don’t even pretend to do anything but pander to whatever’s most popular.
Those 5 Best Picture nominations don’t have to stumble around and apologize for “low” box office grosses (actually, two of them grossed over $100 million), and the Oscars don’t have to apologize for picking them. That is, um, THE POINT. Not demographics, not box office, none of that crap- IF you’re actually about quality, irregardless of popular appeal. If a bunch of people rather see “Twilight” or “Pineapple Express”, they’ve got it wrong. If you think a award show has to connect with people like that, YOU’VE got it wrong.
In the end, the one upside is that more comedies may (and should) get recognized. Maybe a two-fer of both a “Frozen River” and a “Bourne Supremacy”. But really, the Oscars needs 5 more Best Picture nominees like the Super Bowl needs a halftime show. That is, it DOESN’T.
This means that the number of producers who are eligible for the Academy will double from previous years. 10-20 producers per year into the Academy, which over the next ten years could put a lot more producers into the voting pool. Actors will always be the biggest bloc, since 20 are nominated per year, but this only increases the sway of “money first, quality last” voters.
Stupid. Ten nominees for best picture and still no recognition of comedy films, comedy actors or comedy writing. The ancient Greeks gave out awards for comic plays alongside those for tragedy. That’s because they regarded themselves seriously enough to accept absurdity, and to recognize piercing social and political satire as valuable to their culture. Ours is a silly culture that must pretend at all times that it is Very Serious.
Whew. Thank goodness for “change.”
Now Transformers will have a real shot at getting a nod in the herd of ten.
How sad.
Industry pros are looking forward to more screeners next award season.
This move is – in a word – a disgrace!
As one who admires and appreciates cinema as an art form which also happens to entertain, I wish I could muster enthusiasm the way some apparently have for the new doubling of the Best Picture nominees.
“Bold”, “innovative”, “bravo”…what could commentators possibly be thinking-or drinking? This move is the complete antithesis of those terms.
The move is specifically designed to attract more ‘mainstream’ viewers – as well as assuage ABC and corporate cash tenders – by specifically adding more ‘mainstream’ [ie, lowbrow, 'popular', high-grossing] pics to the reservoir, thereby diluting the worth of a nomination, a win, and indeed, the academy and film industry itself.
If the awards ceremony loses popularity, so be it…high art and great film making should never be a popularity contest, but it is-starting now.
And it will not be foreign or independent films raking in more nominations. Instead, the – plain and simply – stupid and crass ‘blockbusters’ that mainstream Hollywood specializes in will be the only ones getting in on this travesty-er, ratings spike.
Sincerely,
Gary Thomas
Lexington, KY
Marketing departments and workers have to be salivating at all the guaranteed work coming their way but ironically the Oscar “brand” is devalued in the same stroke.
I think the more important question is: How did the academy just drop this all of a sudden? Why weren’t film fans given advance notice? Discussions about this must have been going on for some time before the decision was made? Why didn’t media outlets know? Why didn’t DHD know? This could have been stopped with better coverage.
10 NOMS IS STUPID, GODDAMMIT!
TAKE THIS IDEA AND JUST RAM IT!
FOR WORSHIPPING THE BUCK,
THE ACADEMY IS RIGHT FUCKED.
WHAT NEXT ASSHOLES, 20 COMMANDMENTS?
See 9 nominees, get the 10th one free!
How about the best five pictures but have each one in a different slot. For example you could have a comedy slot, a drama slot, action-adventure slot, animated-musical slot, and an independent slot for the nominees. So you would choose the best five out of a 3-5 movie nomination process for each slot. That way you would have a wide variety of movies represented instead of the art-house and independent films that very few people watch or really care about. One of those would likely win but a least the other genres would get fairly represented.
All those films Ganis was touting….ALL films up to 1971 will be played ad-nauseum on the Internet, or on any New Media platform, and those actors, directors, writers, (or their estates) will not see a penny, for any of it. Shame on DGA, WGA, Aftra and SAG.
Brian is right on. We already got an extra category for Animation, so why not make genre-categories? I’d love to see what wins Best Horror or Best Comedy.
Until then… I’m not opposed to 1o nominees. If Iron Man 2 is as good as the first one, maybe next time around it will get a best pic nom.
Don’t bother. The Oscar has lost its credibility since it didn’t put The Dark Knight on Best Picture nominees. What kind of idiots are the juries having missed this movie?
The problem is with how the original five nominees for best picture are selected. I worked for AMPAS in the past, and my producer too (she used to record the serial numbers on the Oscars as they were passed out). I asked her to explain to me the “weighted voting system” for Best Picture, since I never understood it. She couldn’t either.
When you have studios telling voters to list films not in the first position on the ballot, but in the second and third spot, then you know you have problems.
Maybe now they’ll be telling us to list films in the seventh and eight position. Who knows?
I love how everyone is railing against this idea without taking into consideration last year’s nominee list would have looked something like this:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E
The Wrestler
While everyone can nitpick a movie here or there (there are always movies out of the five people think shouldn’t have been nominated!), you’re all deluding yourself or lying (or both) if you think more than a very small group of people would have complained about that list.
Who cares? They get it wrong more often than not. Actors have too much weight in the results. Bland movies with good performances get the noms.
Brian- You’re completely wrong that “very few people” only care about the art house films. A lot do, and more to the point, people who REALLY care about the movies do. And that’s the point.
June- Besides the fact you’re wrong about “The Dark Knight” being snubbed, the fact that you’re under impression that juries are involved shows you really don’t know much about the Oscars.
My response
PG said: “Brian- You’re completely wrong that “very few people” only care about the art house films. A lot do, and more to the point, people who REALLY care about the movies do. And that’s the point.”
That may be true depending on what you want from a movie. I want to be entertained and feel better for a couple hours. I don’t want to watch a depressing pretentious work that leaves me wanting to kill myself half way through the movie. I may be generalizing but a lot of the “Art House” movies are basically depressing films that may be artistic but not what a general audience wants. There have been a few that I have watched and enjoyed but I would not go out of my way to see them. If they are free or on HBO or IFC I might check them out to see what the deal is and in most cases I have found them boring and most often a depressing lot.
Brian-
To that, I have to say the problem clearly is with yourself and not the movies. I like to be entertained, and I like to be challenged. I’m not so sure what a “general audience” wants. But this much I know. The people who CARE the most about movies love being challenged. You may find it simply depressing, but we don’t. The Oscars are SUPPOSED to be by and for the people who do care the most about movies, and love work that challenges the audience. Simply appealing to the part of the audience that sees 4 movies a year and thinks “The Dark Kight” was “pretty good” is not what the Oscars should be about. If that means they aren’t the Biggest Deal In The World, so be it.