The effect of the expanded Best Picture field

[FilmFan720]

He has the germ of an idea here, but draws the wrong conclusion. It's not the number of best picture nominees that is making the voters concentrate on a handful of films to which they give lazy. excessive nominations but the way the business is structured.

With the preponderance of films of quality being released between October and December, most of them in late December, it's impractical if not impossible for voters to see everything, even on screeners, so they concentrate on the films with the most hype. A more gradual release of major films throughout the year would help. A longer awards season with Oscar nominations not due until late January would certainly help, as would a shorter window between nominations and awards. By the time nominations are announced most voters have made up their minds what they will be voting for. They only need a couple of days to check out the screeners of nominated films they might not have seen. A longer time between nominations and awards only allows for more schmoozing and begging for votes which moves the awards further and further away from the merits of the actual films.

Magilla, I think the article addresses that issue pretty clearly and places a good part of the blame on that.

The problem with that argument is that shouldn't films released in the first half of the year have a little bit of an advantage there? Only 2 films released before October were nominated in the Top 8 this year (Before Midnight and Blue Jasmine, which did manage a slightly unexpected nod for Sally Hawkins). Wouldn't those earlier films have a little bit of an advantage in that they would have been more easily seen? Why didn't Sam Rockwell (who this summer was pushed as a major contender for a nomination) hold on for the awards season? And if her was really so hard to see on screener, how did it manage so many nominations?

[Big Magilla]

Not an actual reply, but I recommend bookmarking his Grantland page; he writes pretty often around Oscar season, and Grantland is a perfect fit for his commentary (much more so than his EW column).

Are you the Max Wilder who used to post here, a decade or so ago? If so, welcome back.

Yes, he is.
http://uaadb.cinemasight.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2223

[Mister Tee]

Not an actual reply, but I recommend bookmarking his Grantland page; he writes pretty often around Oscar season, and Grantland is a perfect fit for his commentary (much more so than his EW column).

Are you the Max Wilder who used to post here, a decade or so ago? If so, welcome back.

Mark Harris' Grantland columns offer by far the most intelligent analysis of the Oscars outside this site. He never gets carried away by the passions of the moment, and always has interesting, idiosyncratic takes.

[Eric]

With the preponderance of films of quality being released between October and December, most of them in late December, it's impractical if not impossible for voters to see everything, even on screeners, so they concentrate on the films with the most hype. A more gradual release of major films throughout the year would help. A longer awards season with Oscar nominations not due until late January would certainly help, as would a shorter window between nominations and awards. By the time nominations are announced most voters have made up their minds what they will be voting for. They only need a couple of days to check out the screeners of nominated films they might not have seen. A longer time between nominations and awards only allows for more schmoozing and begging for votes which moves the awards further and further away from the merits of the actual films.

The studios know exactly what they're doing.

[Big Magilla]

He has the germ of an idea here, but draws the wrong conclusion. It's not the number of best picture nominees that is making the voters concentrate on a handful of films to which they give lazy. excessive nominations but the way the business is structured.

With the preponderance of films of quality being released between October and December, most of them in late December, it's impractical if not impossible for voters to see everything, even on screeners, so they concentrate on the films with the most hype. A more gradual release of major films throughout the year would help. A longer awards season with Oscar nominations not due until late January would certainly help, as would a shorter window between nominations and awards. By the time nominations are announced most voters have made up their minds what they will be voting for. They only need a couple of days to check out the screeners of nominated films they might not have seen. A longer time between nominations and awards only allows for more schmoozing and begging for votes which moves the awards further and further away from the merits of the actual films.

[MaxWilder]

Not an actual reply, but I recommend bookmarking his Grantland page; he writes pretty often around Oscar season, and Grantland is a perfect fit for his commentary (much more so than his EW column).

[anonymous1980]

Here's an interesting article on how the expanded Best Picture field actually SHRINKS the number of films honored by Oscars rather than expanding them. Interesting.