New rule for Best Picture Nominees

Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Mister Tee wrote:Damien, why is Bill so hopped up on promoting more commercial films (indicated by both this idea, and his use of so many clips from non-nominated studio films on the show)? Aside from Dreamgirls, his own career has been far more concentrated in the indie-ish area. And, while he's been disappointed by the nominations outcome probably as much as anyone in recent times (failing at touted best picture nods for both Gods and Dreamgirls), I'm still surprised this notion came from him rather than studio functionaries.
Tee, it's not like Bill went to the Academy's Board of Governbors and out of the blue said, "I think there should be 10 Best Picture nominations." He was asked to suggest some ways in which the Oscars could engender greater interest and appeal (which, I guess, means higher ratings) and the expansion of nominations was just one suggestion. ANd it's one that the Board liked. I think there was feeling that now more people will have favorite films in the running and thus more people will have a greater stake in watching.

The use of clips from non-nominated films this year was similarly an attempt to give the show greater popular appeal in a year when there was such a ghastley nominee as The Reader.

Like BJ, I think that most summer blockbusters are not The Dark Knight and while that film undoubtedly would have made the cut, my guess is that most of the spots will be taken up by the kind of art films you mentioned, and typical Academy middle-brow movies (Zwick Flicks).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

The Original BJ wrote:Changing gears a little bit...I'd never thought I'd say this, but I'm sick of the press/industry beating up on The Reader. Today Samuel L. Jackson was quoted in the Times as asking "Who the hell wants to see The Reader?" Well, more people than who wanted to see Milk and Frost/Nixon, for starters. And as much as I'm not wild about The Reader, I'd take a nomination for a botched literary adaptation any day over something like Tropic Thunder. I've long wondered, sarcastically, if these people think the Oscar nominees for Best Picture should just be the five highest-grossing movies of the year -- take opinion out of it completely! And yet, Sam Jackson ACTUALLY stated that he thought an entire category should be created to honor the five highest grossing movies of the year. Why? For what purpose? Isn't the money reward enough? It's a fact that the highest grossing movies of the year are the highest grossing -- isn't the whole point of an award to indicate what Hollywood actually LIKED?
When all's said and done, I'm 100 percent in agreement with this line of thinking. Though I was as bummed last year as anyone they fell for The Reader and didn't find it in their hearts to nudge up WALL-E (bearing in mind the voting totals on both were likely very close), I am emphatically against any illusions that the Academy Awards should function to validate the public's taste. To that extent, I'd rather see 10 The Readers nominated next year than even one or two Pirates of the Caribbeans or Harry Potters.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I'd also question some of that guy's assumptions -- most notably leaving off Doubt last year, which to me is precisely the sort of film whose chances (based on multiple acting mentions, a writing nod and a SAG Ensemble citation) would vastly increase with an expanded field.

I'll agree that movies like Doubt, or Road to Perdition -- films that fit the Academy profile so well I can barely believe they were passed over as it was -- will be the most obvious candidates for the new slots. What I'm not certain is, just how high a percentage of the added five will be composed of such films. Which comes to a question of just what sort of niche taste is out there in Academy circles -- and niche can mean either those who like big grossing spectacles or those who go for little films like Vera Drake. Clearly there has never been enough of either to reach the 1000 vote threshhold. But if you cut that requirement in half, it's possible we'll discover there are pockets hidden in the roster that can yield results the current system never would have. There's no way we can do anything but guess about this until the first set of new-system nominees comes out next winter.

As far as The Reader -- like most here (sorry, Magilla), I considered it a dreary nominee, an embodiment of all the Academy's least-appealing tendencies (High Seriousness, Holocaust pandering, Weinstein hucksterism) and one of the most disappointing choices of recent years. But the reason it's so often cited around town as the Oscar nadir is not all those things, but simply that it was the film with the temerity to knock out the all-time geek fave The Dark Knight. Whatever film (Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Gran Torino, maybe even Wall E) had taken that slot (since the other four nominees were long-expected) would have raised a howl of hatred. As I say, I think it was a bad nominee, but 1) The Dark Knight's omission is not my problem with it and 2) the now-often-bruited notion that the Academy routinely nominates five Readers each year clearly overlooks the reality of Lost in Translation, Brokeback Mountain, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

This guy made an interesting list with commentary of what he thinks the ten nominees would have been in the past ten years at

http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/TenWideExperiment.html

Although I don't agree with all of his guesses, I think overall his reasoning is sound and backs up -- to the extent that it can -- my point about more Readers: there are some quirkier movies that might have placed, but a lot of them still would have missed, and though some blockbusters would have been invited, this clearly isn't an overload of big budget alternatives...in plenty of years we'll get just more place-filler that no one seems enthusiastic about.

God, imagining ten-wide fields where films like Far From Heaven and Children of Men STILL miss just depresses me.




Edited By The Original BJ on 1245950645
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Y'know, reading the press articles (especially the slew in the LA Times) gave me a couple more thoughts, and then I'll shut up about this.

It's generally understood that this move was expanded to include more popular movies in Oscar's Best Picture lineup. Fine. What this move won't do, however, is change the Academy's taste, yet for some reason the comments I've read seem to suggest that by expanding the nominees to five, we'll get showering of popular blockbusters filling those slots. Give me a break. The Academy will still nominate the same types of films it likes -- I bet the Golden Globe & Broadcast leftovers are FAR more likely to fill out the ballot than the latest summer blockbusters. (I think the real question mark will be the power of those serious films like Frida and Memoirs of a Geisha which don't seem to be a Best Picture threat yet still pick up a truckload of tech noms.)

I think The Dark Knight was a real anomaly -- a big blockbuster in an un-Oscary genre that received genuinely enthusiastic reviews that ALSO had enough dramatic heft that it could be considered for top prize. But how often do those come around? I'd honestly be willing to bet that even acclaimed summer films like Spider-Man and The Bourne Ultimatum wouldn't have even made the top tens in their years, and if people think those are the kinds of films that are going to start being nominated, well, I guess we'll see, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

As do most, I think the change helps Pixar. Buoyed by a string of writing nominations, you'd have to think those films are coming at least close to Best Picture, and this year the ten-wide field helps Up considerably.

I also could see this change maybe helping something like, say, Avatar, if it's successful. Cameron's a previously Oscared director who has a track record of churning out acclaimed populist films, and Avatar seems like it could be fresh enough (and tech-heavy enough) to qualify.

But I think beyond that, we won't see much. I know we joked about The Hangover here, but I've read news sites that genuinely discuss it as a Best Picture possibility now. What planet are they on? Given Star Trek's likely tech haul, it's more in the race, but I still think it's doubtful it will crack the top ten (especially if Avatar's in the race to galvanize that block).

I guess what I mean to say is that while this move definitely helps The Dark Knights and the WALL-Es, it's not really going to do a thing for the 40-Year-Old Virgins and the Tropic Thunders and the Harry Potters and, honestly even the Iron Mans, which lest we forget, couldn't even land in Sound Mixing.

Changing gears a little bit...I'd never thought I'd say this, but I'm sick of the press/industry beating up on The Reader. Today Samuel L. Jackson was quoted in the Times as asking "Who the hell wants to see The Reader?" Well, more people than who wanted to see Milk and Frost/Nixon, for starters. And as much as I'm not wild about The Reader, I'd take a nomination for a botched literary adaptation any day over something like Tropic Thunder. I've long wondered, sarcastically, if these people think the Oscar nominees for Best Picture should just be the five highest-grossing movies of the year -- take opinion out of it completely! And yet, Sam Jackson ACTUALLY stated that he thought an entire category should be created to honor the five highest grossing movies of the year. Why? For what purpose? Isn't the money reward enough? It's a fact that the highest grossing movies of the year are the highest grossing -- isn't the whole point of an award to indicate what Hollywood actually LIKED?

And to come full circle, I think nominations for a lot more Readers are just what we're going to get with this new system. The blockbusters will STILL be ignored (give or take an olive branch to Pixar) and the media will still grumble that ridiculously unchallenged theory that popular films don't get Oscar nominations (ignoring Juno, The Departed, The Lord of the Rings films, Titanic, Gladiator, Chicago, Erin Brockovich, The Sixth Sense, etc.), and people will realize that by giving voters more options, you just give them more options to assert their specific taste.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Eric wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:My guess is that the Broadcast Film Critics nominations will become the key precursor for Oscar's best picture slate going forward.
How anyone (that is, anyone among those who still hold the Oscars are capable tastemakers -- i.e. not me) could view this likely very true statement with anything but utter, gasping, desperate horror is beyond me.
I agree, Eric, although there's always the possibility the Oscars can offer at least a marginal corrective to the BFCA's tunnel vision -- as they have in the past by giving at least second-tier-strong nods to The Sweet Hereafter, Vera Drake, Children of Men, films the Broadcasters barely knew existed.

And it'll be amusing to see how the Broadcasters scramble to try and maintain their "we predict everything about the Oscars" niche. Maybe they'll need to expand to 20 nominees to assure they don't miss anything.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I posted at length on this on my new blog. I don't want to copy it here. :)

http://blogs.oscarguy.com/?p=18
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Damien wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:
Damien wrote:From the L.A. Times:

HOW THE ACADEMY DECIDED TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
(June 24, 2009)

You can thank "Dreamgirls" director Bill Condon and producer Laurence Mark for this morning's announcement by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science that the best picture category will feature 10 nominees as opposed to the traditional five.
Ah! Is this why you've held back with your opinions?

Have you known about this for long?
Yes, I had known for a couple of months that it was being seriously considered, but my lips were sealed.

There was another change that doesn't seem to have gotten any attention. An Academy member belongs to one branch, so a writer-director like Bllake Edwards would choose which in which branch he'd want to nominate. Now, however, if you're a member of one branch but get nominated in another then from thereon you can cast nominating votes for both. So for instance, if Clint Eastwood had received a musical score nomination he could nominate in the Scoring category. Paul Thomas Anderson can vote in both Directing and Writng, etc.
That latter change makes eminent sense -- though I assume these hyphenates are still limited to one vote for best picture? I.e., though they nominate in 2-3-even 4 (in Warren Beatty's case) categories, it's all on one ballot, so the everyone-plays category, best picture, is only voted upon once?

Damien, why is Bill so hopped up on promoting more commercial films (indicated by both this idea, and his use of so many clips from non-nominated studio films on the show)? Aside from Dreamgirls, his own career has been far more concentrated in the indie-ish area. And, while he's been disappointed by the nominations outcome probably as much as anyone in recent times (failing at touted best picture nods for both Gods and Dreamgirls), I'm still surprised this notion came from him rather than studio functionaries.

Did Sid Ganis really offer a Tropic Thunder best picture nomination as a possible beneficial outcome from this? God help us.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Sonic Youth wrote:
Damien wrote:From the L.A. Times:

HOW THE ACADEMY DECIDED TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
(June 24, 2009)

You can thank "Dreamgirls" director Bill Condon and producer Laurence Mark for this morning's announcement by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science that the best picture category will feature 10 nominees as opposed to the traditional five.

Ah! Is this why you've held back with your opinions?

Have you known about this for long?

Yes, I had known for a couple of months that it was being seriously considered, but my lips were sealed.

There was another change that doesn't seem to have gotten any attention. An Academy member belongs to one branch, so a writer-director like Bllake Edwards would choose which in which branch he'd want to nominate. Now, however, if you're a member of one branch but get nominated in another then from thereon you can cast nominating votes for both. So for instance, if Clint Eastwood had received a musical score nomination he could nominate in the Scoring category. Paul Thomas Anderson can vote in both Directing and Writng, etc.




Edited By Damien on 1245942028
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Damien wrote:From the L.A. Times:

HOW THE ACADEMY DECIDED TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES
(June 24, 2009)

You can thank "Dreamgirls" director Bill Condon and producer Laurence Mark for this morning's announcement by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science that the best picture category will feature 10 nominees as opposed to the traditional five.
Ah! Is this why you've held back with your opinions?

Have you known about this for long?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Well, we'll see.

I was in a bit of shock yesterday, imagining the worst, but the Hollywood Reporter article gives me some hope that good taste will prevail to some extent. Yes, ten does benefit the blockbuster more than the small artistic triumph, but if the majority opinion is still upper MOR then it might turn out to be a good thing.

The big question is how will this affect the telecast? As Mister Tee and others have said, this could mean the banishment of some of the "lesser" awards to pre-show handouts and brief on-show mentions a la the Tonys, Emmys and Grammys and Oscar's own scientific awards.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Rather than the Best Director slate, I suspect the true five Best Pictures could be ascertained through some calculation of Picture, Director, Screenplay, and/or Editing.

And you know what? This is all the thought I wish to put into this matter. I have no interest in engaging in any further analysis. How will this affect the precursors, what will happen with the lone director... I don't care anymore. All it takes is one adjustment - a major one - to feel overwhelming indifference towards the Oscars. The only thing I'm interested in seeing is how this affects studio spending for their campaigns, and only marginally interested at that.

I feel terrible for Sijmen. He worked so hard on his Oscar Experiment for many years, and now he's back to square one.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Big Magilla wrote:My guess is that the Broadcast Film Critics nominations will become the key precursor for Oscar's best picture slate going forward.

How anyone (that is, anyone among those who still hold the Oscars are capable tastemakers -- i.e. not me) could view this likely very true statement with anything but utter, gasping, desperate horror is beyond me.

And if ITALIANO doesn't drop in to offer his two cents on the fact that Bill Condon was one of the brains behind this whole deal, we'll know he's gone for good.




Edited By Eric on 1245934422
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Interesting Hollywood Reporter article which concludes:

The most obvious contingent of happy faces might very well be the talent behind, say, "Up." Almost certainly a shoo-in in the still-to-remain animation category, the Disney/Pixar hit now stands a much better chance of getting into the top 10 noms as well. So too -- given what's out there so far this year -- is a film like "Public Enemies," Michael Mann's upcoming period actioner about John Dillinger, which is well crafted and acted, neither too arty nor too populist.

Other pictures that could benefit are the little gems that have "a small but passionate fan base," as another consultant put it, a la "Once" or "The Visitor" or more ambitious movies that got overlooked because they came out at the wrong moment or whatever -- think "Revolutionary Road."

Whatever the consensus around town about the Academy's bias, the organization has never really turned its back on well-made commercial movies; it just doesn't have much of a feel or appreciation for warmed-over popcorn -- meaning sequels and other material derived from nonliterary sources like, you guessed it, those proliferating comic-book adaptations.

That's why the sixth (or whatever it was) iteration of Batman, meaning "The Dark Knight," did not make it into last year's best picture list, not because the Academy was appalled by how much money the film made.

The only problem with widening the net is that this is no longer the 1930s or '40s, when the Academy last fielded 10 or so best picture noms each year. Back then, it had an overabundance of what were grown-up yet popular titles -- ranging from "It Happened One Night" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" early on to "You Can't Take It with You" and "Casablanca," the last movie, in 1943, to wrest the Oscar from nine other contenders. Nowadays, most Hollywood movies aren't really made for grown-ups.

The big question in 2010: Will we see more movies in contention like "The Reader," which practically no one saw but whose literary pedigree was unassailable, or more documentaries, like, say, "An Inconvenient Truth," which definitely fits the bill as serious fare. Or will the new, more expansive Academy relax its criteria and put a comedy like "Borat" or a chick flick like "Notting Hill" or a feel-good musical like "Mamma Mia!" into the hat?

And pray tell, when will those 5,000-odd Academy members find the time to watch all those screeners, now doubled in number, that hit their mailboxes the week before Christmas?

"OK, it's certainly going to create more heat, and yes, more headaches," another awards consultant said. "It's also going to be, or seem like, a much longer award season, and we're all going to have to think outside the box. But my imagination is already running wild as to what we can do with this."

The full article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/film_nm/us_oscars_reaction_1
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

Post Reply

Return to “82nd Nominations and Winners”